GONZÁLEZ RUIBAL, A.; MARÍN SUÁREZ, C.; SÁNCHEZ-ELIPE LORENTE, LESUR, J. y MARTÍNEZ BARRIO, C....

This article was downloaded by: [Alfredo Gonzalez-Ruibal]On: 04 March 2014, At: 10:02Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Azania: Archaeological Research inAfricaPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/raza20

Late hunters of western Ethiopia:the sites of Ajilak (Gambela), c. AD1000–1200Alfredo González-Ruibala, Carlos Marín Suáreza, Manuel Sánchez-Elipeb, Joséphine Lesurc & Candela Martínez Barrioa

a Institute of Heritage Sciences, Spanish National ResearchCouncil (Incipit-CSIC), Rúa de San Roque 2, 15704, Santiago deCompostela, Spainb Department of Prehistory, Facultad de Geografía e Historia,Universidad Complutense de Madrid, 28040, Spainc UMR 7209, Archéozoologie, Archéobotanique: Sociétés,Pratiques et Environnements, Musée National d'Histoire Naturelle,CNRS. C.P. 55, 55, Rue Buffon 75005 Paris, FrancePublished online: 28 Feb 2014.

To cite this article: Alfredo González-Ruibal, Carlos Marín Suárez, Manuel Sánchez-Elipe, JoséphineLesur & Candela Martínez Barrio (2014) Late hunters of western Ethiopia: the sites of Ajilak(Gambela), c. AD 1000–1200, Azania: Archaeological Research in Africa, 49:1, 64-101, DOI:10.1080/0067270X.2013.866843

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0067270X.2013.866843

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/raza20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/0067270X.2013.866843

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0067270X.2013.866843

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Alf

redo

Gon

zale

z-R

uiba

l] a

t 10:

02 0

4 M

arch

201

4

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Late hunters of western Ethiopia: the sites of Ajilak (Gambela), c.AD 1000–1200Alfredo González-Ruibala*, Carlos Marín Suáreza, Manuel Sánchez-Elipeb,Joséphine Lesurc and Candela Martínez Barrioa

aInstitute of Heritage Sciences, Spanish National Research Council (Incipit-CSIC), Rúa de SanRoque 2, 15704, Santiago de Compostela, Spain; bDepartment of Prehistory, Facultad deGeografía e Historia, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, 28040, Spain; cUMR 7209,Archéozoologie, Archéobotanique: Sociétés, Pratiques et Environnements, Musée Nationald’Histoire Naturelle, CNRS. C.P. 55, 55, Rue Buffon 75005 Paris, France

The dual model of foragers versus producers is increasingly perceived as inadequatefor understanding the complexities of subsistence practices in the past and in thepresent. A wide spectrum of in-between strategies, falling under the label ‘low-levelfood production’ (Smith 2001), has been pointed out. Africa has, however, remainedmostly outside this debate, despite offering many examples of societies that combinehunting and gathering with food-production, particularly in ecological and culturalborderlands. This paper examines one such society by presenting the first archaeolo-gical evidence from the region of Gambela, in the borderland between South Sudanand Ethiopia. Field survey here identified several sites with traces of occupationduring the early second millennium AD. One of these sites (Ajilak 6) furnished a largenumber of faunal remains, most of which derive from wild animals. The exploitationof aquatic resources is also attested. Human remains were found that show traces ofmanipulation, tentatively identified as evidence for the practice of secondary burial.The sites are interpreted as being related to a low-level food-producing group that wasprobably ancestral to present-day populations engaging in similar economic activities.

Keywords: Ethiopia; South Sudan; Nilo-Saharans; low-level food production; hunter-gatherers

Le modèle dualiste qui différencie les chasseurs-cueilleurs-pêcheurs des producteursest de plus en plus considéré comme inadéquat quand il s’agit de saisir les complexitésdes pratiques de subsistance dans le passé et le présent. On sait maintenant qu’il existaune vaste gamme de stratégies tombant entre ces deux pôles; celles-ci sontdénommées ‘production alimentaire de faible niveau’. L’Afrique est cependant restéelargement exclue de ces débats, bien que le continent ait connu bien des exemples desociétés combinant la chasse et la cueillette avec la production, en particulier auxfrontières écologiques et culturelles. Cet article examine une de ces sociétés enprésentant des premières données archéologiques de la région de Gambela, à lafrontière du sud-Soudan et de l’Éthiopie. La prospection y a identifié plusieurs sitesayant des traces d’occupation dans le début du second millénaire AD. L’un de cessites, Ajilak 6, a fourni un grand nombre de restes fauniques, dont la plupartproviennent d’animaux sauvages. L’exploitation des ressources aquatiques y estégalement attestée. Des restes humains ont été retrouvés qui montrent des traces demanipulation, possiblement l’indice d’inhumations secondaires. Nous interprétons cessites comme étant liés à un groupe qui produisait, à faible niveau, de la nourriture,

*Email: [email protected]

Azania: Archaeological Research in Africa, 2014Vol. 49, No. 1, 64–101, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0067270X.2013.866843

© 2014 Taylor & Francis

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Alf

redo

Gon

zale

z-R

uiba

l] a

t 10:

02 0

4 M

arch

201

4

mailto:[email protected]

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0067270X.2013.866843

probablement les ancêtres des populations actuelles engagées dans des pratiques desubsistance semblables.

Introduction: foraging in the borderland

Bruce Smith (2001: 19) notes that in different parts of the world there exist ‘in-betweensocieties that are not hunter-gatherers, nor are they agriculturalists, even thoughdomesticates contribute to their economies’. He proposes the concept of ‘low-levelfood production’ to refer to the subsistence regimes of these societies. It is now clear thatthe so-called ‘Neolithic Revolution’ — the emergence of fully-fledged pastoralist andagriculturalist economies — was not rapid and that it did not bring other, alternativeforms of subsistence to an end. Hunter-gatherers sometimes incorporated domesticatedplants and animals into their own strategies, but foraging practices continued to have acrucial role in their economies and worldviews. This has not to be seen as a mere steptowards a total reliance on domesticates, since low-level food-producers existed in someregions for thousands of years, and in others still do so today (Smith 2001: 18–19). Weought therefore not to see in these low-level food-producers ‘a foundation for attemptingto understand the transition to agriculture’ (Smith 2001: 25), but rather an original socio-economic regime in itself. A good example of this is offered by the Middle Nile region ofNortheast Africa where intensive exploitation of wild plants, along with some cultivationand the use of polished implements and pottery, was the norm during a large part of theearly to middle Holocene (Haaland 1995; Neumann 2005: 257–258).

The examples that Smith uses come, however, principally from the Americas, withreferences to northern Europe and Japan — not Africa. This is regrettable, because theAfrican continent offers many instances of societies that tally well with the low-level foodproduction model and less well, or not at all, with the dualistic model of forager/food-producer. In fact, African societies are well known for their resistance to being readilyinserted into the typological, evolutionary categories developed by archaeologistselsewhere. Labels such as ‘Mesolithic’ and ‘Neolithic’ hardly work there and popularideas about what African hunter-gatherers are have also been criticised (Kusimba 2005).This is not just an issue with prehistoric societies: historical and contemporarycommunities also challenge the concepts developed by anthropologists and archaeolo-gists. Thus, some groups may shift from foraging to pastoralism and cultivation and backagain, depending on ecological and social circumstances (e.g. Sobania 1988) or engage ina variety of activities simultaneously, including hunting, gathering, wage labour and trade(Bollig 2004). Archaeological studies of recent hunter-gatherers in Africa have showntheir bewildering diversity in economic, cultural and social terms, as well as theirmanifold interactions with other groups (Kusimba 2005: 348–350; Kusimba et al. 2005).Thus, Kusimba (2005: 349) has noted that:

‘Although the use of terms that describe economic practices (forager, farmer, herder) is oftena convenient label in the archaeology of regional mosaics, they also tend to disguisesignificant variability and overlap in terms of just how different food production really isfrom hunting and gathering’.

Although many groups in Northeast Africa straddle different forms of subsistence (Bollig2004: 201–203), their socioeconomic strategies are obscured by an emphasis on theirstatus as outcasts, specialised or marginalised minorities (Pankhurst 1999). Theirlivelihood is, in fact, often misunderstood. Thus, both the Sabu and the Fuga of Ethiopia

Azania: Archaeological Research in Africa 65

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Alf

redo

Gon

zale

z-R

uiba

l] a

t 10:

02 0

4 M

arch

201

4

have been described as hunter-gatherers (Murdock 1959: 59; Sommer 1992: 384),although they both practise agriculture. Without denying blatant asymmetries thatcertainly exist with dominant societies, it would surely be interesting to explore thesubsistence practices of these in-between peoples as an example of low-level food-production with domesticates (Smith 2001: 27).

The chances of communities maintaining low-level food-production strategies orpurely foraging regimes are higher in peripheral, thinly populated regions, such asScandinavia, marginal areas in the interstices of settled communities (as in India) andecological and cultural borderlands more generally. One of these borderlands is situatedalong the natural and political boundary running from northwestern Eritrea to south-western Ethiopia. This is a notoriously inhospitable land. Its rugged terrain and hightemperatures along with abundant diseases that prey upon people and domestic animalsalike explain the survival to the present day of small, egalitarian groups of slash-and-burnagriculturalists among whom hunting, fishing and the gathering of wild plants still playan important role. Not surprisingly, early anthropologists saw this area as a sanctuary forprimitive peoples (Grottanelli 1948), living descendants of the early Neolithic groups ofcentral Sudan (Murdock 1959: 170) or the ancestors of present Nilotes.

The apparent stasis of this borderland, along with adverse political circumstances, hasdiscouraged archaeological research there. In South Sudan, work was, in fact, carried outbetween 1977 and 1981 (David et al. 1981; Mack and Robertshaw 1982; Robertshaw andSiiriäinen 1985) but had then to be discontinued due to the resumption of the SudaneseCivil War: several sites (both open sites and rock-shelters) were nevertheless identifiedand excavated, yielding radiocarbon dates covering the first millennium BC to the secondmillennium AD. These sites were associated with both pastoralists and pottery-usinghunter-gatherer communities. Across the border in western Ethiopia, the first archaeolo-gical survey south of the Blue Nile was conducted between 2001 and 2003 inBenishangul-Gumuz Regional State (Fernández et al. 2007). Here, several rock-shelterswere discovered with traces of occupation by pottery-using peoples dating from thefourth millennium BC onward (Fernández et al. 2007: 120–121). The pottery decorationtechniques used (dotted wavy line, alternatively pivot stamped (APS), rocker, ripple) arehomologous to those found with similar dates in South Sudan. In this case, the lack offaunal remains prevents us from ascertaining if the shelters were used by pastoralists fromthe Sudanese lowlands or by foragers in contact with pastoralists. Sites located furthertoward the Ethiopian interior yielded more recent dates (of the first and second millenniaAD). Human occupation during this later period has been documented in rock-shelters,rocky outcrops and open areas. These sites are to be related to the area’s present slash-and-burn agriculturalist inhabitants, who belong to the Koman and Mao groups(Fernández et al. 2007: 122–123).

In 2009 and 2010, we carried out a preliminary survey and test excavations in thesurroundings of the town of Gambela as part of a larger project stemming from theaforementioned work in Benishangul-Gumuz. In this case, research was primarilyethnoarchaeological. Our project’s aim was to understand the role of material culture inthe relations between the diverse borderland communities and between them and theneighbouring states (González-Ruibal et al. 2013; González-Ruibal in press). Thepurpose of the archaeological work was to provide the basis for a longer-term perspectiveon the area’s settlement history. Among the people of the borderland are some for whomforaging activities still play an important role. In fact, their subsistence model can beconsidered an adaptation to their social and ecological environment: they havehistorically provided forest products (fish, game, bamboo, honey, ivory) to fully

66 A. González-Ruibal et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Alf

redo

Gon

zale

z-R

uiba

l] a

t 10:

02 0

4 M

arch

201

4

sedentary agriculturalists (Tesemma Ta’a 2003), with whom they often maintainedrelations of dependency. Despite important transformations during the last decades,peoples such as the Mao, the Majangir and the Sabu or Shabo can thus still be described,in many ways, as low-level food-producers, even if their association with forests, huntingand mobility is becoming more a symbolic issue than an economic one.

The region and the survey

The region of Gambela is located in the lowlands of southwestern Ethiopia (Figure 1a).From the point of view of its physical and cultural geography, this region is an extensionof South Sudan: a low altitude flat land (mostly lying between 700 and 300 m a.m.sl.),covered either by grasslands and marshes (in the west) or by wooded savanna (in the eastand north). Temperatures are relatively high and annual rainfall varies between 900 and1500 mm, with the rainy season falling between June and September. Game is abundant

Figure 1. Ajilak in its regional context: 1 Ajilak; 2 Jebel Kathangor; 3 Lokabulo; 4 Itohom;5 Nyany; 6 Ngeni. The shaded area indicates the Ethiopian Highlands.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Alf

redo

Gon

zale

z-R

uiba

l] a

t 10:

02 0

4 M

arch

201

4

and includes a variety of antelope, warthog (Phacochoerus aethiopicus), Cape buffalo(Syncerus caffer) and plains zebra (Equus burchelli), as well as important herds ofelephant (Loxodonta africana) and giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis) in the recent past(Bahru Zewde 1987). Four large rivers traverse the region — the Baro, Alwero, Gilo andAkobo — their terraces mostly occupied today by communities of Anywaa intensiveagriculturalists. Nuer pastoralists, who have been expanding westwards since the earlynineteenth century, inhabit the easternmost part of the region. Both Anywaa and Nuer areNilotes and their territory comes to an end where the forest and rugged terrain begin. Theboundaries of Gambela are clearly marked by the steep escarpment that delineates thesouthern Ethiopian Highlands, located above 1800 m above sea level. The northern andeastern foothills are covered by deciduous tropical forest with some areas of rainforest inthe southeast. This area is occupied by slash-and-burn agriculturalists, all of themspeaking languages belonging to the Nilo-Saharan family, such as the Komo, Opuuo(Koman), Majangir (Surmic) and Sabu (a language isolate with strong Koman influences).

Being a flat land, the largest part of Gambela has few natural landmarks, except forthe rivers and a few lakes. The only elevations are occasional granitic inselbergs, whichare found in the areas closer to the escarpment. Our survey in Gambela focused primarilyon these features, because previous fieldwork in South Sudan and Benishangul hadshown that they often have archaeological sites. In Gambela, however, the results of thesurvey were mostly negative, despite the presence of suitable rock-shelters and excellentvisibility on the ground. Three groups of outcrops were investigated: those locatedimmediately north of Gambela town, a group of volcanic cones north of Itang, and theinselbergs south of Gambela. The striking volcanic formations of Itang did not yield anyarchaeological evidence and in Gambela itself only a small granitic outcrop fivekilometres to the north of the town furnished a few abraded and non-diagnostic sherds.The only hills that provided relevant archaeological data were all located to the south ofthe region’s capital. The largest concentration of sites is located around a large inselbergknown as Ajilak. This area is largely devoid of people today, except for a small group ofdisplaced Anywaa.

The main inselberg of Ajilak is located 10 km southeast of Gambela, near the airport.This is the largest outcrop in the area — and the last one: from here all the way down tothe international border there are no more prominences on the landscape. In fact, Ajilak islocated in an island of post-tectonic granitoids surrounded by alluvial (Pleistocene/Holocene) terrain to the east and migmatites elsewhere. During our 2009 survey weidentified three sites in the inselberg, two at the foot of a large block on the summit and athird in a small rock-shelter on a lower area of it. In 2010, we explored the surroundingsand recorded six new sites (Figure 1b). As we could not record other local place names,we numbered the sites using the name of the main inselberg (Ajilak 1 to 9). Four sites(Ajilak 4, 7, 8 and 9) were found in small rock-shelters located in the flat land to thenortheast of the hill. A fifth (Ajilak 5) was discovered on top of a rocky hill located 500m to the east of the main inselberg. Lastly, one kilometre to the southwest of Ajilak werecorded a site on an isolated granitic outcrop (Ajilak 6). In 2010 we conductedexcavations at two of these sites: Ajilak 1 and Ajilak 6.

The sites

Ajilak 1

This small rock-shelter (8°07′09.40’’N, 34°36′22.00″E) is located under a block at thesoutheastern limit of Ajilak Hill at an altitude of 593 m a.m.sl. The inselberg here falls


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Alf

redo

Gon

zale

z-R

uiba

l] a

t 10:

02 0

4 M

arch

201

4

abruptly, almost vertically, to the north, but in the opposite direction there is a wide flatsurface, delimited by boulders (Figures 2 and 3). The area closer to the shelter containsarchaeological materials, namely non-diagnostic undecorated sherds, a few inverted rimsand some stone flakes and debris in local raw material (quartz). The most remarkablefinds are a horizontal handle and an iron knife. Handles have not been found duringexcavation, but are a common feature of the pottery currently made by the Majangir, whomay have occupied this area before the arrival of the Anywaa. The knife may be of a laterperiod than the occupation levels attested during excavation.

Ajilak 2 and 3

These sites are located on the top of Ajilak inselberg at 635 m a.m.sl., 400 m in a straightline from Ajilak 1 (Figures 4 and 5). However, there is no visual relationship betweenAjilak 1 and 2–3, since an outcrop is interposed between them. Both sites are locatedaround a large block about 12 m high and 15 m long. Ajilak 2 (8°07′17.00″N, 34°36′13.64″E) is situated on the eastern side of this, where the block falls more vertically. Thesite commands impressive views extending over a distance of more than 50 km that aremostly covered by deciduous woodland from which a few inselbergs emerge (includingthat on which Ajilak 5 is located). There is very little soil here and bedrock appears on the

Figure 1b. The archaeological sites at Ajilak. The creeks and gullies only carry water during therainy season.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Alf

redo

Gon

zale

z-R

uiba

l] a

t 10:

02 0

4 M

arch

201

4

Figure 2. Location of Ajilak 1 within the main inselberg and the horizontal handle found on itssurface.

Figure 3. View of Ajilak 1 from the south. The shelter is under the first block on the right.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Alf

redo

Gon

zale

z-R

uiba

l] a

t 10:

02 0

4 M

arch

201

4

surface almost everywhere. A large amount of pottery was found, mostly plain sherds andinverted rims belonging to globular pots of simple profile. Five fragments have diagnosticforms of decoration: grooved (N=2), twisted cord roulette impression (N=2) andpunctate (N=1). The latter has good parallels at Dhang Rial in South Sudan (David et al.1981: plate IV, j). This is the same kind of decoration that we found in the excavation ofAjilak 6 (see below). The chronology of both sites is thus probably roughly the same,although decorated pottery is more abundant at Ajilak 6. One of the sherds is different inhaving a thin wall, well decanted clay with a very fine mineral temper, a grey colour andvery intense polishing. A few examples of this kind of pots, which were probablyimported, were also found at Ajilak 6. Two exotic stone artefacts (both made in chert)were also identified.

Ajilak 3 (8°07′16.76″N, 34°36′13.32″E) is located on the opposite side of thepreviously mentioned block and faces west-southwest (Figure 6). Unlike the situation atAjilak 2, here we have a true rock-shelter projecting up to 2 m from the rear wall. In frontof this shelter, smaller blocks delimit a flat area measuring about 600 m2 in area. Surfacematerials were scarce. They included two chert artefacts, one of them a scraper, aquartzite pestle, two unmodified quartzite pebbles and two bones of large herbivores, oneof them a fragment of diaphysis with three parallel cut marks clearly made with a stonetool (following the criteria defined by Greenfield 1999: 803–804).

Ajilak 4

This site (8°07′24″N, 34°36′22″E) is located at an elevation of 582 m a.m.sl. at the footof an isolated granitic block that is 7 m high. Pottery was found in two rock-shelters, thelargest of which is oriented to the west-southwest and the other to the east. Finds includedsome abraded pottery sherds decorated with twisted cord roulette impression (N=7) andgrooves (N=1), as well as a flake and other lithic debris in quartz.

Figure 4. View of the main inselberg from the south (as coming from Ajilak 6).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Alf

redo

Gon

zale

z-R

uiba

l] a

t 10:

02 0

4 M

arch

201

4

Figure 5. Location of Ajilak 2 and 3 and surface finds (inside the smaller square: Ajilak 3). All thestone tools shown are in chert.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Alf

redo

Gon

zale

z-R

uiba

l] a

t 10:

02 0

4 M

arch

201

4

Ajilak 5

This is the only site that does not correspond to the general pattern identified atAjilak. The materials found were located on top of a hill (8°07′12″N, 34°36′36″E)that protrudes some 50 m above the surrounding flatland and occurs at an elevation of630 m a.m.sl. The artefacts recovered come from the middle of a flat area, surroundedby granite boulders and outcrops and oriented to the southwest. Several small scatterswere documented. Pottery is very eroded and only a few fragments show traces ofdecoration, namely three examples of grooved decoration and one of punctate. In thelithic assemblage a highly distinctive and exotic type of green, bluish and red chertdominates (N=11). Here, several flakes and a core of this material were found andthis chert has also appeared at other sites and was probably extracted from the samequarry.

Ajilak 6

This site (8°6′39.44″N, 34°36′8.12″E) is located in a rock-shelter formed by the wallof a large (10 m high) granite block that is part of a larger granite outcrop. It is 565m a.m.sl. The outcrop is around 20 m high and has a very recognisable conicalprofile, but its visibility from the surrounding area is severely restricted due to theprevailing tree cover. The wall projects between 2 and 2.5 m to the northwest and theoccupation area follows the curve of the outcrop. The site yielded the highest numberof surface finds of all the sites we documented at Ajilak, a fact that encouraged us tocarry out an open area excavation here. Surface materials found included sherdsdecorated with twisted cord roulette, grooves and incisions, as well as some faunalremains.

Figure 6. Ajilak 3 as seen from the north.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Alf

redo

Gon

zale

z-R

uiba

l] a

t 10:

02 0

4 M

arch

201

4

Ajilak 7

This is a small rock-shelter, close to Ajilak Hill (8°07′18″N, 34°36′19″E) and orientednorth-northeast at 582 m a.m.sl. The shelter’s interior is almost totally covered by stonesand flakes that have broken away from the granite blocks. The archaeological finds thuscome from the site’s entrance. A small test pit (0.5 × 0.5 m) was excavated here, which

Figure 7. Ajilak 6: general plan and view from the north, as coming from the main inselberg.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Alf

redo

Gon

zale

z-R

uiba

l] a

t 10:

02 0

4 M

arch

201

4

yielded heavily abraded sherds with thick concretions and a couple of burnished, greysherds (as at Ajilak 1, 2 and 6). The only decorated fragment has comb impressions.Stone artefacts comprise several small quartz flakes, a quartz core and debris, a quartziteflake and a scraper made on a chert flake.

Ajilak 8

To the west of Ajilak 4 lie four granite blocks, the easternmost of which (Ajilak 8) hastraces of occupation. It is located at 8°07′23″N, 34°36′18″E and at 590 m a.m.sl. Thisblock is around 10 m high and has a shelter facing northwest, where we documented asmall artefact scatter. Archaeological finds were scarce. The only interesting element is asmall sherd with comb impressions. Lithic materials (debris and a core) are all in quartz,with the exception of a quartzite flake.

Ajilak 9

This site is in the same group of block as Ajilak 8, but on the westernmost side. It is a 2 mhigh shelter with an area of occupation of about 8 m2. The site (8°07′24″N, 34°36′18″E)is oriented east-west and lies at an altitude of 587 m a.m.sl. Special interest attaches to afragment from a tiny bowl in red clay that may be part of a smoking pipe. One sherd isdecorated with spaced-knot roulette impression. The stone artefacts found include theusual quartz debris and chunks, a denticulate in fine-grained grey quartz and a scraper inwhite chert.

The excavations at Ajilak 1

Inside this rock-shelter we laid out a sondage measuring 2 × 4 m and oriented east-west(Figure 8), it was excavated using single context recording.

Stratigraphy

Nine stratigraphic units (SU) were identified:

SU 01: The surface level of the deposit, this comprised a thin (0.05 m) layer of fine, sandysoil with no artefacts.

SU 02: A thin, gritty deposit of oval layout (1 × 5 m) composed of small pieces of quartz andfragments of granite and granitic saprolite located below SU 01 in the northeast corner of thesondage. Six stone artefacts were found, including a retouched quartz flake, a quartz crescentand a piece of a microcrystalline silica mineral.

SU 03: A sandy brown-grey soil with small stones, altered by roots. It lay below SU 01 andSU 02 and covered all the area of the sondage. The layer dipped to the southeast and had anaverage depth of 0.1 m. The stone artefacts found (N=52) were mostly in quartz andincluded two side-scrapers, a discoid scraper, an end-scraper, a core and a flake with bifacialretouch. Two further artefacts were made using raw materials exotic to the locality, a basaltflake and a microcrystalline silica (agate or chert) core. A total of 97 pottery sherds werefound in this unit, almost none of them diagnostic, although two inverted rims bear roulettedecoration. Most of the finds were located in the northeast corner of the sondage. The mostinteresting of them is a net sinker made on a flat quartzite pebble, the perimeter of which hasbeen retouched to fix a string.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Alf

redo

Gon

zale

z-R

uiba

l] a

t 10:

02 0

4 M

arch

201

4

SU 04: A group of granite blocks of 0.1 to 0.3 m, stained with charcoal and inserted in amatrix of medium gravel. Among the stones, we found a granite mortar used for grindingochre (Figure 9). They seal the filling of a hearth pit (SU 06).

Figure 8. Ajilak 1: profile of the shelter and sondage and plan of the excavated area, with indicationof stratigraphic units (SU). Symbols indicating stone artefacts refer only to formal tools orretouched flakes.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Alf

redo

Gon

zale

z-R

uiba

l] a

t 10:

02 0

4 M

arch

201

4

SU 05: This context comprised a compacted orange earth with some minute fragments ofgranite that surrounds the hearth (SU 06). The sediment was hard due to the action of firefrom the hearth, but was otherwise identical to SU 8. The context yielded 23 pottery sherds,including two fragments decorated with twisted cord roulette, and 68 stone artefacts, thehighest number of any stratigraphic unit at this site. The majority of these artefacts are ofquartz, including two side-scrapers, a discoid scraper, a bifacial point, a denticulate, acrescent and two cores. Four elements were made using microcrystalline silica minerals (twogreen-red cherts and two grey cherts), all of them debris or chunks. SU 05 rests directly uponthe bedrock (SU 09) in the west side and upon SU 08 in the east.

Figure 9. Mortar from Ajilak 1 with traces of red ochre (above) and a small mortar currently usedby Gumuz women to grind ochre for anointing their bodies and baby bags (Metekel, Ethiopia).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Alf

redo

Gon

zale

z-R

uiba

l] a

t 10:

02 0

4 M

arch

201

4

SU 06: This was the fill of the hearth pit, underneath the stones (SU 04) and comprised aloose, greyish sediment made up of ash and charcoal with some sand and medium gravelinclusions.

SU 07: This was the pit of the hearth, which cut the bedrock (SU 09) and was filled with thecontents of the hearth (SU 06) and the stones that sealed it (SU 04). It had a roughly circularshape and was 0.2 m deep.

SU 08: A loose, orange soil, with numerous grains of quartz and granite (medium-sizedgravel) that covered the eastern half of the sondage, under SU 03, 05 and 07. It resteddirectly upon the bedrock (SU 09) and was around 0.2 m deep. A total of 62, mostly quartz,stone artefacts were recovered, including two unipolar cores and a broken bifacial point. Twofurther artefacts were made in microcrystalline silica minerals, including a green-red chertflake. Special interest attaches to a net sinker made on a quartzite pebble. No pottery wasfound in this layer.

SU 09: Compact, natural saprolite.

Interpretation

The archaeological evidence described above suggest that the Ajilak 1 rock-shelter wasused on at least two different occasions, although these may not necessarily have been farremoved in time from each other given that the finds recovered are very similar. A firstoccupation is composed of SU 08 and SU 05 and has a hearth pit, while the second isrepresented by SU 03. Within the first level, there are probably two moments of use(before and after the construction of a hearth pit). SU 02 was in all likelihood formed bynatural processes. The materials found in both levels are very similar and it is thusreasonable to infer that they belong to the same period (Figure 10). Both the stoneartefacts and the pottery found have parallels with the other Ajilak sites. Theoverwhelming majority of the former (94.7%) are made from local quartz, with the restin exotic microcrystalline silica minerals (chert and perhaps agate) and an odd item inbasalt. Flakes predominate within the assemblage with almost no retouched elementspresent; the few crescents and scrapers found are, however, also characteristic of the lithicassemblage at Ajilak 6. Diagnostic pottery is similarly very scarce, with a total ceramicassemblage of 120 sherds yielding no more than three inverted rims and six decoratedsherds, two of which bear twisted cord roulette (plus two rims decorated with the sametechnique). Overall, the frequency of decoration only reaches 5% of the assemblage, inmarked contrast to Ajilak 6, but similar to the situation at Ajilak 2. With the availableevidence, it is difficult to provide a chronology, but, given the parallels for the twistedcord roulette and the date obtained from Ajilak 6 (see below), we suggest that Ajilak 1was most likely occupied in the second half of the first or early second millennia AD. Thepeople who made sporadic use of the site probably also occupied the rock-shelters at thesummit and in the foothills of Ajilak, since the archaeological materials found there areall very similar. Occupation of the inselberg seems more likely to have been scheduledduring the rainy season, when the surrounding flat land would have been swamped orcovered in high grass.

The excavations at Ajilak 6

A sondage was laid out at Ajilak 6 parallel to the wall of the outcrop and on an east-westorientation. Its southern limit was the wall itself. The sondage was originally divided into


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Alf

redo

Gon

zale

z-R

uiba

l] a

t 10:

02 0

4 M

arch

201

4

Figure 10. Materials from Ajilak 1. Stone artefacts shaded grey are in cryptocrystalline silica, allothers in quartz.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Alf

redo

Gon

zale

z-R

uiba

l] a

t 10:

02 0

4 M

arch

201

4

a grid of six 1 × 1 m units, which was later extended with two more units towards the north.An isolated 1 × 2 m test pit was excavated in an independent shelter formed by a graniteslab leaning on the outcrop, 5 m to the west of the main sondage, but yielded negativeresults. A total of 10 m2 were excavated, once again using single context recording.

Stratigraphy

The stratigraphy of the site, which has a maximum depth of 0.55 m (Figures 11 and 12),is as follows:

SU 01: Around 0.1 m in depth, this context was predominantly composed of very loose, fineto medium grey-brown sand, the grain size of which increased towards its base. The unitcovered the entire surface of the sondage. We documented a relatively large quantity ofdisturbed archaeological materials: 183 pottery sherds, 86 stone artefacts (mostly in localquartz, but with some rare chert pieces and a basalt flake) and 166 faunal remains. One of thebones has clear cut-marks visible on it.

SU 02: Sealed by SU 01, this context too covered the entire surface of the sondage. It had anaverage depth of 0.2 m and was located around 0.1 m below the surface. It comprised abrown sandy soil, with thicker (medium to coarse) grains than the upper layer. Numerousgranite blocks of medium size (>0.4 m) were also present, some probably swept away by therain from higher ground to the east of the shelter. The unit furnished abundant archaeologicalmaterials: 123 pottery sherds and 153 faunal remains. The diverse dipping of the fragmentsand the presence of eroded sherds suggest some disturbance of the deposit, probably by acombination of rain and land-digging bivalve molluscs, which were documented in this unit.The sherds nevertheless display different degrees of abrasion, with some not eroded at all andshowing clean, sharp fractures.

SU 03a: This was the filling of a hearth pit with a diameter of 0.3 m and a depth of 0.1 m.The deposit comprised charcoals and ash and was surrounded by small stones. Among thecharcoal were found five sherds and three quartz artefacts, one of them a retouched flake. Asample of charcoal was collected and radiocarbon dated to 886 ± 30 BP (Ua-42370). Oncalibration (using IntCal09) this dates the context to cal. AD 1041–1219 at two standarddeviations. The upper part of the hearth was located only 0.1 m from the surface, but waswell sealed and showed no traces of disturbance.

SU 03b: The cut of the hearth pit, but due to the looseness of the soil it was not easy todelimit, except for the deposit that filled it (SU 03a).

SU 04: A 0.25 m deep deposit situated below SU 02 and SU 03b that covered the entiresondage. Like the other units, this was a loose, sandy layer, although more compact. Adifference with SU 02 was visible in its granulometry, since here sand was replaced by verycoarse sand and gravel, the grain size of which increased towards the base of the stratum.This indicates a context of higher energy compared to the stratigraphic unit above. Manystones of between 0.1 and 0.5 m in size were also present, most of which dipped towards theshelter’s wall (south). This is again consistent with a high-energy context. As in SU 02, thestones seem to have been swept from the higher ground to the east. This deposit contained agreater number of archaeological materials with less evidence of mixing than in SU 02. Atotal of 519 pottery sherds were recorded, many of them scarcely abraded if at all. It alsooffered a large number of faunal remains (N=422) and stone artefacts (N=184), againmostly in quartz, although obsidian, green-red chert and quartzite were also found. The mostremarkable lithic finds were a bifacial point in quartz and a net sinker made on a retouchedquartzite pebble.

SU 05: Saprolite and bedrock. In the easternmost units of the grid this context appeared at ahigher depth (around 0.2 m) than in the westernmost part of the sondage.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Alf

redo

Gon

zale

z-R

uiba

l] a

t 10:

02 0

4 M

arch

201

4

SU 06: A possible human burial inserted in SU 04. The texture and colour of this context weresimilar to SU 04 (especially its lower part), although the sediment here was made up of thickergrains (medium to very coarse gravel) and showed considerably greater compactness. It alsocovered the natural saprolite level (SU 05). The context was oblong in shape, measuringapproximately 1.0 by 5.0 m, and the deposit was around 0.2 m thick. SU 06 was basicallydefined by its concentration of human bones, which were absent in the rest of the sondage.Since the matrix was very sandy and loose it was difficult to identify the hypothetical cut dugto deposit the bones and therefore no SU number was assigned to it. The deposit lay directlyunderneath the hearth (SU 3a/b) and a relationship between these two features shoulddefinitely not be ruled out. Except for a jaw fragment, most of the human remains from thisunit belong to the post-cranial skeleton (see below). The bones are very fragmented andaltered: around 200 elements were recorded. The area beneath the human remains was alteredby tree roots (SU 07 and 08). Along with the human remains, 110 animal bones weredocumented, some of them burnt. The artefacts found comprise 71 pieces of worked stone,including a net sinker made from a retouched quartzite pebble, and 48 sherds of pottery.

SU 07: A small deposit of dark brown earth with organic matter related to root disturbance,which extended to directly above the saprolite (SU 05). Only six sherds, seven stone artefactsand four animal bones were recovered.

SU 08: A deposit similar to SU 07, but smaller in size and with an oval shape. The only findswere eight stone artefacts, one of them a garnet (almandine).

Pottery

Around 900 sherds were found at Ajilak 6 (Figures 13 and 14). In shape, decoration andforming, the assemblage is very similar to those from sites in South Sudan dating from themid-first to the early second millennia AD. The majority of fragments derive from globularor hemispheric bowls with inverted rims (N=48) and rounded, convex bases (a completebottom was documented). Everted rims are rare (N=3). Five of the inverted rims arethickened and profusely decorated. The use of coils is visible in several fragments that aremostly ochre, orange or light brown in colour. Surfaces are smoothed, but not burnishedexcept in a few cases (see below). Most of the pottery has fine granitic intrusions, whichwere probably already present in the clay, rather than being added as temper.

In all stratigraphic units, pots decorated by the impression of fibre cord roulettes prevail(71.5%), followed by those with grooves (14%) and incisions (7%). The rest of thedecoration (7.5%) comprises vertical strokes, fine incision forming grids, simpleimpression, nail impression, comb impression and appliqués (circular pills). Some sherds(4.6%) show a combination of different techniques, usually roulette and incision.Differences between layers are minimal with the exception of SU 1, in which only 54%of the sherds are roulette-decorated and a high percentage (23%) of incised elements ispresent. The percentage of decorated sherds (49.5%) versus non-decorated is remarkable,although this varies by layer: 26% in SU 01, 39% in SU 02 and 60% in SU 04 and SU 06.This is remarkably different to Ajilak 1 and 2 (the other sites that have provided asignificant amount of pottery), at both of which no more than 5% of all the sherds foundwere decorated. This divergence could be explained on chronological or functional grounds(different periods, longer occupation, more people, different activities), or both. Decoratedsherds also occur at high frequency in some South Sudanese sites, reaching over 80% atBekju, 50% at Jokpel and 25% at Ngeni B (Robertshaw and Siiriäinen 1985: 95, 109, 116).

Decoration made with twisted fibre cord roulettes (Figure 15) spread through SouthSudan and into the Great Lakes area of East Africa between 1500 and 1000 BP(Robertshaw 1987: 184; Desmedt 1991; Livingstone-Smith 2007: 199–205), consistent


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Alf

redo

Gon

zale

z-R

uiba

l] a

t 10:

02 0

4 M

arch

201

4

with the radiocarbon date obtained from the hearth in SU 03a (886 ± 30 BP). This kind ofdecoration is often related to pastoralist groups, who were very likely Nilotic speakers.However, several millennia before the arrival of the twisted string roulette, pastoralists(themselves also probably Nilotic-speaking) were already making extensive use ofinvasive impressions to decorate their pots, as in the Nderit culture from around 4500 BP(Barthelme 1985: 158–159; Hildebrand et al. 2011: figure 5). This may explain the readyacceptance of the roulette by later Nilotic populations and its rejection further north andeast, where stamped pottery did not exist or is less frequent — for some northernexamples see Brass and Schwenniger (2013: 6, 7–11). In fact, Ajilak marks theeasternmost frontier for the roulette in the wider area and the technique never made itinto the heart of the Ethiopian highlands, although it is present in the escarpment area(among the Majangir, Bertha and Gwama). Twisted cord and spaced-knot roulettes, themost common form of pottery decoration in lowland Gambela today, are used by bothNilotes and Koman groups.

Grooved decoration (Figure 16) was also a relatively recent innovation in theprehistory of Northeast Africa. It has been recorded from sites in South Sudan such asItohom, Ngeni, Nyanyi and Jebel Kathangor (Robertshaw and Mawson 1981: 63–64,figure 7; David 1982: 53; Robertshaw 1982: 91; Robertshaw and Siiriäinen 1985: 139;Robertshaw 1987: 183–184), which are relatively close to Ajilak (Kathangor lies 170 kmto the southwest). Robertshaw and Mawson (1981) distinguish between grooved and‘ribbed’ decoration, the latter being defined as parallel and horizontal, deeply-incisedlines where the surface of the vessel between the lines has been smoothed after theincisions have been made. At Ajilak, ribs are sometimes incised over (Figure 12, B232).Proper grooves, on the other hand, are characteristic of the Turkwel tradition found in theLake Turkana region of Kenya, where they appear during the first millennium AD (Lynchand Robbins 1979: 324–326; Robertshaw 1987: 184). At Ajilak, most sherds seem to be‘ribbed’, but grooves also exist (Figure 13, B036). In any case, both grooves and ribsappear to be variants of the same tradition. As with the roulette, they seem to be related tofirst millennium AD Nilotic pastoralist communities. Interestingly, the grooves in theTurkwel area were made with a fish bone (Lynch and Robbins 1979: 328, figure 3), atechnique consistent with the size and shape of those at Ajilak.

Figure 11. Ajilak 6: north-south stratigraphic cut.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Alf

redo

Gon

zale

z-R

uiba

l] a

t 10:

02 0

4 M

arch

201

4

Figure 12. Plan of the excavated area at Ajilak 6. Level 1 (above) and Level 2 (below).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Alf

redo

Gon

zale

z-R

uiba

l] a

t 10:

02 0

4 M

arch

201

4

Figure 13. Ajikalk 6: pottery from SU 01 to SU 04.

84A.González-R

uibalet

al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Alf

redo

Gon

zale

z-R

uiba

l] a

t 10:

02 0

4 M

arch

201

4

Among the less common forms of decoration, the small pills are particularlydistinctive: identical decorations appear on rims from Jokpel and Ngeni in South Sudan(Robertshaw and Siiriäinen 1985: figure 10k, 16a). Given that both pastoralists andhunters are highly mobile, it is not strange that some pots or pottery know-how travelledlong distances. Conversely, the characteristic bowls with thickened rims decorated withcriss-crossed incisions and bodies covered with roulette impressions (Figure 12, B004) donot have good parallels in South Sudan. Although geographically and chronologicallydistant from our own finds, they are, however, redolent of some vessels from Jebel Moya

Figure 14. Ajilak 6: pottery from SU 04.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Alf

redo

Gon

zale

z-R

uiba

l] a

t 10:

02 0

4 M

arch

201

4

Figure 15. Ajilak 6: decorated pottery from SU 04 (mostly roulette). The row marked with an asterisk shows grey burnished pottery. A indicates appliquédecoration.

86A.González-R

uibalet

al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Alf

redo

Gon

zale

z-R

uiba

l] a

t 10:

02 0

4 M

arch

201

4

(south-central Sudan) (Addison 1949: plate 95–97), recently dated to between the mid-second and mid-first millennia BC (Brass and Schwenniger 2013: 5, 7, figure 4). Whilemost pots have the same characteristics in terms of surface treatment, firing and colour, afew fragments are clearly different by virtue of having thin walls, a grey colour andburnished surfaces. There are two rims in this style, both of which show a distinct shape:despite being inverted, like the rest, they have straight instead of curved walls (Figure 13,B447 and B042). One (B447) seems to have been decorated with a wooden roulette, atechnique widely employed in South Sudan after AD 1500, but absent in Ethiopia,including Gambela (at least today). A few other examples of this kind of pots have turnedup in other sites, such as Ajilak 1, 2 and 7. They may have been imported to the area fromthe southeast.

Other clay items (Figure 17) include a bead decorated with vertical grooves and tworeused sherds: one has a hole in it, perhaps for use with a fishing net (cf. Haaland 1992,figure 3; Fernández et al. 2003: figure 76, n 13), and the other was cut into a round shapefor unknown purposes, although similar elements are known from broadly contemporarysites in South Sudan, namely Ngeni and Bekju (Robertshaw and Siiriäinen 1985: 110,121). Another disc was found reusing a small fragment of bone.

Lithic assemblage

Almost all the stone artefacts found (97.8%) were made in quartz (Figure 18). Theremainder employed microcrystalline silica minerals (mostly chert) or obsidian, while asingle basalt flake and an unmodified garnet were also found. The lithic assemblageshows a clear predominance of quartz flakes (N=67). Blades and bladelets are rare (N=13), probably because it is difficult to obtain them from the available raw material. Only15 flakes, blades and bladelets in quartz show clear traces of retouch. In addition to theflakes and retouched flakes, there are also 12 scrapers, of which half are side-scrapers andthe other half end-scrapers, mostly on flakes, although a couple were made on cores.There are also several backed pieces: crescents (N=5) and trapezes (N=4) on quartz

Figure 16. Ajilak 6: grooved pottery.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Alf

redo

Gon

zale

z-R

uiba

l] a

t 10:

02 0

4 M

arch

201

4

flakes, and a triangle in what may be chalcedony. Exotic raw materials appear in a varietyof forms: flakes (green-red chert, obsidian), an end-scraper and a side-scraper (obsidian),bladelets (rock crystal, obsidian), a blade (chert), a core (chalcedony?) and general debris(green-red chert). As at Ajilak 1 and 5, green-red chert is the only exotic lithic material tobe represented by débitage, thus proving that it, at least, was knapped in situ. Overall, thelithic assemblage is particularly close to those from sites known in South Sudan, asreflected in the predominance of quartz flakes and the importance of backed flakes,crescents and scrapers (Robertshaw 1982: 89). Like other late foragers in the area, theinhabitants of Ajilak favoured the use of the local raw material, even if this was of poorquality. The opportunistic use of microlithic quartz implements is attested in othermarginal communities of Northeast Africa during the first and second millennia AD. InBenishangul, for example, stone artefacts are abundant on sites dated to 2000 BP(Fernández et al. 2007: 121) and in Kafa, in the highlands to the east of Gambela, amicrolithic industry still existed in the eighteenth century (Hildebrand et al. 2010).Further south and east, similar, or even later, dates are reported for the cohabitation ofstone artefacts and iron in the Tsavo area of Kenya (Kusimba et al. 2005).

The other stone artefacts found comprise a fragment of a pestle and three net sinkers,one of which could also have been used as a hammering tool, given the marks on one ofits edges.

Figure 17. Ajilak 6: pottery sherd cut into a disc, perforated sherd and clay bead.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Alf

redo

Gon

zale

z-R

uiba

l] a

t 10:

02 0

4 M

arch

201

4

Faunal remains

Ajilak 6 yielded an assemblage of 709 faunal remains (bones, teeth and shells), whichwere identified using the reference collection at the National Museum of Ethiopia andpublished works such as Walker (1985), Gentry (1978), Peters (1986, 1988) and Peterset al. (1997). The state of preservation of the remains is relatively poor and marked bystrong post-depositional processes (traces of corrosion and concretion) that have favouredintense fragmentation and significant alteration of bone surfaces. Thus, around 65% ofthe fragments could not be identified (Table 1) and few traces of human manipulation(cutting and cooking marks) were noted.

The majority of the 89 shells found come from large, land-digging bivalves. Theirgood state of preservation and the absence of all traces of human manipulation suggestthat they postdate the occupation of the site. They are not therefore discussed further here.Freshwater molluscs were also found. A complete valve was documented from aunionoid mussel (Mutela sp.), which is characterised by its iridiscent shell and iswidespread in the Nile Basin. Several small fragments of Mutela and other unionids(Coelatura sp.) also turned up in SU 04. These bivalves are widely used among Nilotic-speakers today to polish pottery or as spoons with which to eat porridge from the

Figure 18. Ajilak 6: stone artefacts. A001 and A103 are in obsidian, A028 in green-red chert, A018in quartzite and the remainder in quartz.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Alf

redo

Gon

zale

z-R

uiba

l] a

t 10:

02 0

4 M

arch

201

4

communal pot (Figure 19). The Gwama, Komo and Opuuo also use these shells, a customthat they have perhaps borrowed from their Nilotic neighbours.

The rest of the faunal spectrum (Table 2) comprises a large variety of vertebrate taxa,not all of which could be identified to the species level, given the poor preservation of theremains and the region’s high faunal diversity. Worth noting is the clear predominance of

Table 1. Ajilak 6: faunal remains according to NISP (Number of Identified Specimens).

Taxon Surface SU 1 SU 2 SU 4 SU 8 Total

Papio anubis (baboon) 1 2 3Thryonomys swinderianus (cane rat) 1 2 3Mustelidae (mongoose) 1 1Procavidae (hyrax) 2 2 1 5Small mammal 3 3Phacochoerus africanus (warthog) 1 2 3Suidae 3 1 5 9Gazella sp. (gazelle) 2 2 2 6Bovidae size II 4 3 14 1 22Bovidae size III 2 3 2 4 11Alcelaphinae 2 3 5Hippotraginae 2 2Bovidae size IV 12 3 41 56Bos taurus (cattle) 1 1Bovini 5 5 22 32Pythoninae 2 1 3Total Vertebrates Identified 2 36 19 106 2 165Shells 14 20 55 89Unidentified 3 114 111 219 8 455TOTAL 5 164 150 380 10 709

Figure 19. Mutela shells in an Anywaa homestead at the feet of Ajilak Hill.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Alf

redo

Gon

zale

z-R

uiba

l] a

t 10:

02 0

4 M

arch

201

4

mammals, particularly bovids, which represent over 80% of the identified remains. Thelatter comprise species of very different size, including six remains of gazelle (four teethfragments and two fragments of proximal phalanges), Alcelaphinae (five molarfragments), Hippotraginae (two molar fragments) and Bovini. Among the latter, at least

Table 2. Ajilak 6: identifiable human remains from SU 06.

Gridunit SU Bone Side Type Fragment Age/pathology/variants

1 4 Jaw Left Posterior fragment1 4 Molar Molar Intense wear/alveolar

resorption1 4 Molar Molar Intense wear/alveolar

resorption2 6 Vertebra Thoracic Vertebral body2 6 Vertebra Thoracic/

lumbarVertebral body Schmorl’s nodules

1 6 Vertebra Firstcoccygeal

Complete

2 6 Ribs 15 fragments2 6 Scapula Glenoid fossa1 6 Humerus Left Distal third Septal aperture8 6 Humerus Right Distal third Septal aperture2 6 Radius Diaphysis2 6 Radius Left Distal third2 6 Radius Right Distal third2 6 Ulna Left Proximal third2 6 Ulna Right Proximal Fragment2 6 Metacarpal First Complete2 6 Metacarpal Complete2 6 Metacarpal Proximal third2 6 Metacarpal Distal third2 6 Metacarpal Distal third2 6 Metacarpal Distal third8 6 Phalanx Proximal Complete2 6 Phalanx Proximal Complete2 6 Phalanx Proximal Complete2 6 Phalanx Proximal Complete2 6 Phalanx Medial Complete2 6 Phalanx Medial Complete2 6 Phalanx Medial Complete2 6 Phalanx Medial Complete2 6 Phalanx Medial Complete2 6 Phalanx Medial Complete2 6 Sacrum Central zone2 6 Coxal Left Ischial tuberosity2 6 Coxal Left Ilium Fragment Bony rim on auricular

surface2 6 Coxal Left Pubic symphysis2 6 Femur Left Proximal third2 6 Femur Right Distal third2 6 Femur Right Fragment of lateral

condyle2 6 Femur Right Proximal third2 6 Metatarsal Right First Complete1 6 Astragalus Right Fragment


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Alf

redo

Gon

zale

z-R

uiba

l] a

t 10:

02 0

4 M

arch

201

4

one inferior molar from the upper level could be identified as belonging to domesticcattle. Other remains of Bovini (such as 14 fragments of cheek teeth, seven of vertebrae,nine of long bones and two of proximal phalanges) present up to SU 04 could also belongto cattle, but the strong fragmentation of the bones does not allow us to discount thepresence of Cape buffalo. The assemblage also includes traces of warthog (three cheekteeth) and baboon (a fragment of a pelvis, a patella and an astragalus), as well as threeteeth fragments from a cane rat, two teeth and three humerus fragments from a hyrax andone left maxillary from a mongoose. Non-mammalian specimens include two pythonvertebrae.

Although it is difficult to draw conclusions from such a limited number of identifiableremains, it is important to note that there are no significant changes between the differentstratigraphic units, suggesting that the exploitation of wild mammals remained importantthroughout the site’s occupation. Overall, the assemblage suggests that Ajilak 6 was usedas a hunting camp where domestic animals, like cattle, were present but little consumed.Recent ethnoarchaeological work in the region of Benishangul-Gumuz shows that a largepart of the meat consumed by some groups, such as the Kwama1, still comes from huntedanimals, mainly gazelle and warthog (González-Ruibal in press). From an environmentalpoint of view, the few species that could be identified, such as the warthog, the baboonand the cane rat, are typical of a landscape of relatively arid, but wooded savanna(Kingdon 1997).

In conclusion, the faunal remains of Ajilak 6 reveal an exploitation patternprimarily focused on mammals, mostly bovids, in a landscape similar to the presentone. Cattle seem to be attested in a large part of the sequence, but their presence ismarginal. Even with the relatively recent chronology for the site indicated above, itsdate of occupation makes this the oldest evidence of cattle in this region of Ethiopia,a region of Africa where the origins of herding are still largely unknown (Lesur-Gebremariam 2009).

Human remains

The human bones from Ajilak 6, like the faunal remains, are poorly preserved. Theyshow a high degree of fragmentation and numerous thick concretions that prevent anexamination of the original bone surface. Their biological profile nevertheless points tothem coming from an adult male individual. This is based on a fragment of a sciatic notchbelonging to a left hipbone that has male characteristics. The adult age is inferred fromthe lack of active fusion in any of the bones. The only visual method that can be partiallyapplied for age estimation is the auricular surface. Although a specific age range cannotbe assigned, a bony rim indicates a degree of degeneration in the joint of the sacrum. Thischaracteristic is related to a mature age or to some pathology of the individual during hislife. The extant fragment of pubic symphysis could not be aged.

Only two teeth have been preserved inside a fragment of jaw. Both are molars fromthe inferior left arcade (pieces 37 and 38). There is a strong degree of alveolar resorption,especially in piece 37, and intense tooth wear, consistent with a mature individual. Apossible Schmorl’s node (a protrusion of cartilage often associated with aging) is presentin one of the vertebral bodies and is the only pathological trait in the post-cranialskeleton. The humerus has a septal aperture, an anatomical variant of genetic origin that isfound in some individuals, but not in others. Should other skeletal remains be found inthe wider region this might offer a means of linking them to the individual from Ajilak 6.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Alf

redo

Gon

zale

z-R

uiba

l] a

t 10:

02 0

4 M

arch

201

4

The most numerous body parts found (Table 2) are ribs (N=15), phalanges (N=10)and metacarpals (N=6). Many long bones diaphyses that are not otherwise identifiableare also present, as well as vertebrae (N=3), including a complete first vertebra, twolumbar and three coccygeal vertebrae and the sacrum. While some bones show cracksthat can be attributed to post-depositional process (Figure 20), other fractures visible inthe long bones and ribs are not compatible with taphonomic processes. In these cases, theregularity of the size and shape of the fragments (ribs and diaphyses) and the regular,clean cuts, with no splintering or cracking (Figure 21), allow us to hypothesise that thebones underwent some sort of manipulation prior to eventual deposition, perhaps relatedto a secondary burial. This suggestion has, however, to be treated with caution, given thestate of the remains.

Interpretation

The density of pottery sherds and the overall variety of archaeological materials indicatethat Ajilak 6 was occupied more intensely than the other sites documented during oursurvey. The shelter’s morphology and size and its convenient location and topography(slightly elevated from the surrounding terrain, but not as much as the Ajilak inselberg)probably explain its intense use. Unfortunately, the site has been subjected to bothbioturbation (roots, digging molluscs) and weathering, which have together altered loosesandy deposits that were not very deep in the first place. However, spatial analysis ofartefact density shows that four grid units (1, 2, 8 and 9) actually delivered the majority ofitems. These four units correspond to the location of the burial and the hearth. Grid Unit2, in particular, which is where the bulk of human remains appeared (73% of all humanbones, 95% of all identifiable human bones), also furnished the highest number of sherds,stone artefacts and faunal remains. Since we are not dealing here with a sediment trap andthere is no other apparent geomorphological reason for the accumulation of remains, we

Figure 20. Ajilak 6: fragments of human femora and other long bones with traces of cracking.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Alf

redo

Gon

zale

z-R

uiba

l] a

t 10:

02 0

4 M

arch

201

4

can infer that the accumulation is due to a cultural process, one associated with themaking of the burial and the hearth. The sole garnet found appeared next to the humanremains and could plausibly be interpreted as being related to it.

The typological similarity of the materials recovered from throughout the 0.55 msequence suggests occupation during a single historical period. However, in spite of thestratigraphic disturbances just discussed, at least two levels can be described within thatperiod. The more recent is represented by SU 01/02/03 (considered here as Level 1), theolder by SU 04/06 (Level 2). Both levels cover the entire surface of the sondage. Theyshow different soil compositions (sand in Level 1 versus gravel in Level 2) and havedifferent numbers of finds: Level 2 has 62% of all the stone artefacts, 63% of all thepottery and 55% of all the faunal remains recovered from the excavation. Although thepottery is typologically very similar throughout the sequence, the number of decoratedsherds varies, as we have seen, with a higher percentage of decorated fragments inLevel 2. The fact that Level 2 has more material and fewer rolled and abraded sherdssuggests that some finds from Level 1 may come from this lower level. However, whilethis might be the case in some parts of the excavated area, it is certainly not so in GridUnit 2, where the hearth was documented. This feature was undisturbed and sealed Level2. Unfortunately, only Level 1 could be radiocarbon dated (on charcoal from SU 3a) as nocharcoal or other organic material was present in Level 2. An attempt to date the humanbones from SU 06, failed because they had no collagen left, a situation that likely affectsall the other bones, human and animal, present.

In sum, Ajilak 6 was occupied by a small group of people on at least two occasions,close in time, the more recent of which is dated to the early second millennium AD. Thepeople who used the shelter carried out a variety of subsistence activities among whichhunting and fishing stand out. The site was probably occupied on a seasonal basis, gearedto these activities. A mature adult male individual died during one of the visits to the area

Figure 21. Ajilak 6: human ribs showing clean, sharp cuts.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Alf

redo

Gon

zale

z-R

uiba

l] a

t 10:

02 0

4 M

arch

201

4

and was buried within the shelter. The site was then visited again, perhaps in relation tothe grave, as suggested by the fact that a hearth lies directly above the human remains.

Discussion

Evidence from the excavated and surveyed sites in the Ajilak area is limited and thepossibilities of interpretation are further reduced by the somewhat poor preservation ofthe deposits. Nevertheless, there are enough data to propose comparisons with othercontexts and advance a general interpretation. Although most of the Ajilak sites furnishedfew finds, only some of which are truly diagnostic, the majority were probably occupiedduring roughly the same period, i.e. the late first and early second millennia AD. Ajilak 1,2, 4, 5, 6 and 9 all produced roulette-impressed sherds, sherds with grooved decoration orboth. Ajilak 7 furnished two fragments of burnished grey pottery, something also attestedat Ajilak 6, which suggests their contemporaneity. The small size of the shelters andartefact scatters indicates that they were most likely occupied on a temporary basis(perhaps seasonally) by a small community that hunted, gathered and fished in theirvicinity. Hunting is confirmed by the prevalence of wild animals among the faunalremains, whereas three net sinkers and the shells of freshwater molluscs attest to theexploitation of aquatic resources.

This late survival of foraging activities is by no means exceptional. It is recurrent inboth the Upper Nile region and in other isolated areas of Northeast Africa. For SouthSudan, David et al. (1981: 19) note that a hunter-gatherer way of life may have continuedwell into the first millennium AD. In the case of Itohom and Lokabulo shelters artefactassemblages very similar to Ajilak are associated with the remains of wild animals duringthe late first and early second millennia AD (Robertshaw and Mawson 1981: 63–65;David et al. 1981: 13–14; David 1982: 53). A similar situation is found in Tsavo(southeastern Kenya), where Kisio rock-shelter has provided evidence of occupation byforagers from about AD 1000 to the mid-twentieth century (Kusimba 2003: 214–222). Asat Ajilak, the Kisio hunters still used chipped stone tools, although they also employediron implements, a situation that may be documented in our area at Ajilak 1; if usedelsewhere, iron tools have not preserved. The Ajilak sites are located in the foothills ofthe Ethiopian plateau, along the limit between the alluvial plains that extend towardsSouth Sudan. Their inhabitants probably moved between the two zones, profiting fromtheir complementary resources. From the grasslands area and its large rivers they obtainedgame, fish, freshwater molluscs and quartzite pebbles. Clay was probably also gatherednear the rivers, as it still is today. Most of the exotic raw materials used to make stonetools (chert, obsidian and basalt), in turn, document trips to the Ethiopian Highlands.

Who were the inhabitants of Ajilak? Today, the Gambela region is populated byrepresentatives of three Nilo-Saharan families (Koman, Western Nilotic and Surmic).Ehret (1982: 20–21) places pre-Majangir communities in this area since the thirdmillennium BC and, in fact, Nilotic-speakers seem to have arrived very late, not beforethe seventeenth century AD. It is also possible that the inhabitants of Ajilak wereancestral to the modern Sabu or Shabo, who were virtually unknown when Ehret’s wrotehis article (Anbessa Teferra and Unseth 1989). The identification of the Ajilak sites withSurmic (Majangir), Sabu or, less likely, Koman peoples can be suggested on botharchaeological and ethnographic grounds. We have more ethnographic information on theKoman than on the Majangir and Sabu, but these groups have been in contact in the nearpast and share a comparable worldview in some crucial aspects.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Alf

redo

Gon

zale

z-R

uiba

l] a

t 10:

02 0

4 M

arch

201

4

Cattle herding, for instance, is absent among all of them. Oxen or cows, where theyexist, are only slaughtered on special occasions (weddings, funerals, rituals of conflictresolution). Instead, hunting, fishing and the gathering of wild plants and honey, althoughreceding, are still very relevant activities, both in the subsistence and in the symbolicworld of these societies (Stauder 1972: 18–23; James 1988: 43–49). The symbolicrelevance of hunting is visible in material culture. The Majangir and Sabu, for instance,always make the bag used to carry babies with the skin of a gazelle, even if they useimported cloth for everything else (González-Ruibal et al. 2013: 109, figure 70); all otherneighbouring groups employ cloth or the hides of domestic animals for the same purpose.In turn, both the Komo and the Kwama hang the bones, horns, tusks and skins of wildanimals in the back of their huts as an offering to the ancestral spirits, who are expected toprovide success in subsequent hunts (Theis 1995: 91; González-Ruibal in press). Allthese groups have traditionally exchanged forest products (game, fish or honey) with thehighland peoples for iron, salt or other commodities (Stauder 1972; Tesemma Ta’a 2003).On the other hand, both the Koman and the Surmic are eager bricoleurs, ready toincorporate objects, practices and people from neighbouring groups: this is somethingconspicuous today. Thus, in the Komo villages of Gambela artefacts and technologieshave been assimilated from the neighbouring Nuer, Anywaa and Opuuo, while the Sabuhave adopted pottery types and chaînes opératoires wholesale from the Majangir andShekkacho (González-Ruibal et al. 2013).

While not free from ambiguity, the use of ochre may also indicate a Koman or Surmicidentity for the occupants of the Ajilak sites. Red ochre is lavishly used among theKoman peoples, who have traditionally smeared their entire bodies with this substance,especially those of their women. Among both Koman and Majangir it is employed inmany different contexts, such as healing ceremonies, weddings, mourning rites and so on(cf. Cerulli 1956: 29; James 1988: 99, 102–103, 132, 119).

The two hearths documented iat Ajilak 1 and 6 may also transmit culturalinformation. Both take the form of shallow pits excavated in the occupation floor. Thisis different to present Majangir and Koman traditions, where hearths are systematicallymade above ground, with the cooking pots supported by three stones. Instead, it is theNilotic Anywaa who dig pits for their hearths, because living in a sedimentary plain theylack easy access to suitable hearth stones. Moreover, both Anywaa and Nuer use buriedwooden mortars to grind cereals, as opposed to the grinding stones prevalent among theKoman. The use of wooden mortars could explain the absence of grinding stones at theAjilak sites (David et al. 1981: 36).

More significant from a cultural point of view is the secondary burial from Ajilak 6.The sparse evidence available from South Sudan points towards primary burials duringthe time when the Ajilak sites appear to have been occupied (David et al. 1981: 44–49).Secondary interments have, instead, been documented among the Koman peoples, suchas the Komo, Gwama and Uduk (Grottanelli 1947; Cerulli 1956: 35–36; James 1988;Theis 1995). A description of a Komo funerary ritual by a missionary in the 1950s fitsour evidence well. According to the author of the notes, the corpse:

‘was kept until rotten. Meat “fileted” from bones and dried in sun like biltong. Then foldedup, put in a ‘mwalda’ (skin bag) and hung up in roof of house. Bones taken to river, scrubbedclean with sand, and stored. After about a year a ‘shataga’ (feast for the dead) was called.Each guest brought a ring of metal, a string of beads or other ornament. The dried body waslaid out in sun, and decked out with ornaments, as well as those possessed in life. Oftenresulting mass was so heavy, took several men to lift. The bones were then taken andcarefully polished’ (Samuel Burns, cited in James 1988: 360).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Alf

redo

Gon

zale

z-R

uiba

l] a

t 10:

02 0

4 M

arch

201

4

The Uduk, another Koman group, have similar rituals: a ceremony called ‘settling thegrave’ (James 1988: 131; see also Cerulli 1956: 34) involved digging up the bones from atomb, anointing them in red ochre and then returning them to the grave again.Interestingly, in some cases (especially when the deceased was a ‘master of the horn’or hunting leader) on the day of the ceremony people organised a collective hunt. Thiswas followed by the consumption of the game, beer drinking (‘Beer for Settling theGrave’) and dancing (James 1988: 48–49).

Conclusion: low-level food producers in Northeast Africa

In this paper, we have presented archaeological evidence from surface survey andexcavations at Ajilak (Gambela, southwestern Ethiopia). Our data suggest that the sitesfound there (mainly rock-shelters) relate to a small, mobile community that around thelate first and early second millennia AD engaged in a mixed or multi-resource economyin which hunting, fishing and gathering played a predominant role. The inhabitants ofAjilak may have known of iron, but still made extensive use of chipped stone tools, asshown by an expedient microlithic industry based principally on the knapping of locallyavailable quartz. They smeared their bodies, or parts of their bodies, with ochre and worenecklaces made with decorated clay beads, both practices alive in the area today. Thoughmobile, they made considerable use of pottery, suggesting that they may have spent longperiods in the same places, perhaps even entire seasons. A large percentage of the vesselsfound were decorated with twisted cord roulette impressions or grooves and resemble thepottery documented in South Sudan, northwestern Kenya and Uganda. Finally, they seemto have practised rituals of secondary interment, as some communities in the area havedone until very recently.

The similarities with South Sudan are many, but not surprising. Much of the presentGambela region is just an extension of the neighbouring country. Thus, very much likeSouth Sudan, Gambela is a lowland region inhabited by Nilo-Saharan communities,crossed by wide rivers and covered by marshes and grasslands on the limits of whichemerge granite inselbergs. It is there where prehistoric occupation has primarily beenlocated (David et al. 1981: 10). Other sites were undoubtedly used in the past, but theirarchaeological visibility is extremely limited. In Gambela, isolated stone artefacts androlled sherds have been documented in the terraces of secondary rivers. Nevertheless, inthe undifferentiated landscape of the flat lowlands, the inselbergs ought to have played animportant role as landmarks of social memory — as they still do today among someborderland groups, such as the Bertha (Triulzi 1981). The outcrops and inselbergstherefore probably formed part of a geography of foraging, with the rock-shelters in themused as temporary camps during seasons of hunting, gathering and fishing.

In sum, the Ajilak sites contribute to our knowledge of those Northeast Africangroups who do not neatly fit the label of agriculturalists, pastoralists or hunter-gatherers(Kusimba et al. 2005) or who shift between subsistence practices (predatory andproductive) according to circumstances (Sobania 1988). These societies have beenattested all over the world and, as we have seen, have been described as being engaged in‘low-level food production’ (Smith 2001):

‘The important point is not so much the actual general label itself, but the tripartite cognitivetemplate that it creates — that the societies of the middle ground are not pale reflections orlogical extensions of either agriculturalists or hunter–gatherers, but a separate general class ofextremely variable, successful long-term socioeconomic solutions, fine-tuned to a wide rangeof local cultural and environmental contexts’ (Smith 2001: 33–34).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Alf

redo

Gon

zale

z-R

uiba

l] a

t 10:

02 0

4 M

arch

201

4

From this point of view, the fact that the inhabitants of Ajilak had a few domestic animalsdoes not mean that they were in transition to anything: they were simply practising a formof subsistence that successfully mixed the exploitation of wild resources with somedomesticates. Katharina Neumann (2005: 249) has stressed that a dualistic and exclusiveconcept of hunter-gatherers and food producers is not appropriate for Africa, since manyin-between economies exist. They were in all likelihood abundant in large parts ofNortheast Africa, where people who engaged in foraging activities have for a while beenwrongly considered ‘lingering remnants of the Palaeolithic inhabitants’ (Murdock 1959:59). Kusimba et al. (2005: 244) have pointed out, instead, that ‘most Neolithic and IronAge economies were significantly less specialised than those recorded ethnographicallyand likely exchanged foodstuffs’. While this might generally have been the case, it wasprobably more so in peripheral zones, such as the Sudanese-Ethiopian borderland,between peoples and areas with strong pastoralist and agriculturalist traditions (Marshalland Hildebrand 2002; Hildebrand et al. 2010). It is probably not a coincidence that thisland is today home to communities, such as the Majangir, Sabu and Mao, for whomhunting, fishing and gathering are still an essential part of their economy. Equallyimportant is the fact, not considered by Smith, that living in this in-between territoryshaped the symbolic worlds and cultural practices of its inhabitants in important ways.Hunting and gathering became so deeply enmeshed in the identity of low-level foodproducers that, even after those practices have started to fade away, they still play anoutstanding role in people’s cultural imagery.

AcknowledgementsWe thank Víctor M. Fernández for providing crucial references and advice and the Authority of theResearch and Conservation of Cultural Heritage in Ethiopia and the authorities of Gambela forproviding permits and support for fieldwork. Teresa Sagardoy, Álvaro Falquina, Xurxo Ayán,Carlos Nieto, Yonathan Sahle and Tesfaye Tekalign collaborated in the fieldwork. We should alsolike to thank Teresa Taboada, Cruz Ferro and Ignacio de la Torre for their help identifying lithic rawmaterials. We are grateful to Michael Brass for his helpful comments and two anonymous refereesfor criticisms and suggestions that helped improve the article. Funding was provided by the SpanishMinistry of Culture through its Archaeology Abroad Programme.

Note1. The Kwama, who are related to the neighbouring Gwama, call themselves Sith Shwala today

(González-Ruibal in press).

Notes on contributorsAlfredo González-Ruibal is an archaeologist with the Institute of Heritage Sciences of the SpanishNational Research Council. One of his main topics of research is the archaeology and ethnographyof the Sudanese-Ethiopian borderland and more particularly the relationship between indigenouscommunities and the State.

Carlos Marín Suárez holds a PhD on prehistoric archaeology from the Complutense University ofMadrid and is a post-doctoral fellow at the University of the Republic, Uruguay (UdelaR).

Manuel Sánchez-Elipe is a PhD candidate at Department of Prehistory of the ComplutenseUniversity of Madrid. His research focuses on the West-Central African Iron Age and funeraryarchaeology.

Joséphine Lesur is an archaeozoologist, Maitre de Conferences at the Muséum National d’HistoireNaturelle (Paris). Her research deals with the origin and diffusion of herding in the Horn of Africaand in Egypt as well as the exploitation of animal resources by humans during the Holocene.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Alf

redo

Gon

zale

z-R

uiba

l] a

t 10:

02 0

4 M

arch

201

4

Candela Martínez Barrio is an archaeologist with an especialisation on physical anthropology.She has worked extensively on human remains from the Spanish Civil War.

ReferencesAddison, F. 1949. Jebel Moya. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Anbessa Teferra and Unseth, P. 1989. “Toward the classification of Shabo (Mikeyir).” In Topics inNilo-Saharan Linguistics, edited by M.L. Bender, 405–418. Hamburg: Helmut Buske.

Bahru Zewde. 1987. “An overview and assessment of Gambella trade (1904–1935).” TheInternational Journal of African Historical Studies 20: 75–94. doi:10.2307/219279.

Barthelme, J. 1985. Fisher-Hunters and Neolithic Pastoralists in East Turkana, Kenya. Oxford:British Archaeological Reports.

Bollig, M. 2004. “Hunters, foragers, and singing smiths: the metamorphoses of peripatetic peoplesin Africa.” In Customary Strangers. New Perspectives on Peripatetic Peoples in the Middle East,Africa, and Asia, edited by J.C. Berland and A. Rao, 195–231. Westport: Praeger.

Brass, M. and Schwenniger, J.L. 2013. “Jebel Moya (Sudan): new dates from a mortuary complexat the southern Meroitic frontier.” Azania: Archaeological Research in Africa 48: 455–472.

Cerulli, E. 1956. Peoples of South-West Ethiopia and its Borderland. London: International AfricanInstitute.

David, N. 1982. “The BIEA Southern Sudan Expedition of 1979: interpretation of thearchaeological data.” In Culture History in the Southern Sudan Archaeology, Linguistics,Ethnohistory, edited by J. Mack and P.T. Robertshaw, 49–57. Nairobi: British Institute in EasternAfrica.

David, N., Harvey, P. and Goudie, C.J. 1981. “Excavations in southern Sudan, 1979.” Azania 16:7–54. doi:10.1080/00672708109511285.

Desmedt, C. 1991. “Poteries anciennes décorées à la roulette dans la Région des Grands Lacs.”African Archaeological Review 9: 161–196. doi:10.1007/BF01117220.

Ehret, C. 1982. “Population movement and culture contact in the Southern Sudan, c. 3000 BC toAD 1000: a preliminary linguistic overview.” In Culture History in the Southern SudanArchaeology, Linguistics, Ethnohistory, edited by J. Mack and P.T. Robertshaw, 19–49. Nairobi:British Institute in Eastern Africa.

Fernández, V.M., Jimeno, A. and Menéndez, M. 2003. “Archaeological excavations in prehistoricsites of the Blue Nile area, central Sudan.” Complutum 14: 273–344.

Fernández, V.M., De La Torre, I., Luque, L, González-Ruibal, A. and López-Sáez, J.A. 2007. “ALate Stone Age sequence from west Ethiopia: the sites of K’aaba and Bel K’urk’umu (Assosa,Benishangul-Gumuz Regional State).” Journal of African Archaeology 5: 91–126. doi:10.3213/1612-1651-10087.

Gentry, A.W. 1978. “Bovidae.” In Evolution of African Mammals, edited by V. Maglio andB. Cooke, 540–572. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

González-Ruibal, A.in press. An Archaeology of Resistance. Time and Materiality in an AfricanBorderland. Lanham: AltaMira Press.

González-Ruibal, A., Falquina, A. and Ayán Vila, X. 2013. “Etnicidad y cultura material.Observaciones etnoarqueológicas en la región de Gambela, Etiopía.” Materialidades 1: 57–116.

Greenfield, H.J. 1999. “The origins of metallurgy: distinguishing stone from metal cut-marks onbones from archaeological sites.” Journal of Archaeological Science 26: 797–808. doi:10.1006/jasc.1998.0348.

Grottanelli, V. 1947. “Burial among the Koma of western Abyssinia.” Primitive Man 20: 71–84.10.2307/3316443.

Grottanelli, V. 1948. “I preniloti: un’arcaica provincia culturale in Africa.” Annali Lateranensi 12:280–326.

Haaland, R. 1992. “Fish, pots and grain: early and mid-Holocene adaptations in central Sudan.”African Archaeological Review 10: 43–64. doi:10.1007/BF01117696.

Haaland, R. 1995. “Sedentism, cultivation, and plant domestication in the Holocene Middle Nileregion.” Journal of Field Archaeology 22: 157–174.

Hildebrand, E.A., Brandt, S. and Lesur-Gebremariam, J. 2010. “The Holocene archaeology ofsouthwest Ethiopia: new insights from the Kafa Archaeological Project.” African ArchaeologicalReview 27: 255–289. doi:10.1007/s10437-010-9079-8.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Alf

redo

Gon

zale

z-R

uiba

l] a

t 10:

02 0

4 M

arch

201

4

http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/219279

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00672708109511285

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01117220

http://dx.doi.org/10.3213/1612-1651-10087

http://dx.doi.org/10.3213/1612-1651-10087

http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jasc.1998.0348

http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jasc.1998.0348

http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3316443

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01117696

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10437-010-9079-8

Hildebrand, E.A., Shea, J.J. and Grillo, K.M. 2011. “Four middle Holocene pillar sites in WestTurkana, Kenya.” Journal of Field Archaeology 36: 181–200. doi:10.1179/009346911X12991472411088.

Kingdon, J. 1997. The Kingdon Field Guide to African Mammals. London: Academic Press.Kusimba, C.M., Kusimba, S.B. and Wright, D.K. 2005. “The development and collapse ofprecolonial ethnic mosaics in Tsavo, Kenya.” Journal of African Archaeology 3: 243–265.doi:10.3213/1612-1651-10053.

Kusimba, S.B. 2003. African Foragers: Environment, Technology, Interactions. Lanham: AltaMiraPress.

Kusimba, S.B. 2005. “What is a hunter-gatherer? Variation in the archaeological record of easternand southern Africa.” Journal of Archaeological Research 13: 337–366. doi:10.1007/s10814-005-5111-y.

James, W. 1988. The Listening Ebony. Moral Knowledge, Religion, and Power among the Uduk ofSudan. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Livingstone-Smith, A. 2007. “Histoire du decor à la roulette en Afrique subsaharienne.” Journal ofAfrican Archaeology 5: 189–216. doi:10.3213/1612-1651-10092.

Lesur-Gebremariam, J. 2009. “Origine et diffusion de l’élevage dans la Corne de l’Afrique: un étatde la question.” Annales d’Ethiopie 24: 173–208.

Lynch, B.M. and Robbins, L.H. 1979. “Cushitic and Nilotic prehistory: new archaeologicalevidence from north-west Kenya.” Journal of African History 20: 319–328. doi:10.1017/S0021853700017333.

Mack, J. and Robertshaw, P.T. (ed.). 1982. Culture History in the Southern Sudan: Archaeology,Linguistics and Ethnohistory. Nairobi: British Institute in Eastern Africa.

Marshall, F. and Hildebrand, E.P. 2002. “Cattle before crops: the beginnings of food production inAfrica.” Journal of World Prehistory 16: 99–143. doi:10.1023/A:1019954903395.

Murdock, G.P. 1959. Africa: Its Peoples and their Culture History. New York: McGraw-Hill.Neumann, K. 2005. “The romance of farming: plant cultivation and domestication in Africa.” InAfrican Archaeology: A Critical Introduction, edited by A.B. Stahl, 249–275. Oxford: Blackwell.

Pankhurst, A. 1999. “‘Caste’ in Africa: the evidence from south-western Ethiopia reconsidered.”Africa 69: 485–509. doi:10.2307/1160872.

Peters, J. 1986. Osteomorphology and Osteometry of the Appendicular Skeleton of Grant’s Gazelle,Gazella granti, Brooke, 1872; Bohor Reedbuck, Redunca redunca, Pallas, 1767 and Bushbuck,Tragelaphus scriptus, Pallas, 1766. Ghent: Rijksuniversiteit Gent.

Peters, J. 1988. “Osteomorphological features of the appendicular skeleton of African buffalo,Syncerus caffer (Sparman, 1779) and of domestic cattle, Bos primigenius f. taurus (Bojanus,1827).” Zeitschrift für Säugetierkunde 53: 108–123.

Peters, J., Van Neer, W. and Plug, I. 1997. “Comparative postcranial osteology of hartebeest(Alcelaphus buselaphus), scimitar oryx (Oryx dammah) and addax (Addax nasomaculatus), withnotes on the osteometry of gemsbok (Oryx gazella) and Arabian oryx (Oryx leucoryx).” AnnalesSciences Zoologiques 280: 2–83.

Robertshaw, P.T. 1982. “Eastern Equatoria in the context of later eastern African prehistory.” InCulture History in the Southern Sudan: Archaeology, Linguistics and Ethnohistory, edited byJ. Mack and P.T. Robertshaw, 89–100. Nairobi: British Institute in Eastern Africa.

Robertshaw, P.T. 1987. “Prehistory in the Upper Nile Basin.” Journal of African History 28:177–189. doi:10.1017/S002185370002973X.

Robertshaw, P.T. and Mawson, A. 1981. “Excavations in eastern Equatoria, Southern Sudan, 1980.”Azania 16: 55–95. doi:10.1080/00672708109511286.

Robertshaw, P.T. and Siiriäinen, A. 1985. “Excavations in Lakes Province, Southern Sudan.”Azania 20: 89–161. doi:10.1080/00672708509511360.

Smith, B.D. 2001. “Low-level food production.” Journal of Archaeological Research 9: 1–43.doi:10.1023/A:1009436110049.

Sobania, N. 1988. “Fishermen herders: subsistence, survival and cultural change in northernKenya.” Journal of African History 29: 41–56. doi:10.1017/S0021853700035982.

Sommer, G. 1992. “A survey of language death in Africa”. In Language Death: Factual andTheoretical Explorations with Special Reference to East Africa, edited by M. Brenzinger,301–418. The Hague: Walter de Gruyter.

Stauder, J. 1972. The Majangir. Ecology and Society of a Southwestern Ethiopian People.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Alf

redo

Gon

zale

z-R

uiba

l] a

t 10:

02 0

4 M

arch

201

4

http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/009346911X12991472411088

http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/009346911X12991472411088

http://dx.doi.org/10.3213/1612-1651-10053

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10814-005-5111-y

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10814-005-5111-y

http://dx.doi.org/10.3213/1612-1651-10092

http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0021853700017333

http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0021853700017333

http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1019954903395

http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1160872

http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S002185370002973X

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00672708109511286

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00672708509511360

http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1009436110049

http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0021853700035982

Tesemma Ta’a. 2003. “A brief historical account of the Goma of the Ethio-Sudanese frontier(ca. 1880s–1950s).” In Land, Gender and the Periphery. Themes in the History of Eastern andSouthern Africa, edited by Bahru Zewde, 167–178. Addis Ababa: OSSREA.

Theis, J. 1995. Nach der Razzia: Ethnographie und Geschichte der Koma. Münster: Trickster.Triulzi, A. 1981. “Myths and rituals of the Ethiopian Berta.” In Peoples and Cultures of the Ethio-Sudan Borderlands, edited by M.L. Bender, 179–214. Ann Arbor: African Studies Center,University of Michigan.

Walker, R. 1985. A Guide to Post-Cranial Bones of East African Animals. Norwich: HylochoerusPress.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Alf

redo

Gon

zale

z-R

uiba

l] a

t 10:

02 0

4 M

arch

201

4

GONZÁLEZ RUIBAL, A.; MARÍN SUÁREZ, C.; SÁNCHEZ-ELIPE LORENTE, LESUR, J. y MARTÍNEZ BARRIO, C....

Documents

Transcript of GONZÁLEZ RUIBAL, A.; MARÍN SUÁREZ, C.; SÁNCHEZ-ELIPE LORENTE, LESUR, J. y MARTÍNEZ BARRIO, C....