INTERACTION STUDY BETWEEN HUNTER-GATHERERS,

PASTORALISTS AND FARMING COMMUNITIES IN KHWEBE HILLS,

NORTH WESTERN BOTSWANA

BY

RAMMUTLOA KEFILWE

SUBMITTED IN FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE

DEGREE

BACHELOR OF ARTS HONOURS

IN THE

FACULTY OF HUMANITIES

UNIVERSITY OF PRETORIA

SUPERVISOR

DR CERI ASHLEY

15 NOVEMBER 2013

This dissertation is dedicated to my grandmother Kefilwe Sylvia Rammutloa

“Ngwana Matsebe Mokoni wa Dintshi Dikgolo”.

DECLARATION

I Kefilwe Rammutloa declare that this dissertation titled “Interaction study between

hunter-gatherers, pastoralists and farming communities in Khwebe Hills, north

western Botswana” is my own work, independently work. I declare that all the

sources used have been cited correctly. This is being submitted for the Bachelor of

Arts Honours Degree in the University of Pretoria. This dissertation has never been

submitted before for any degree or examination at any university.

Rammutloa Kefilwe

Candidate signature

Day of 2013

I

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First I would like to thank Dr Alexander Antonites and Dr Ceri Ashley for introducing

me to this project, which has been a learning curve for me. I am utterly grateful to Dr

Ceri. Z Ashley for granting me an opportunity to work with her and be part of this on-

going research. I am thankful for her assistance, patience, advice and support

throughout the duration of this research project, as well as in my studies. I am also

grateful to Mr Benjamin Saccaggi, Mr Gerhard Jordan and Mrs Jacqueline Jordan for

all the advice towards the research project. I would like to thank the Botswana

National Museum in Gaborone for granting me access to the Khwebe Hills ceramic

collection, as well as the museum staff.

I would like to thank Professor Innocent Pikirayi for his financial assistant. Thank you

to the National Research Foundation (NRF), as well as South African National Park

(SANParks) for financial assistance during the course of the year 2013, particularly

towards the completion of this project and my honours degree.

I am grateful to all those individuals who gave advice towards this project.

II

Glossary

Lekgoba (-Ma) - Slave

XRD - X-ray Diffraction

SNR – Short Neck Recurved

PSNR – Pronounced Short Neck Recurved

ESNR – Everted Short Neck Recurved

SEPN – Short Everted Pronounced Neck

HB – Hemispherical Bowl

EPN- Everted Pronounced Neck

SPN- Straight Pronounced Neck

ERN – Everted Recurved Neck

SRN – Straight Neck Recurved

CN – Collared Neck

III

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION TO RESEARCH PROJECT 1

THE SITE 1

AIMS 4

SIGNIFICANCE 4

RESEARCH QUESTIONS 4

THESIS STRUCTURE 5

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW 6

INTRODUCTION 7

THE SITE 7

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 8

SOCIAL INTERACTION 10

BROADER ARCHAEOLOGICAL LITERATURE 11

THE KALAHARI DEBATE 16

CONCLUSION 17

IV

CHAPTER 3

THEORY CHAPTER

INTRODUCTION 19

TRADITIONAL DEFINITIONS 19

COLONIAL AND POST-COLONIAL THEORY 20

APPLICATION OF INTERACTION STUDIES 22

MATERIAL CULTURE AS BOUNDARY 22

SOUTHERN AFRICAN ARCHAEOLOGY 23

CONCLUSION 25

CHAPTER 4

METHODOLOGY CHAPTER

INTRODUCTION 26

PREVIOUS RESEARCH 26

CURRENT INVESTIGATIONS 27

TYPOLOGY 28

ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE 34

CONCLUSION 42

V

CHAPTER 5

RESULTS CHAPTER

INTRODUCTION 43

ANALYSIS 43

DATA PRESENTATION 46

PATTERN 59

CONCLUSION 61

CHAPTER 6

INTERPRETATIONS

INTRODUCTION 62

ANALYSIS 62

ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE 64

DISCUSSION 66

CONCLUSION 67

CHAPTER 7

SUMMARY 69

BIBLIOGRAPHY 71

APPENDIX

VI

1

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

This chapter serves as an introduction to the project, which aims at studying the

interaction between hunter-gatherers, pastoralists and farming communities through

ceramics from the Khwebe Hills, of north western region in Botswana. The chapter

entails a description of the site area, a brief narration of the oral history, as well as

background on the previous research done at the site. In addition, this section will

discuss the research questions, as well as give a brief description of the chapters and

the various topics that the research project will focus on.

1.2 SITE

1.2.1 Geography

The Khwebe Hills are situated in the area that was previously known as Ngamiland,

in the North-western region of Botswana (Tlou 1980: 1). This is a land locked

country, surrounded by four countries; which includes Zambia in the northern area,

and South Africa in the southern region. While the eastern area is locked off by

Zimbabwe and the western region is enclosed off by Namibia (see figure 1.1).

According to Dziewiecka (2008: 11) the Khwebe Hills are windy, and the oral history

narrates this by elucidating the name of the hills according to the Khwe mythology.

The hills are named after a wind, which is a supernatural being who was the first

person at hills (Dziewiecka 2008: 11).

“According to San mythology, 'Khwe is the wind, which is a supernatural being. The loud sound of the

wind prophesies evil; it communicates with the creatures of prey where to find the people. These loud

howling sounds are an indication that these beings can approach the huts unheard (Dziewiecka 2008:

11). The wind is a representation of a man who can take a bird form” (Dziewiecka 2008:11).

The Khwebe Hills have their own micro-climate that enables different trees and plants

to grow. This includes Baobabs (adansonia digitata), Mórula (sclerocarya birred) and

2

motsentsela (berchemia discolor) trees. The Shrubs of all kinds of the grewia species

such as mogwana, mokgompatha moretlwa (wild berries), moretologa and

motsontsonyana (Mulberry) - grow there, as do herbs of medical value and wheat type

grass (Dziewiecka 2008: 11-12).

1.2.2 Social dynamics

The hills have hosted people of different ethnicity and diverse economies in last

couple of centuries. The oral history of the site will be discussed in more details in the

literature chapter; however, it is indicates that a type of Bantu-speaking agro-

pastoralists migrated to the Khwebe Hills (Tlou 1980: 38). These new immigrants

were referred to as BaTawana, they dominated and colonised the autochthonous

people, which included the Basarwa and the Bakgalagadi, the latter arrived 800 years

Figure 1.1: A map illustrating Ngamiland, the Khwebe hills where the site is located

and Lake Ngami

3

ago (Tlou 1980: 8). The oral history also narrates that this domination marginalized

the indigenous inhabitants; as such they were left in subjugation.

1.2.3 Earlier research

Previous research at the Khwebe Hills was done in 2008, 2009 and 2010. The 2008

excavation was at the missionary site KWH1, where the British missionary had their

station set up. The excavations in 2009 and 2010 was at site KWH4, a stone walled

site that dates to the 19th

century. This site is the first Tswana town in the region and

associated to the BaTawana who arrived in Ngamiland in the 19th

century from the

south eastern region of Botswana.

There seems to be a huge gap in the archaeological literature addressing questions on

interaction during this period, particularly in southern Africa. Earlier studies by Hall

(2002) and Thorp (2000) have indicated that the Bantu-speaking agriculturalists have

been interacting with the mobile hunter-gatherer bands and pastoral societies.

However, questions have been raised on whether this interaction led to colonisation

and marginalization of the autochthonous people, or if the interaction was more of a

symbiotic relationship. These inquiries have contributed to the Kalahari debate, which

will be discussed in broader details in the next chapter.

The debate questions the role of hunter-gatherers, how they were incorporated and

how interacted with food producing societies (Barnard 2006). Previous studies

(Bollong 1993) and current studies (Diskin & Ashley: in prep) have argued that

ceramics can be used to address questions on interaction. However, there is a gap

within the literature particularly during the 19th

century period. This gap has surfaced

questions on technology, style and typology.

4

1.3 AIMS

The project will address questions on interaction as well as culture contact, using the

19th

century ceramic. The project also aims at creating knowledge about on interaction

in southern Africa between people of distinct ethnicities, as well as different

economies. The archaeological evidence from this site will be used and compared to

the oral history; this is to determine whether or not the archaeological evidence

supports the oral history of the site. According to Huffman (1994: 5-6) there is a gap

in the literature for pastoralists ceramics particularly the historic pottery. As such, this

research project will present a new typology from this 19th

century site, thus trying to

bridge this gap in the archaeological sequence.

1.4 SIGNIFICANCE

Interaction studies are growing in southern Africa, as such this research project will

add on existing knowledge about interaction and culture contact. The typology to be

presented in chapter 4; will also add on existing knowledge on the pastoral ceramics,

hunter-gatherers. As well as explore the possible variations within the 19th

century

Tswana ceramic typology.

1.5 RESEARCH QUESTIONS

The proposed research questions are based on previous research by Diskin and Ashley

(in prep), Sadr (1999) and Sadr (2008). A new ceramic typology will be created for

this site, this typology will be put into the fabric that were categorised by Diskin &

Ashley (in prep). This will serve the purpose of answering the following questions:

Can ceramics illustrate the interaction between hunter-gatherers, herders and

incoming agriculturalists?

5

Was the initial interaction between these people fluid or were the

autochthonous people colonisation?

Are there any vessel variations between these three fabrics?

What variations of vessels forms exist within each fabric?

Does the typology of KWH4 link up with any existing typologies?

1.6 THESIS STRUCTURE:

Chapter 2: Literature - This chapter will give a detailed review of southern African

archaeology, particularly the archaeology of hunter-gatherers, pastoralists and

agriculturalists. This will be used to contextualise the oral history of the Khwebe hills

within the broader archaeology in the landscape and beyond.

Chapter 3: Theory chapter - This chapter will give a broader theoretical review on

interaction studies within archaeology. In addition, two paradigms (colonial and post-

colonial paradigms) will be used to understand the concepts of frontiers and

boundaries.

Chapter 4: Methodology chapter - This chapter will give a detailed description and

discussion of the different methods used to create the typology of KWH4. The chapter

will also present the ceramic typology of site KWH4 and use existing literature and

typologies to contextualise KWH4 ceramic typology

Chapter 5: Data and results – This chapter will present the data and results using

graph, illustrations, and tables.

Chapter 6: Interpretation chapter - This chapter will use the data and results obtained

from the analysis; which were presented in the previous chapter (chapter 5) to

6

understand how this site fits into the broader archaeology. As well as answering the

research questions presented above.

Chapter 7: Conclusion – This chapter will give a summary of the project and give

future plans where this project.

7

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE CHAPTER

2.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter will introduce the site of KWH4 in the Khwebe Hills in details. It will

explore the oral history, with the emphasis on the interaction between hunter-

gatherers, pastoralists and farming communities that occurred in the 19th

century.

Furthermore, the broader literature will be consulted with the purpose of

contextualising the archaeology of Khwebe Hills within southern African

archaeology. As part of the literature chapter, the Kalahari debate will be will be

discussed; this will serve the purpose of elucidating the importance of this project

(site) within the broader archaeological theories on interaction.

2.2 SITE

2.2.1 Khwebe hills

The site of KWH4 is situated in the Khwebe Hills of Ngamiland (Tlou 1980: 1). The

area of Ngamiland is 570,000 km2 in size and stretches from the Lake Ngami shores

to the Kuke territory (Dziewiecka 2008: 11).

The Hills lie approximately 50 km on the

south-west periphery of the modern town of

Maun, and in the frontier area between the

Kalahari Desert and the Okavango Delta

region (Ashley 2009:37), (see figure 2.1). The

site of KWH4 stretches approximately 1

kilometre across the hillside (Ashley 2009:

37). Figure 2.1: A map illustrating where the site

located (Ashley 2009: 36).

8

2.3 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

2.3.1 Basarwa and Bakgalagadi

According to Dziewiecka (2008: 12), the original community of the Khwebe Hills had

no borders, rulers, or chieftaincies during the 17th century and 18th century. At that

time the hills were inhabited by a hunter-gatherer community who called themselves

Khwe, which means people in Nharo (Dziewiecka 2008: 12). According to

Dziewiecka (2008:12) this is where the name of the hills derives from. The

archaeological evidence indicates that the hunter-gatherer community have occupied

this area for approximately 10000 years (Tlou 1980: 12). This community can be

further divided into two groups; those that lived by the sand belts and exploited the

riverine mammals; they were referred to as “Banoka”, the river people (Tlou 1980:8).

The other hunter-gatherer group were known as the Basarwa; they inhabited the arid

areas and maintained subsistence through hunting wild game and gathering wild

berries (Tlou 1980:8). The hunter-gatherer bands co-existed with another group (Tlou

1980: 12). This group arrived 800 years ago, they were known as Bakgalagadi, a

pastoral community whose origin is unclear. The Oral history narrates that the

ambiguous origin is a result of internal rivals that cause the group to split into

multiple, and culturally distinct communities, which are spread across Botswana

today (Chambanne & Monaka 2008: 133-135).

Kuper (1970: 45) also discusses this unclear origin, as his research indicates that the

Ngaloga, Saga and the Kgwatlheng are classified and identified as Bakgalagadi, who

all have different origins. Earlier linguistic investigations by Okihiro (cited in Mautle

1986: 20) suggested that the Bakgalagadi were a fragment of Barolong, a Tswana

speaking group. However, this has been discredited by current on-going linguistic

9

research across the Botswana country (Chambanne & Monaka 2008: 133-135; Tlou &

Campbell 1997:33). Furthermore, this new evidence suggests that Sekgalagadi, the

language, is a separate member of Sotho-Tswana language group (Westphal 1944

cited in Mautle 1986: 20).

Nevertheless, the Bakgalagadi origins cannot be traced clearly; however, they resided

close to permanent waterholes in the Khwebe Hills (Tlou 1980: 8). These waterholes

gave them the opportunity to herd small stocks of goats and sheep, and at times cattle

(Tlou 1980: 8). They also enabled them to cultivate land at a small-scale growing

beans, melons and sorghum (Mautle 1986: 24).

2.3.2 Agro-pastoralists

By the end of the 18th

century and the beginning of the 19th

century there seems to be

an inflow of Bantu-speaking agro-pastoralists in Ngamiland. The first groups to arrive

are the Hambukushu and Bayei, both agro-pastoralists; they settled and fished

alongside the Banoka (Tlou 1980: 12). According to Potten (1976: 63) the Bayei and

Hambukushu people moved gradually towards the Okavango Delta from south-west

Zambia, through the Caprivi Strip, Kwando and Linyanti Rivers. With their arrival,

the Bayei introduced more advanced fishing and hunting methods, as well as the

practice of diverse agriculture to the region. While the Hambukushu were equipped

with iron ornaments, as such they introduced the production and usage of the iron

implements to the region (Potten 1976: 63).

During this period another agro-pastoralist group that this research project is

particularly interested in moved to the hills. They are BaTawana, a Setswana speaking

group that arrived in Ngamiland in 1795 (Wilmsen 2003: 333), and settled at the

Khwebe Hills 1805 (Tlou 1980: 38-42). The origin of their name is clear, as most

10

Tswana-speaking groups are named after their leaders. The BaTawana group name

derives from their leader Kgosi Tawana (small lion).

According to the oral tradition they are an offshoot of the BaNgwato from Shoshong

in south eastern region of Botswana (Potten 1976: 63). They migrated to the hills after

the BaNgwato state was torn apart by a succession dispute (Tlou 1980:38). This

disagreement resulted from Kgosi Mathiba marriages; he married a Mokwena woman

from his maternal kin (Bakwena) and who bore a son called Tawana (Tlou 1980: 38).

The BaNgwato had strong customs, and one of them was that Tawana could not

inherit the throne because of his maternal ancestry. Even with these strong customs,

Kgosi Mathiba chose Tawana instead of KgamaІ, who was the son of a MoNgwato

Mohumagadi (the king’s great wife). This created a chaos in the throne and led to

civil war. As such, Kgosi Mathibe turned to the Bakwena (his maternal kin) who

supported Tawana. The Bakwena suggested that Tawana flee to the Khwebe Hills, as

they claimed that the hills were their hunting grounds (Tlou 1980: 38-45).

2.4 SOCIAL INTERACTION

2.4.1 The site

The oral histories and the origins of all the inhabitants, both indigenous and non-

indigenous are interesting. They highlight that the Khwebe Hills hosted diverse

inhabitants that regularly interacted with each other. The oral history speaks of social

interaction between these groups, particularly in commodity exchange (Tlou 1980:

28). These include pelts, karosses and ostrich egg-shell beads, fish and grain.

However, Tlou (1980: 28) discusses how the intangible services were also exchanged.

This includes knowledge on herbs and medicinal skills; these were exchanged from

hunter-gatherers to agro-pastoralists, as they were prominent in curing snake bites,

11

and were knowledgeable about divining (Tlou 1980: 28). Other social interaction

included symbiotic clientship between the Basarwa hunter-gatherers and Bakgalagadi

pastoralists. The hunter-gatherers would herd the Bakgalagadi’s livestock, and at

times hunted for them in return of grain and milk (Tlou 1980: 28).

However, Dziewiecka (2008: 12) describes that the arrival of the BaTawana was

invasive; it shifted the symbiotic clientship relationship, thus causing havoc within the

social structure of the hills (Tlou 1980: 39). Bowen (cited in Mautle 1986: 24) notes

that the BaTawana domination resulted in Bakgalagadi subjugation. This prohibited

Bakgalagadi from owning property or keeping any proportion of their surplus produce

(Mautle 1986: 24). According to the historical accounts, whenever the Batswana

people (this includes the BaTawana and other Tswana speaking groups) interacted

with Basarwa or Bakgalagadi, it would be invasive (Mautle 1986: 22). This is visible

in the oral history that Tlou (1980) narrates; a Mosarwa or Mokgalagadi was turned

into a lekgobe (slave) by a Motswana (Mautle 1986: 24). This had led Dziewiecka

(2008: 12) argue that the BaTawana invaded the Khwebe Hills and colonised the

autochthonous people, thus imposing their way of life and disturbing the indigenous

lifestyle as well as creating long term subjugation.

2.5 BROADER ARCHAEOLOGY

The oral history demonstrates an interesting narration on the interaction between the

indigenous people and the immigrants. It points out that the interaction was more of a

colonisations scenario rather than culture contact. For the purpose of contextualising

the site and its archaeology, the broader archaeological literature is presented below.

This serves the purpose of identifying and understanding the archaeological signature

12

of hunter-gatherers, pastoralists and Tswana agro-pastoralists and the type of

interaction reported elsewhere.

2.5.1 Hunter-gatherers

Previous anthropological and archaeological studies were aimed at exploring the

identity of hunter-gatherers; their socio-economic behaviour, as well as their reaction

to external contact settings (Kent 1992: 10). Schrire (1992: 62) argues that

archaeologist tend to expect hunter-gatherers to show a clear cultural package, that is

documented in the archaeological record. This cultural package should include small

ostrich eggshell beads, a reasonably high percentage of microlithic tools, low density

of ceramics (if any) and a prevalence of hunting wild animals, mainly the small

bovid(s) (Schrire 1992: 62).

This is quite a clear picture of what is expected from hunter-gatherer sites, however, it

is not as simple as it seems and the preservation in southern Africa is always

problematic. Bollong & Sampson (1997: 269) have argued that the 19th

century

ethnographic studies indicate that the southern African hunter-gatherers learnt making

pottery from their contact with Khoekhoe herders. This cultural package approach

seem to homogenise the hunter-gatherers in southern Africa, thus it ignores and

eliminates their experience throughout time and space.

2.5.2 Pastoralists

Early evidence of a pastoral economy dates to 2000 years ago in southern Africa

(Sadr 2003: 195). This early archaeological evidence is from the Bambata cave in

Zimbabwe (Bousman 1998: 135), and it indicates that these migrating pastoralists

were moving into southern Africa with domesticated Orvis-Capris (sheep and goat)

13

from the east Africa region (Reid et al 1998: 81). These earlier pastoralists who were

moving into southern Africa are referred to as proto-Khoe (Ehret 2008: 7-9). Thus, the

term Khoekhoe is used in southern Africa to refer to the pastoralists during the

historic periods of 18th

and 19th

century (Fauvelle-Aymar 2008: 1-2).

Schrire (1992: 63) argues that the Khoekhoe herders have a high density of ceramics

when compared to San hunter gatherers. With that said, the Khoekhoe pastoralist’s

ceramics have diagnostic features such as the bagged shape, spouts, as well as lugs

(Rudner 1979: 11). Earlier studies by Schapera 1933 (cited in Rudner 1979: 8)

indicate that the spouts and lugs were sometimes rubbed with red ochre. According to

Rudner (1979: 8-10), it is these diagnostic features that make the Khoekhoe

pastoralist’s ceramics dissimilar to those produced and used by San hunter-gatherers.

However, Fauvelle-Aymar (2008:77-78) argues that some archaeologists understand

the 19th

Khoekhoe pastoralists as a type of San hunter-gatherer with sheep, ceramic

and at times with cattle, thus, making their archaeological signature somehow similar

to those of hunter-gatherer. This includes artefacts such as large ostrich eggshell

beads, few re-touched stone tools and both domesticated and undomesticated faunal

remains (Schrire 1992: 62-62).

2.5.3 Ethnicity debate

Although the archaeological signature of both Khoekhoe pastoralists and San hunter-

gatherer has been untangled above, their ethnicity is still under debate. The Cape

travellers in the 18th

century identified San hunter-gatherer as Khoekhoe herder

without livestock (Marks 1972: 57). These early writers have argued that the

distinction between San hunter-gatherer and Khoekhoe pastoralist was minimal: “a

San with stock was a Khoekhoe and vice versa” (Marks 1972: 57). This has prompted

14

ethnographic studies to argue that Khoekhoe and San are related people (Barnard

2008:61). Historical investigations have also indicated that San hunter-gatherers

sometimes kept stock, and sometimes lost it, their subsistence depended on changing

historical and environmental conditions (Schrire 1980:10).

According to Barnard (2008: 61-62) the Khoekhoe and San people have unstable

ethnicities; they keep shifting back and forth with the acquisition and loss of livestock

and other material cultures. These fluid identities and unstable ethnicities have led to

the collective usage of the term Khoisan as a reference to both these groups. However,

Bollong (1993: 44-45) has argued that archaeologically we can distinguish Khoekhoe

herder ceramics from those made by hunter-gatherer societies. The Khoekhoe

pastoralist’s ceramics have tampering agent such as sand and fine mineral, while the

hunter-gatherer ceramics have been tempered with organic material such as fibre and

bone as tempering agents (Bollong 1993: 44-45).

2.5.5 Tswana farmers

For the past couple of decades anthropologists and ethnographers have been interested

in different Bantu-speaking communities in southern Africa. One of these groups

includes the Sotho-Tswana groups; this group is made up of communities that have

similar language. This section below presents the broader literature on the

archaeology of the western Sotho-Tswana people, as well as their history.

According to Campbell and Tlou 1984 (cited in van Waarden 1998: 147) the oral

history narrates that the Tswana speaking people in Botswana arrived in two groups;

which is the Bakgalagadi and the Baphofu. van Waarden (1998: 147) narrates that

prior to AD 1400 the Batswana people lived between the upper Limpopo River,

Notwane River, the Molopo and the Vaal River. Studies by Mason 1983 (cited in

15

Boeyens 2003:64) indicate that the Later Iron Age Tswana farmers originate locally in

the South African interior, during the Early Iron Age period. With such evidence van

Waarden (1998: 147) states that around AD 1450 the Bakgalagadi moved across the

Notwane River and settled in Dithejwane Hills west of Molepolole. Subsequently the

Bakwena people in Botswana split from Baphofu during 16th

century, however, the

reason for the split cannot be clearly established (van Warden 1998: 147). The

Bakwena are among the oldest Sotho-Tswana speaking people in southern Africa, and

are spread across certain parts of South Africa and Botswana (Thebe 1996:1).

The 16th

century split within the Baphofu people was not a major political change

compared the one that occurred in the 19th

century. According to the oral history and

the archaeological evidence, it is during the 19th

century that the Tswana polities

underwent social and political transformation (Reid at al 1997: 373). They began to

expand their territories, thus consolidating small neighbouring communities into their

chiefdoms (Reid et al 1997: 373-374). This is evident in megasites such as

Molokwane in north-west province of South Africa (Hall 2012: 301-303) and

Dithejwane Hills in the eastern region of Botswana (Van Waarden 1998: 150). These

archaeological sites have large dry stone wall structures that indicate expansion of

power and political control over territories.

Huffman (2000: 6-9) has used ceramic at these sites and their surrounding territories

to give evidence for the political control around these sites. The Sotho-Tswana

ceramics style has been labelled as Moloko (Huffman 2000: 6-9); Hall (1998: 247)

has also identified variations within Moloko in terms of style, which he also argues as

evidence the political transformation. The oral history of the Khwebe Hills also

narrates the same pattern of the expansion of Tswana polities during the 19th

century.

According to Tlou (1980: 30) the BaTawana were the first people to establish a

16

centralised state in the Khwebe Hills. They incorporated the autochthonous

inhabitants of the region into their state, thus spreading the Tawana cultures and

institutions all across the whole region (Tlou 1980: 30).

2.6 KALAHARI DEBATE

The previous section has discussed the research on the hunter-gatherers, pastoralists

and the Tswana farming community in southern Africa. Furthermore, the first part of

this chapter has discussed that some archaeologists seem to understand hunter-

gatherers as isolated homogenised people (Schrire 1992: 62). This idea of hunter-

gatherers as isolated people has been discussed in the Kalahari debated by both

anthropologists and archaeologists.

The Kalahari debate discusses the role of hunter-gatherers and their relationship with

the outside world (Barnard 1992: 298). This discussion takes place between the

traditional anthropologists (Lee and Solway 1990) and revisionist (Wilmsen and

Denbow 1990). The traditionalist argue that the San Bushmen or the Basarwa are

exponents of hunting and gathering culture and remained isolated until recent times

(Barnard 2006: 2). This isolation restricted these foraging communities from

practicing pastoralism, cultivating land, trading with food producing societies and also

constrained them from having food storage facilities (Headland et al 1989:43).

The revisionist’s regarded southern African hunter-gatherers as an underclass

(Barnard 2006: 2). Denbow and Wilmsen (1986 cited in Sadr 1999:105) have

suggested that all the Kalahari people in the previous two millennia have been linked

to wider social and economic networks; this includes herding and the cultivation of

land. These relations left hunter-gatherer community captured in the political and

economic hierarchy of the Bantu-speaking agro-pastoralists (Sadr 1999: 105). The

17

hunter-gatherers were in contact with the outside world, and worked as herdsmen, for

possibly 150 years (Smith 2001: 16). Their contact was through the political and

social hierarchy, thus leading them into the Mafisa system (Smith 1998: 207). This

system is what Mautle (1986: 24) highlights where Bakgalagadi pastoralists being

subjects that produce food for the Batswana.

The debate also asks questions on whether or not certain features of prehistoric

hunter-gatherers way of life could have survived into the twentieth century (Grauer

2007: 1). Archaeological research based on the Kalahari debate has aimed at

exploring the relation between hunter-gatherer communities and Bantu-speaking agro-

pastoralists (Sadr 1999: 105). This includes research done by Hall (2002) in the

Moloko type settlements in the northwest province, as well as smith’s (1998)

research.

What is interesting about Hall’s (2002) and Smith’s (1998) researches is that is seems

to follow the revisionists ideology of marginalised hunter-gatherer communities.

Smith (1998: 207) argues that the Hunter-gatherers that interacted with Bantu-

speaking agro-pastoralists were trapped in a social and political hierarchy. These

social and political hierarchies include system such as mafisa (see above).

2.7 CONCLUSION

This chapter has illustrated that the oral history narrates the interaction between

hunter-gatherers, pastoralists and farming communities to be an invasive colonisation.

However, the archaeological evidence in southern Africa describes both colonisation,

as well as a more fluid interaction between people of different ethnicity and distinct

economies. This has broadened avenues to further look at interaction from a

18

theoretical perspective. In the next coming chapter, the project will look at how the

theoretical conception of fluidity in interaction is understood.

19

Chapter 3: Theory chapter

3.1 INTRODUCTION

In the last several decades the archaeology discipline has witnessed the rebirth of

theoretical interpretation of intersocietal interaction (Schortman & Urban 2010: 3).

This has shaped the conceptualisation of frontiers, boundaries, colonisation and

culture contact (Lightfoot & Martinez 1995: 471). These terms on their own seem to

create debates within the archaeological discipline. As such, the aim of this chapter is

to define these concepts, to understand how the colonial theory and post-colonial

approaches are applied to interaction studies.

3.2 TRADITIONAL DEFINITIONS

The word frontier has been defined by different social science scholars. According to

Humphrey (1988: 3) frontiers can be described as regions where regular interaction

takes place between two or multiple culturally distinct communities. During this

interaction, one of the communities will attempt to take control over the others

(Humphrey 1988: 3). This usually happens when an occupied territory expands over

its horizons, thus increasing the settlement density and competition (Hudson 1969:

365). The expansion into these territories leads to colonization; whereby the new

people invade a new area, extending its habitation beyond the borders of their

environment (Hudson 1969: 366-367). This process produces consistency in

settlement pattern where the indigenous people remain the minority in that space

(Hudson 1969: 365).

However, according to Silliman (2005: 55-59) archaeological research on interaction

seem to be solely understood as colonisation. It is conceptualised that frontiers serve

20

as territory makers; they define colonial territories from the remote hinterlands of

indigenous people (also see Lightfoot & Martinez 1995: 471-472). The English

dictionary defines frontiers as a synonym of a borderline, which is explained as an

ambiguous in-between state. These frontier states are situated literally on the

separating line between two countries (Kopytoff 1987: 9).

In early European anthropology reports, frontiers were defined as territories controlled

by a white man to eliminate and maintain a boundary between him and the

unoccupied land (Naum 2010: 101). While at the same time frontiers can be

understood as geographical barriers (Naum 2010: 101). These geographical barricades

also limit any social and political contact on outlying areas (Naum 2010: 101-102).

Brown and Gibson 1983 (cited in Rockman 2003: 14-15) argue that frontiers can

range from being totally infiltrate boundaries to strainer boundaries. They could also

be uninhabitable or restrict any movement from one area to the other (Rockman 2003:

14-15). Nevertheless, frontiers develop, change and dissolve over time (Rockman

2003: 14-15). Thus, they can develop to become isolated independent political units

(Naum 2010: 101-1-2). Once the frontiers are developed as isolated political entities,

they become visible in the landscape, subsequently asserting that they were

established to control, separate and demarcate territories (Naum 2010: 102-103).

3.3 COLONIAL AND POSTCOLONIAL THEORY

Archaeological studies have historically understood interaction using the colonial

paradigm (Naum 2012:101). This colonial framework suggests that interaction

between people of difference will create frontiers. Anthropologists who use this

theoretical framework claim that frontiers develop when colonial people or core

polities migrate into open air or sparsely developed lands that are close or far in

21

distance (Lightfoot & Martinez 1995: 472). These territories that are now frontiers

will become territorial markers, which demarcate boundaries of colonial expansion.

They will be maintained with the purpose of creating permanent segregation between

the new comers and indigenous inhabitants (Lightfoot and Martinez 1995: 472).

However, interaction is arguably more complex and multifaceted than what the

colonial approach presents. The complexity of interactions between people of distinct

ethnicity has been highlighted by the post-colonial theory (Gosden 2004: 18). This

theoretical framework derives from the decline of colonial structure (Gosden 2004:

18). It readdressed interaction studies and the ideas on identity transformation; post-

colonial theory analyses how culture contact has affected the identity of both the

colonised and the coloniser (Young 2001: 342-357). It takes into account that

colonists can change the identity of the colonised, while at the same time the

colonised can also change the colonialists identity (Young 2001: 342-357). Bhabha

(1994:171) states that the post-colonial theory questions the beliefs that colonialism

instituted, and this is applicable in interaction studies in archaeology.

Lightfoot and Martinez (1995: 472) argue that the colonial paradigm dismisses the

idea of frontiers being fluid. As such post-colonial theory in archaeology suggests that

frontiers should be reconceptualised as regions where social networks are entered and

explored by people of different ethnicity (Lightfoot & Martinez 1995: 472). However,

van Dommelen (2005: 112) argues that post-colonial theory is still western way of

thinking about the presentation of colonial structures and situations. Thus, post-

colonial theory in archaeology still views culture contact between the different people

as colonisation. Where one community takes control over the other, and identities of

both will be transformed.

22

3.4 APPLICATION IN ARCHAEOLOGICAL INTERACTION STUDIES

The colonial theory has suggests the concept of frontiers as impermeable cultural

barriers that restrict social interaction, filter information, and limit the movement of

material culture between people that are on opposite sides of the frontier (Lightfood &

Martinez 1995: 473). However, according to Naum (2010: 102) post-colonial theory

in archaeology proposes the idea that frontiers remained fluid zones, where tensions,

battles and friendly relations take place.

Thus, Frontiers emerge as fragmented landscapes that are fluid social and cultural

regions (Naum 2010: 102). The argument brought forward by post-colonial

archaeology is that we should discontinue this conception of understanding frontiers

as physical cultural boundaries that constrain intercultural relationships (Schortman &

Urban 1992: 427). Frontiers can act as geographical markers; however, they should be

seen as zones that permit interaction between people from different homelands

(Schortman & Urban 1992: 10-11).

Schortman & Urban (1992: 427) have argued that when polities expand beyond their

territories the people who lie on the other side of the periphery or frontier are not

necessarily passive like the colonial theorists make them to be. They are rather active

participants in interregional processes of cultural exchange and culture transformation

(Schortman & Urban 1992: 427).

3.5 MATERIAL CULTURES AS BOUNDARY

Thomas (1999: 182) has argued that material culture and technologies have been used

as indicator of culture transformation, particularly in the colonisation phase.

Archaeologists working around the world have been interested in studying social

23

boundaries through the distributional of material culture (Stark et al at 2000: 269).

Earlier anthropological studies have highlighted external forces influencing the

change, while neglecting the importance of internal social, political, and economic

processes (Stein 2002: 93). Stein (2002: 93-94) has argued that power and political

control have been misinterpreted as one-way flow from complex polities to less

developed societies (Stein 2002: 93-94).

In southern Africa it has been observed that when hunter-gatherer communities

interact with Bantu-speaking agriculturalists the material culture of these hunter-

gatherer bands transform (Thorp 2010: 113). Sadr (2002: 44) argues that hunter-

gatherer sites close to farming community settlements seem to have high amount of

farmer’s artefacts. However, this ideology of understanding political control as one-

way situation is not applicable in southern Africa. As Sadr (2002:44) has argued that

sites of the farming communities that are close to hunter-gatherer camps also tend

have hunter-gatherer material culture.

3.5 SOUTHERN AFRICAN ARCHAEOLOGY

Until recently, southern African archaeologists have distinguished Later Stone Age

(LSA) Early Iron Age (EIA) sites and people according to their material culture. This

differentiating ordered phases, industries and complexes into successive sequences

(Phillipson 2005: 4). Thus, it led to the creation artificial compartments that continue

both in time and in space, (Phillipson 2005: 4), consequently creating impermeable

boundaries between the LSA and EIA. However, Alexander (1984: 12) argues that the

EIA farmers in Southern Africa had moving frontiers that permit them to explore and

exploit hunter-gatherers inhabitants and economy. These frontiers were static; they

24

developed over a long term relation between these farmers and the hunter-gatherers

(Alexander 1984:13).

3.5.2 Proposed approach

The southern African archaeology does not neglect the idea of colonisation; however

it also takes note of a symbiotic culture contact. Frontiers can be understood as

abstract area where people of different ethnicity and economies meet. This approach

takes into account that interaction influences changes in frontiers, in a way that it

exposes the cultural process, such as the maintenance or the integration of alternative

culture (Emberling 1997: 316). Social boundaries can be fluid allowing a variety of

interactions, which are often overlapping, such as exchange, competition,

colonization, and conquest.).

Sadr (2008: 104) for example, argues that the frontiers between Later Stone Age and

Early Iron Age people and their economies were more fluid and permeable. These

permeable boundaries allowed people to incorporate different economies and material

culture into their own, and move in and out of different economies to sustain their

diets during dry seasons or voluntarily. As such, it is suggested that the site of KWH4

is a frontier between the BaTawana, the Basarwa and the Bakgalagadi. This site

indicates the birth of a Tawana polity and its expansion; however, I argue that the hills

experienced culture contact rather than colonisation. The autochthonous people were

not passive recipients of the Tawana culture and institutions; rather they were active

donor in the cultural transformation of the Tawana polity.

25

3.6 CONCLUSION

Frontiers should not been seen as geographical boundaries that keep people of

different cultures separate. The post-colonial theory seems to understand that people

can interact where by changes will occur. These changes could be from the core polity

to its surroundings periphery and vice versa. However, the initial stages of interaction

should not be seen as colonisation where one group conquers the other. Early stages

of interaction should be understood as culture contact, where people can freely

exchange commodities and intangible material. Southern African archaeology should

re-address the early research interpretations on sites that hunter-gatherers and farmers

interacted. Archaeologists who focus on interaction studies should be aware of the

difference between culture contact and its changes, compared to colonialism and its

changes.

26

CHAPTER 4: METHODOLOGY CHAPTER

4.1 INTRODUCTION

The site of KHW4 is located on the foothill of one of the Khwebe Hills in Ngamiland

(Ashley 2009: 37). It is a stone wall site associated with the BaTawana polity during

the 19th

century. The excavations were conducted over three seasons; these were in

2008, 2009 and 2010. A total number of nine features were excavated and all features

had multiple layers (contexts). Feature 297, which is a midden, yielded a large

proportion of the ceramics that was analysed for the dissertation. The aim of this

chapter is to discuss the methods used in the analysis of the ceramics from KWH4. In

addition a new typology will be presented; this will be compared with existing

ceramic typologies of the Tswana agro-pastoralists and Khoekhoe pastoralists in

southern Africa. This will assist to contextualise the archaeology of site KWH4 to the

broader southern African archaeology.

4.2 PREVIOUS RESEARCH

The initial research conducted in 2008 at the site of KWH4, was aimed at exploring

the impact of the BaTawana migration to the hills on the autochthonous hunter-

gatherer bands, as well as the pastoral community (Diskin & Ashley: in prep). This

was later followed by visual and analytical investigations. The visual analysis

indicated three fabrics and two distinct stylistic groups. This visual analysis was also

used collectively with the XRD (X-ray Diffraction) analysis. This analysis is a

spectroscope technique used to identify the crystalline material and the provenance of

raw material (Druc 2001: V). The analysis also identifies the arrangement pattern of

the atoms in the minerals (Druc 2001: V).

27

The XRD analysis was conducted on thirty four sherds and it established two

provenances. The XRD analysis also characterised the ceramics fabric in the

following, Fabric 1 clay mineralogy comprised of quartz and plagioclase along with

hydroxylapatite and bone (Diskin & Ashley in prep). The presence of such organic

temper was association with a nomadic hunter-gatherer community (Diskin & Ashley

in prep). Fabric 2 comprised of different quartz, plagioclase and k-feldspar along with

muscovite which sometimes dehydroxylted and this fabric was associated with

pastoralists. Fibre 3 comprised different quantities of quartz and albite and this fabric

is associated with the BaTawana (Diskin & Ashley: in prep).

The XRD analysis indicated that the provenance of raw material for Fabric 3 is totally

different to that of Fabric 1 and Fabric 2. As such, Diskin and Ashley (in prep)

research has created avenues that need to be explored in terms of understanding the

stylistic variability between and within these fabrics.

Figure 4.1: An image of site KWH4 and the stone walling

28

4.3 CURRENT INVESTIGATIONS

4.3.1 Methods

Current studies were conducted with the aim to create a new ceramic typology for the

Khwebe Hills. The ceramic sherds were first divided into diagnostics and non-

diagnostics. The diagnostics sherds with clear rims profiles were analysed and this

includes both decorated and undecorated sherds. The non-diagnostic sherds were all

body sherds, and these were analysed for the presence or the absence of surface

treatments, however, the analysis for the body sherds was kept to a minimal.

The rims sherds were firstly placed on a flat surface in order to verify the orientation

of the lip and vessel form. Once this was established, these rims were placed on a

printed rim chart, whereby an approximate diameter of the vessel mouth was

established.

Decorations were document on all the rim sherds; these included identifying

decorations on the lip, the interior of the lip, the rim, neck area, shoulder area, as well

as the body. Features such as spouts, lugs and perforations were also noted, in

addition to this, surface treatment such as burnish was also recorded. Each analysed

ceramic sherd was documented into an excel sheet database (See table 4.1).

4.4 TYPOLOGY

4.4.1 Vessel shapes

The collection has two main types of vessel shapes, bowls and jars. Within the bowl

shape category only the hemispherical bowl (HB) was noted. The jar category

produced two distinct sub-categories, the long neck jars and the short neck shape jars,

and these vary both in size and neck orientation. Jars that fall within the short neck

29

jars category include the Short Neck Recurved (SNR), Pronounced Short Neck

Recurved (PSNR), Everted Short Neck Recurved (ESNR), and Short Everted

Pronounced Neck (SEPN) (see figure 4.1).

Tab

le 4

.1:

an i

llust

rati

on o

f w

hat

the

KW

H4 c

eram

ic d

atab

ase

looks

like.

Note

the

dif

fere

nt

attr

ibu

tes

that

wer

e re

cord

ed f

or

each

sher

d

30

While the long necked jars category has five variations, this includes the Everted

Pronounced neck (EPN), the Straight Pronounced Neck (SPN), the Everted Recurved

Neck (ERN), Straight Recurved Neck (SRN), as well as Collared Incurved Neck

(CN). See figure 4.2 for the rim profiles of the Long Necked vessels.

Short Necked

Jars

Short Neck

Recurved

(SNR)

Pronounced

Short Neck

Recurved

(PSNR)

Everted Short

Neck Recurved

(ESNR)

Short Everted

Pronounced

Neck (SEPN)

Profiles

Long

Necked

Jars

Everted

Pronounced

Neck (EPN)

Straight

Recurved

Neck (SRN)

Everted

Recurved

Neck

(ERN)

Straight

Recurved

Neck

(SRN)

Collared

Incurved

Neck (CN)

Profiles

Figure 4.1: Illustration of rim profiles of Short Necked

Jars rim profiles

Figure 4.2: Illustrations the rim profiles of the Long Necked Jars

31

4.4.2 Lips

The analysis indicated that within the collection we have five generic types of lip

formations (see table 4.4). It must be noted that there are variants within the lip form,

there is internally bevelled and externally bevelled. Other variations of the lip forms

include the square rounded that is over-hanging, as well as a round over-hanging lip.

Rounded

Square

Bevelled

Square

rounded

Overhanging

4.4.3 Decorations

All sherds were analysed for any surface treatment this includes the diagnostic and

non-diagnostics. The decoration was order into three categories, which includes the

impression motifs, the incision motifs and the paint motif.

4.4.3.1 Impression motif

Punctates Round Punctates Punctate with

incision

Punctate with

redslip (band)

Punctate with

motif

Table 4.4: Lip forms from the KWH4 collection

Table 4.5: A record of the all the different impressed motifs within the KWH4 collection.

32

4.4.3.2 Incision motif

4.4.3.3 Paint motifs

The decorations have three groups (techniques) of decorations. The first group is the

impressed decorations; this group includes punctates (that vary from single band to

double band), the round punctates that also come in a variation of single to double

band. Other types of impression decorations include punctate with slip, this includes

either red band or black band of slip. This group also has decorations such as punctate

with incision, as well as punctate with motif (see table 4.5).

The incision category illustrate single band and double bands are used as decorations.

Grooves are also applied as decoration motif and these also vary from single grooves

to double grooves. Other types of decorations include incision or grooves with

punctates, as well as incised comb (Table 4.6). The collection also indicates that paint

was also applied as decorations. These vary from red band or black band of slip, slip

Incisions Grooves Incisions/grooves

with punctate

Incised comb

Band of slip

(red/black)

Slip motif Diagonal bands of

slip (red/black)

Chevron Motif

Table 4.6: A record of the all the different incision motifs within KWH4 collection.

Table 4.7: A record of the different paint applied decorations within KWH4 collection.

33

motif, to diagonal bands of slip either red in colour or black, as well as chevron motif

(see table 4.7). This last category of paint decoration can be used with impressed

motifs or the incisions.

4.4.4 Lugs

The KWH collection also has lugs within it, and three types of lugs were recorded

include the square lug, the round lug and the elongated lug. The square and the round

lug indicate that they are perforated, either vertically or horizontally. While the

elongated lugs remain imperforated, however, they tend to have decorations as part of

their surface treatment (see table 4.8 and figure 4.2).

4.5 Archaeological evidence

Square lug Round lug Elongated lug

Table 4.8: A record of all three different lugs found within the KWH4 collection.

Figure 4.2: An illustration of a sherd with an elongated lug decorated in a

band of punctate, as well as incision.

34

4.5. Archaeological evidence

Pastoralist’s ceramics

The ceramic typology from KWH4 seems to connect with the work done by Sadr and

Sampson (1999). According to Rudner (1986: 13-20) the Khoekhoe pastoralists

ceramics have a distinct attribute, which is the amphoral in shape. Sadr and Sampson

(1999) have identified different wares from the Seacow collection.

Spouted Ware, Incised typed (SPINC)

According to Sadr and Sampson (1997: 6) the SPINC ware appear archaeologically

before AD 400 and this ware continues to AD 600. The SPINC vessels are

characterised by short neck with no lugs, however, spouts on the shoulder are present.

The neck shape varies from flared, vertical to convergent. The lip form is usually

bevelled with a slightly thickened mouth, which is approximately 100 mm in

diameter. The neck is decorated with horizontal incised lines that may be fine or

broad. The decorations may also extend from rim to the body, and these occur

together with short diagonal, herringbone, or cross dashes on the lip of the spout and

the mouth (Sadr and Sampson 1999: 6). (See figure 5.3).

Spouted Ware, Impression type (COMB Ware)

In the Western Cape region the SPINC was replaced by impression only motif after

AD 650 (Sadr & Sampson 1999: 6). The COMB ware retained the vessel forms as

those of SPINC; however, the decorations seem to be restricted on the lip of the

mouth and the spout. The decoration is made by impressing a notched implement,

which Sadr & Sampson (1999: 6) suggest that it is possibly a white mussel shell.

35

The Seacow collections also indicate that the vessel basses were at times decorated

with such a motif. The notches impressions vary from small notches to thick in size; it

is argued that these were possibly made by ostrich eggshell fragments (Sadr &

Sampson 1999: 6). This created a row of short comb-stamping and this was applied as

a single band. The comb-stamping was not applied on the spouts and the basses of the

vessels (Sadr & Sampson 1999: 6). The mouth radius of this ware can be divided into

two classes, a small class with radius less than 100 mm and a wide-mouth class that

has radius that 100 mm and more. This Ware illustrates that vertical necks were

preferred; however, the small mouthed vessels class have definitive bevelled lips.

While the wide mouth-vessels also had vertical necks with simple round lips (Sadr &

Sampson 1999: 6).

Lugged Ware, Undecorated Type (LUND)

The Archaeological record of south-western in the Western Cape Province indicates

that the LUND ware appears from AD 850 and lasts until Ad 1250. During the period

of AD850 the spouts ware disappears and it is replaced by an undecorated vessels

type, which has a long neck with variable rim orientations (Sadr & Sampson 1999: 7-

8). The mouth of the LUND vessels is wide, and it has a flat topped lip. This ware has

no presence of spouts; however, two horizontally pierced lugs occur on opposite sides

of the shoulder area (Sadr & Sampson 1999: 8).

Lugged Ware, Incised Type (LINC)

The Lugged Incised type vessels appear in the archaeological record AD 1250,

particularly in the Western Cape Province. This ware has the same lugs and tall necks

as the LUND ware. However, the lips are more thickened with flat lips occurring

throughout this ware. The neck of ware is decorated with horizontal incisions, which

36

are often zoned on intersection where the neck and the shoulder meet. These

horizontal incisions at times extend over the shoulder to the body. Sadr & Sampson

(199: 8) state that the seven sherds from the Seacow collection had a combination of

both horizontal incisions as well as punctates. A small percentage of the LINC ware

showed that diagonal lines on the shoulder area and the body are present (Sadr &

Sampson 1999: 8).

Untyped Body Sherds with Punctates

This Category includes non-diagnostic body sherds that are decorated with a single

band of punctate impression.

Contextualisation

There seems to be a huge gap in the literature of the Khoekhoe pastoralist’s ceramics,

particularly the 19th

century typology. There is no sufficient information and evidence

Figure 4.3: An illustration of the amphorae shapes and the different Khoekhoe wares

from Seacow in the Western Cape Province, South Africa (Sadr & Sampson 1999: 8)

37

that indicates the possible dates where the LINC ware discontinues in the

archaeological record. Nevertheless, the typology presented by Sadr & Sampson

(1999) cannot be fully applied to the Khwebe Hills, as there are dissimilarities in both

time and space.

The KWH4 collection is not similar to the SPINC, as no spouts were recorded within

this collection. The Spouted Ware, Impression type (COMB Ware) is also absent

within this collection. However, the collections closely shows pattern with the two

categories that Sadr & Sampson (1997: 8) have identified, which are the Lugged

Ware, Undecorated Type (LUND), the Lugged Ware, Incision Type (LINC). The non-

diagnostic body sherds also indicate Untyped Body Sherds with Punctates, which

Sadr and Sampson (1999: 8) have identified within the Seacow ceramic collection.

The archaeological research by Huffman (1994) from the same region as the Khwebe

Hills indicates a clear pattern than the Seacow typology. This site of Toteng yielded

62 ceramic sherds that are associated to the Khoekhoe pastoralists. These vessels were

short neck jars that had red-buff chevron; Huffman (1994: 4) has associated this to

historical herders. The vessels also indicated that they were bagged shaped with

pierced lugs. They had thickened jar rims that were decorated with crosshatching

(Huffman 1994: 4), (see figure 4.4 and 4.5)

Figure 4.4: An illustration of the plain bowl with perforations on the

surface (Huffman 1994).

38

The ceramic vessels that date to the historical periods seem to have short straight

necks with flat lips. Huffman (1994: 4) argues that lugs are possibly part of these

vessels; the decorations vary from punctates, red bands, or red chevron motifs and

small applique lumps on shoulders. This ceramic typology from Toteng indicates the

same pattern as the Khwebe Hills collection. The Khwebe Hills collection has a

variation of long neck and short neck, perforated lugs are present, and decorations

such as punctates, chevron motif and bands of red slip have been noted.

Tswana ceramics

The literature indicates that the earliest type of Tswana ceramic facies of Moloko is

Icon (Hanisch 1979; cited in Huffman 2007: 429). Huffman (2007: 420) points out

that this type of pottery occurs in regions such as Limpopo Province and Mpumalanga

Province in South Africa, as well as in Botswana. The Icon facies date from AD 1300

to AD 1500 and the archaeological evidence indicate that in some regions the Icon

incorporates earlier elements of Eiland (Huffman 2007: 9). The Icon facies features

jars and bowls, all these type of vessels have distinct multiple decorations themes, on

the rim and neck. These decorations come in a form of colouring as chevron and

lozenges motifs (Huffman 2002: 9).

Figure 4.5: An illustration of thickened jar rim with crosshatching as

decoration (Huffman 1994).

39

Within Moloko style pottery there are multiple facies, the first phase has been

discussed above. However, it the transition between phase A, phase B and phase C

that archaeologists have been interested in. From figure 4.6 it is noticeable that Icon

and Ntsuatsatsi have different origins, the later coming from KwaZulu-Natal and the

other from the northern regions of south Africa (Huffman 2002: 9). New evidence

provided by Huffman (2007: 186) illustrate new facies within the Moloko style, it also

does not take note on Ntsuatsatsi. The new sequence by Huffman (2007: 186)

indicates that Madikwe is replaced by Marataneng facies (See figure 4.7).

Figure 4.6: An illustration of the different facies within Moloko Branch (Huffman

2002: 7)

40

According to Mason (1986: 723) the Tswana ceramic underwent three transitions

(Hall 1998:249).The first phase and second phase ceramics are highly decorated and

more elaborate than the third phase (Mason 1986: 723-724). Hall (1998: 249) used the

multivariate system that Huffman 1980 (cited in Hall 1998: 249) proposed to re-

analyse the Tswana ceramic typology. This system incorporates the analysis of the

vessels shapes, the decorations and the position where the decorations lie. Hall (1998:

249-252) documented all the fifteen ceramic classes with their stylistic variation (see

table 4.9).

4.5.2 Decorations

According to Hall (1998: 248-250) phase A and Phase B are more elaborated, phase A

has class 1-13 and it has more hemispherical bowls that are elaborately decorated than

phase B and Phase C and on the constricted pot . Phase B consist of class 1, class 2,

class 3, class 5, class 6, class 9, class 9, class 11, class 14 and class 15 (see table 4.9)

Hall (1998: 249-253) points out that the Tswana ceramics post AD1700 are not highly

? Thabeng Buispoort Marateng

Letsibogo Olifantspoort Madikwe

Icon

Figure 4.7: An illustration of the sequence of Moloko type ceramic (Huffman

2007:186).

41

decorated, and he has identifies that only class 1, 2, 3, 6 and 13 feature in this third

phase (see figure 4.8).

Class

number

Description of the class Phase

1 Recurved jar with a single band immediately below the A, B, C

2 Recurved jar decorated in one zone of the neck A, B, C

3 Recurved jar with a band immediately below the rim and a band

below the neck

A, B, C

4 Recurved jar with a band immediately below the rim, a band on

the neck, and a band of decoration extending below the neck onto

the body

A

5 Recurved jar with multiple bands extending to the base of the

neck, a band or arcades on the shoulder, extending onto the body,

and isolated triangles low of the body

B

6 Open bowel with a single band of decorations immediately below

the rim

A, B, C

7 Open bowl with a band of decoration immediately below the rim

and a band on top of the rim

A

8 Open bowl with decoration in one zone of the body A

9 Open bowl with a band of decoration immediately below the rim

and a band on the body

A, B

10 Open bowl with decoration on the top of the rim, a band of

decorations immediately below the rim and a band on the body

A

11 Open bowl with multiple bands on the body with a band of

chevrons or arcades extending very low of the body

A, B

12 Open bowl with a wide band of decoration below the rim and

which is decorated in the same zone internally, or has alternating

bands of graphite and ochre all the way to the bottom

A

13 Constricted pot with a wide band of decoration below the rim A, C

14 Constricted pot with a band of decoration immediately below the

rim, followed by a wide of decoration down onto the upper body

B

15 Constricted with single band of decoration immediately below the

rim

B

Table 4.9: A detailed record and description of the different classes found in Moloko

ceramic phase (Hall 1998: 250)

42

4.6 Conclusion

The ceramic collection from KWH 4 seems to fit in with some aspects of t Sadr and

Sampson (1999) LUND ware from Seacow in the Western Cape Province, South

Africa. However, the Toteng ceramic typology shows more similarity in style,

particularly the Khoekhoe typology and the historic typology. The typology of the

Khwebe Hills also depicts that it falls into the third phase of the Tswana ceramic that

Hall (1998) has identified. Thus, the next chapter will explore the KWH4 collection

using analytical data to further understand and verify if the KWH4 collection falls

within these existing typologies.

1 2 3

6 13

Figure 4.8: Ceramic profiles and their decorations within the third phase of the Tswana

ceramic sequence (Hall 1998: 253)

43

Chapter 5: Result Chapter

5.1 INTRODUCTION

The previous chapter has discussed and illustrated that Diskin and Ashley (in prep)

have analysed the collection visually and through XRD analysis. This was to

distinguish the different fabrics within the KWH4 ceramic collection and their

provenance. Their analysis has been supplemented by a typology which is also

presented in the previous methodology chapter. This chapter aims at presenting the

data that illustrate the relationship between the three fabrics and the typology from

chapter 4.

5.2 ANALYSIS

The analysis was done on all 132 rim sherds from the KWH4 ceramic collection and

no representative sample was selected.

5.2.1 Fabrics

5.2.1.1 Fabric 1

According to Diskin and Ashley (in prep) fabric 1 is possibly associated with the

hunter-gatherer community in the Khwebe Hills. The mineralogy of this fabric

includes quartz, plagioclase as well as hydroxylapatite bone (see figure 5.1 and 5.2).

Bollong et al (1993: 44-45) have argued that organic temper such as bone is

associated with nomadic hunter-gatherer communities.

44

5.2.1.2 Fabric 2

The XRD analysis has indicated that F2 mineralogy consists of quartz, plagioclase

and K-feldspar along with muscovite and at times with dehydroxylted (Diskin &

Ashley: in prep). The visual analysis has indicated that F2 clay is not well sorted, thus

it has coarse inclusion and bristly feeling to it. F2 also indicates poor quality in its

manufacturing, particularly during firing process (see figure 5.3 and 5.4). Diskin &

Ashley (in prep) have associated this fabric to the pastoral society in the community

in the Khwebe Hills.

Figure 5.1: A picture of F1 with calcite

and bone temper and F3 attributes

Figure 5.2: An illustration of a sherd section

with clear bone temper within F1

Figure 5.3: An illustration of Fabric 2,

note how poorly fired the sherd is.

Figure 5.4: A picture illustrating the

coarse inclusion of Fabric 2.

45

5.2.1.3 Fabric 3

The visual and XRD analysis have indicated that F3 is dissimilar in mineralogy when

compared with F1 and F2. This fabric mineralogy comprised of different quantities of

quartz and albite (Diskin and Ashley: in prep). Unlike F1 and F2, the clay of F3 is

well sorted, it has a smooth feeling on the surface and it is very hard, thus indicating

that the vessels were well fired (see figure 5.5 and 5.6). Diskin and Ashley (in prep)

have associated F3 to the incoming agro-pastoralists BaTawana.

5.2.1.4 ANOMALIES

The collection also comprises of anomalous fabrics that show multiple characteristics

associated either with F1, F2 or F3. For example some of the ceramic sherds that

illustrate characteristics of F2 (coarse inclusions) have bone as a tempering agent.

Within F3 there are sherds that have coarse inclusion, which is associated with the

pastoral economy and society in the hills. Other F3 ceramic sherds illustrate that bone

Figure 5.5: A pictures of F3 fabric and

the different decorations within this

fabric

Figure 5.6: A picture of the rim

sherds within fabric 3

46

has been added as a tempering agent. However, these anomalies have not been treated

as separate entities. They have been incorporated and analysed as part of the generic

fabrics that Diskin and Ashley have created.

5.3 DATA PRESENTATIONS

The table below indicates the total number of rim sherds from KWH4, it also illustrate

how many rim sherds form part of the different fabrics. A total number of seven rim

sherds out of the 132 were too small for any type of analysis. In addition to this, four

rim sherds were miscellaneous, thus they could not be categorised either as F1, F2 or

F3.

Fabric Total number of sherds

F3 82

F2 22

F1 14

UNIDENTIFIABLE 7

TOO SMALL FOR ANALYSIS 7

TOTAL: 132

The data from the table was converted into a pie chart to understand the ratio of

fabrics when compared to each other (see figure 5.7). As the graph illustrates fabric 3

makes up (n=82) 62% of the 132 sherds, thus it forms the largest part of this

collection. Fabric 2 contributes (n=22) 18% to the entire collection and this if

followed by Fabric 1 contributing (n=14) 10%. The sherds that were too small for

analysis and those that could not put into specific categories contributed (n=7) 10% to

the collection.

Table 5.1: Documentation of all the different fabric with KWH4 ceramic collection

47

5.3.1 Fabric 1

5.3.1 Fabric 1

As discussed earlier, Fabric 1 forms the smallest part of the collection and this

includes both the bowls and jars. Within the jar category there is a variation of short

neck jars and the long neck jars. Table 5.2 below indicates that F1 has more short

neck vessels than the bowls and the long neck jars.

Vessel form Total number

Bowls 1

Short Neck Vessels 8

Long Neck Vessels 4

The graph below illustrates the variations of short necks and long neck vessels within

fabric 1. The short neck jars seems to be limited to two types, and this includes the

Short Neck Recurved (SNR) and the Pronounced Short Neck Recurved (PSNR).

While the long neck jars shape vary from the Collared Incurved Neck (CN), Everted

F3

F2

F1

UNIDENTIFIABLE

TOO SMALL FOR

ANALYSIS

Figure 5.7: Pie chart graph illustrating the different fabrics and its ratios compared to

the others.

Table 5.2: Record of vessel shapes within fabric 1

48

Recurved Neck (ERN), and Straight Pronounced Neck (SPN). Three of the sherds that

were analysed from F1 were body sherds, thus the vessel shape could not be

identified. From F1 it can be clearly noted that only one hemispherical (HB) forms

part of this fabric.

Rim diameter

The table below (see table 5.3) presents the lip range of the different vessel types

within F1, as well as the average rim size. To calculate the average size of the rims

the following formula was used:

∑

Where ∑ is the sum of all the data values in the sample, n is the number of the

observation in the sample.

Table 5.3 below indicates that the rim size of both the short neck jars and the long

neck vessels almost have the same. The rim diameter of the Collared Incurved Neck

(CN) and the Hemispherical Bowl (HB) could not be identified as they were small for

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

SNR PSNR CN ERN SPN N/A HB

SNR

PSNR

CN

ERN

SPN

N/A

HB

Figure 5.8: An illustration of the long necked and short neck jars and their

occurrence

49

this type of analysis. The Short Neck Recurved (SNR) rim size ranges from 22cm-

34cm, while the Pronounced Short Neck (PSNR) ranges from 14cm-21cm. The long

neck jars indicate that there are jars with small mouths, such as the Straight

Pronounced Neck (SPN) the rim size of 14cm.

Vessel form Rim Range Average Diameter

Short Neck Recurved (SNR) 22-34cm 17.6cm

Pronounced Short Neck

Recurved (PSNR)

14-21cm 18cm

Hemispherical Bowl unidentifiable -

Collared Incurved Neck (CN) Unidentifiable -

Everted Recurved Neck (ERN) 17 mm 17cm

Straight Pronounced Neck (SPN) 14-36cm 25cm

Decorations and surface treatments

Decorations keys

P Punctate IC Incised Comb

RP Round Punctate RS Red slip

PS Punctate Slip RBS Red Band Slip

PM Punctate Motif BB Black Band

PI Punctate with incision CM Chevron Motif

CS Comb Stamping B Burnish

I Incision

G Grooves

Table 5.3: Illustrating the average size of the vessels within fabric 1

Table 5.4: A record of keys used to indicate the different decorations within the

collection.

50

Lugs

Shapes of lugs

RL Round Lug

EL Elongated Lug

SL Square Lug

VP Vertically Perforated

HP Horizontally Perforated

The analysis has indicated that there are three types of lugs, the round lug, the square

lug and the elongated lug (see table 5.5). The analysis has also indicated that the lugs

are perforated, either horizontally or vertically, and the analysis has indicates that lugs

are absent within fabric 1.

From the table above (see table 5.6) it clear that ceramic sherds from F1 are not

densely decorated. They seems to be limited to incisions as well as red slip, while

burnishing as a surface treatment does not occurs regularly. The SNR seem to only

have incision as decorations. While burnish as a surface treatment only occurs in the

PSNR and grooves are used for SPN jars.

Vessel

form

P RP PS P PM PI CB I G RS RBS BB C S B

SNR X

PSNR X

HB

CN

ERN

SPN X

Table 5.6: A record of the different vessels shapes and the various decorations

Table 5.5: Keys to be used to indicate the different lugs in the collection.

51

Lips

The graph below (see figure 5.9) illustrates the frequency of these lip forms within the

F1 fabric. The analysis indicates that there are six square rounded (S, R) lips, five

Bevelled (B). There also seems to be an equal proportion of the square and the round

lip forms in this fabric, while there was only one sherd with a round overhanging lip.

The graph also indicates that the Square Round lip is preferred when compared to the

other lips.

5.3.2 Fabric 2

Fabric 2 contributes (n=22) 18% of the 132 sherds that were analysed. The Fabric 2

data was approached the same as Fabric. In F2 there seems to be a preference for the

long neck jars than the short neck jars. This is shown in table 5.4 that illustrate that

the number of long neck jars is almost twice as that of the short neck jars. It is also

quite clear that within F2 there is no abundance of bowls due to the fact that no bowls

were identified.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

B S R R,O S,R

B

S

R

R,O

S,R

Figure 5.9: illustration of the different lip forms and their frequency within

fabric 1

52

Vessel type Total number

Bowls -

Short neck jars 9

Long neck jars 4

Not-Applicable (body) 6

Unidentifiable 3

The table above was converted into a graph with the aim of indicating the variations

of vessel forms with fabric 2 (see figure 5.10). Note how the short neck jars are

limited to the SNR and the PSNR, while the long neck jars show a variation, this

includes the EPN, SPN, ERN and the SRN. All three of the long neck jars (SPN, ERN

and SRN) occur equally and only one EPN was recorded.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

SNR PSNR EPN SPN ERN SRN N/A UN-ID

SNR

PSNR

EPN

SPN

ERN

SRN

N/A

UN-ID

Table 5.7: A record illustrating the number of vessels type within fabric 2

Figure 5.10: The occurrence of long and short neck vessels within fabric 2

53

Rim Diameter

∑

Where ∑ is the sum of all the data values in the sample, n is the number of the

observation in the sample.

Table 5.8 illustrate that the short neck jars have larger rim mouths than the long neck

jars. The size range of the the long necked jars (EPN, ERN, SPN and SRN) could not

be recorded because the diameter of other sherds within thie vessel form could not be

determined.

Decorations

The analysis for the decoration indicates that the multiple decorations were used

within fabric 2. The Short Neck Recurved (SNR) jars demonstrate that incisions and

red slip are the main decorations used. While the Pronounced Short Neck Recurved

indicated that grooves are the decoration motifs. The long neck jars such as the

Everted Recurved Neck illustrate that punctates forms part of the decorations; this

Vessel form Rim range Average Size

Short Neck Recurved (SNR) 16-23cm 17cm

Pronounced Short Neck Recurved (PSNR) 15 mm 15cm

Everted Pronounced Neck (EPN) 18cm 18cm

Everted Recurved Neck (ERN) 21 mm 19.5cm

Straight Pronounced Neck (SPN) 20 mm 10cm

Straight Recurved Neck (SRN) 20 mm 10cm

Table 5.8: A record of the vessel forms with their size range and the average size of

the rims.

54

also includes incisions, black slip, as well as burnish. The Straight Pronounced Neck

(SPN) indicates that grooves and red band of slip is used, however, no decorations

were recorded on the Straight Recurved Neck.

Lug

Table 5.10 indicates the within F2 has the abundance of lug when compared to F1.

From the table and the data indicates that the Short Neck Recurved (SNR) jars have

round lugs that are vertically perforated. However, the long neck jars indicate that

lugs play a greater role than in the short neck jars. The Everted Recurved Neck has

Vessel form P RP PS P PM PI CB I G RS RBS BB BS C S B

SNR X X

PSNR X

ERN X X X X

SPN X X

SRN

N/A (Body) X

Vessel form Square

Lug

Round

Lug

Elongated lug Vertically

perforated

Horizontally

perforated

SNR X X

PSNR

ERN X

SPN X X X X

SRN

N/A (Body) X X X X

Table 5.9: A record of the different decorations within specific categories of the vessel

forms

Table 5.10: A record of lugs occurring in fabric 2

55

elongated neck, however, this lug is not perforated rather it is decorated with incision

and punctates (see figure 5.11). The Straight Pronounced Neck(s) have square lug(s)

and the round lug(s) that are vertically perforated (see figure 5.12 and 5.13). All three

lugs (round, square and elongated) were noted on the body sherds, of which all are

vertically perforated.

Figure 5.11: An illustration of F2 rim

sherd with an elongated imperforated

lug, which has punctates and incision

as decorations.

Figure 5.12: an Illustration of a SPN

jar in F2 with a round lug that is

vertically perforated.

Figure 5.13: An illustration of an

ERN jar with a square lug that is

vertical perforated.

56

Lip forms

The lip form analysis from fabric 2 indicates that there lip forms vary from Bevelled

(B), Round (R), Square Rounded (R, S), Square and Round Overhanging (SR, O).

Their distribution within fabric 2 indicates that there was a preference of bevelled lips

as there are 6 bevelled lips, which it twice the amount of each lip form.

5.3.3 Fabric 3

Vessel Forms

Fabric 3 forms the largest part of this collection and it shows that both bowls and jars

are used. The jar type vessels indicate that both the short neck jars and long neck jars

form part of F3. Table 5.11 indicates that the short neck vessels form the largest part

of the F3 collection. Seven hemispherical (HB) were recorded, while seven rims

sherds could not be categorised into specific vessel forms (see table 5.11).

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

B R R,O S S,R N/A (Body)

B

R

R,O

S

S,R

N/A (Body)

Figure 5.14: Occurrences of different lip forms within fabric 2.

57

Vessel type Total number

Bowls 7

Short neck jars 48

Long neck jars 6

N/A (body sherds) 13

Unidentifiable 7

The table above was converted into the graph below with the aim of illustrating which

vessels occur more in fabric 3. From the graph it is clear that the Everted Pronounced

Neck (EPN) is not part of the collection. The Everted Recurved Neck, Collared

Incurved Neck, both long neck jars, and the Short Everted Pronounced Neck, seem to

occur at a very low level. While the Short Neck Recurved (SNR) jars highly features

in fabric 3.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

SNR PSNR ESNR SEPN HB EPN SPN ERN SRN CN N/A UN-ID

SNR

PSNR

ESNR

SEPN

HB

EPN

SPN

ERN

SRN

CN

N/A

UN-ID

Table 5.11: A record of the different vessel forms within F3 and their proportion

Figure 5.15: A graph illustration of the different vessels forms and the rate they

occur within fabric 3

58

Rim diameter

∑

Where ∑ is the sum of all the data values in the sample, n is the number of the

observation in the sample. The formular above has been used to determine the mean

(avarage) rim size of the different bowls and jars within fabric 3.

Vessel Form Rim size range Average

Short Neck Recurved (SNR) 14cm-28cm 21cm

Pronounced Short Neck Recurved (PSNR) 30 cm 7cm

Everted Short Recurved Neck (ESNR) 18cm-25cm 21.5cm

Short Everted Pronounced Neck (SEPN) 24 cm 24cm

Hemispherical Bowl (HB) 49 cm 16cm

Everted Pronounced Neck (EPN) - -

Straight Pronounced Neck (SPN) 16-17cm 16.5cm

Everted Recurved Neck (ERN) 18 mm 18cm

Straight Recurved Neck (SRN) 16-28cm 22cm

Collared Incurved Neck (CN) 28 mm 28cm

Vessel form P RP PS P PM PI CB I G RS RBS BB BS C S B

SNR x x x x

PSNR x x x x x

ESNR

SEPN

HB x x

EPN

SPN x x

ERN

CN x x x

SRN

N/A (Body) x x x x x x x

Table 5.12: A record of all the different vessel forms within F3, their rim size average

and size range.

Table 5.14: A record of all the decorations on the different vessels forms within F3.

59

Lips

Within fabric 3 there seems to be a preference for square lip forms than the square

rounded. The bevelled lip form seems to be the second largest lip type preferred in

fabric 3.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

B B, O S R SR SR,O O N/A

B

B, O

S

R

SR

SR,O

O

N/A

Un-

Identifiable

x x x

Figure 5.16: An illustration of a

hemispherical bowl from F3.

Figure 5.17: An illustration of a

hemispherical bowl from F3

Figure 5.18: A graph illustrating the proportion if the different lips within F3.

60

5.4 Pattern

The data indicates that all three fabrics (F1, F2 and F3) are using the short neck jars

more than the long neck jars and the bowls. Within the short neck jars, the Short Neck

Recurved (SNR) jars seem to be used quite extensively in all three fabrics. The data

also clearly indicates that there are some similarities in rim size within these fabrics.

For example, the average rim size of the Short Neck Recurved (SNR) jars in fabric 1

is the same the ones in fabric 2 (average of 17cm). While the rim size for F1 ranges

from 22cm-34cm and F2 rim size for the SNR ranges from 16cm-23cm. The SNR jars

rims have an average size of 21cm, while the sizes range from 14cm-28cm. This

indicates that the SNR jars in F1 are much larger than those in F2 and F3.

The long neck jars within fabric 1 indicate a smaller rim size compared to the short

neck jars. However, F2 does not indicate the same pattern; the long neck jars within

this fabric have wider rims than the short neck vessels. The average size of the long

neck size ranges from 19cm-20cm for all the long neck jars. While the rim average for

this category is around 20cm. Fabric 3 indicates that the long neck jars rims generally

range from 16cm-20cm and more.

The collection also indicates pattern with regards to the different decorations. The

short neck jars within F1 seem to be decorated with incision and they have burnish as

a surface treatment. While the long neck jars seem to be limited to only red slip. This

different from the F2 collection, for example, the short neck jars indicate that

incisions, grooves and red slip form part of the decoration motifs in this fabric. The

long neck jars seem to have punctates, incisions, black slip, grooves, red band of slip,

as well as burnish as surface treatment.

61

Fabric 3 in general indicates that different decoration styles are being used. The short

neck jars are decorated in punctates, punctate with slip, red slip, incisions, red band of

slip, chevron motif and burnish as surface material. The long neck jars also indicates

almost the same decorations as the short neck jar. The decorations include punctates,

round punctates, motifs, punctate with red slip, grooves, incisions, black slip, as well

as burnish as a surface treatment.

The data presented above clearly indicates that F3 is highly decorated when compared

to F1 and F2. It is also clear that punctates occur only in F2 and F3, while F1 does not

have any type of punctates as decorations. At the same time the chevron motif and

punctate with motif seem to only occur in F3 and not in any of the other fabrics.

5.5 Conclusion

The graphs, tables, pictures and illustrations we can understand that within each fabric

there are long neck and short neck vessels and at times with bowls. Thus each vessel

within fabric 1, fabric 2 and fabric 3 may have decorations that are distinct within that

fabric and vessel form. As such, the data will be further discussed and contextualised

in the interpretation chapter, with the purpose of answering research questions that

were raised in the introduction chapter.

62

Chapter 6: Interpretation

6.1 Introduction

The previous chapter has presented analytical data; it looked at any possible pattern

between the three fabrics through exploring vessel shape variations, decorations, area

of decorations, rim size average, ranges of rim sizes as well as lip forms. The

historical literature of the site narrated that the BaTawana come and colonised the

autochthonous people of the Khwebe Hills (Tlou 1980 & Dziewiecka 2002). These

narrations seem ignore the idea on culture contact and fluid interaction. As such, the

aim off this chapter is to discuss the data from the preceding chapter in details and

explore any possible implication for our understanding of contact during this time

period.

6.2 Analysis

6.2.1 Fabrics

Fabric 1

Fabric 1 that has been associated with mobile hunter-gatherer community has shown

interesting attributes. Although fabric 1 was the smallest fabric and it contributed 10%

(n=14) to the collection. The F1 collection has bowls, short neck vessels and long

neck vessels; however, this fabric indicates the abundance of short neck vessels. The

short neck jars also indicate that their rim diameter is much larger than those of the

long neck jars. The data indicates that F1 is not highly decorated, due to the fact that

only three types of decoration were recorded, the red slip, the incision and burnish.

63

Fabric 2

Fabric 2 contributes (n=22) 18% of the 132 sherds that were analysed. The analysis

indicated that this fabric only has jars in its collection, which are the short neck jars

and the long neck jars. According to the data F2 has more short neck vessels than long

neck vessels. The average rim sizes for the short neck jars is approximately 15cm-

23cm, the larger rims are within the Short Neck Recurved (SNR) jars. The size range

of the rims within the long neck jars is 18cm-20cm, with an average size ranging from

10cm-19cm.

The data indicates that the short neck jars with decoration were possibly limited to

incisions, grooves and red slip. While the long neck jars were decorated in punctates,

incision, grooves, red band of slip, black slip, as well as burnishing as surface

treatment. The analysis also indicates the possibilities that the short neck jars did not

have the abundance of lugs like the long neck jars. Only one short neck jar (SNR)

indicated a round lug that was vertically perforated. The long jars seem to have lugs

that are different. Three types of lugs were recorded; this includes the square lug, the

round lug and the elongated lug. The round and the square lugs indicate variation of

vertically and horizontally perforated, while the elongated lugs seem not to

perforation as a feature, but rather punctates and groves.

Fabric 3

Fabric 3 forms the largest part of the ceramic collection from KWH4. The fabric has

bowls and the variation of the long neck jars and the short neck jars. The data

indicates that there is a prevalence of the short neck jars than the long neck jars and

the bowls. The bowls seem to be large with a rim size of 49cm (although some rims

were broken in a way that disabled to do rim size analysis). The rims sizes for short

64

neck jars seem to generally range from 14cm-28cm. The data also indicated the same

pattern for the long neck jars. The rim size for the long neck jars ranges from 16cm-

28cm.

The analysis seems to suggest that F3 is more decorated than the other fabrics. The

decoration for this fabric includes punctates, round punctates, punctate with slip,

punctate with motif, incisions, grooves, red slip, red band of slip, chevrons, as well as

burnishing as surface treatment. It also seems like the long neck jars are highly

decorated than the short neck jars.

6.3 Archaeological evidence

6.3.1 Pastoralist’s ceramics typology

Diskin and Ashley (in prep) have associated F2 to the pastoralists in the Khwebe

Hills. As such, the typology and data of this fabric is somehow similar to the LUND

and LINC that Sadr & Sampson (1999) have identified in the Seacow valley in South

Africa. The jars from F1 are mostly undecorated and they have lugs rather than spouts

and incisions and seem to be used as a decoration motif. Although the time period and

space are different, KWH4 collection indicates the almost same characteristics of the

Seacow valley typology.

The research in Toteng by Huffman (1994) on Khoekhoe pastoralists illustrate a clear

pattern and link with the KWH4 typology. The Toteng typology comprised of short

neck jars that had red-buff chevron, they were bagged shaped with pierced lugs. They

had thickened jar rims that were decorated with crosshatching (Huffman 1994: 4).

According to Huffman (1994:4-5) Khoekhoe pastoralists ceramics that are more

historic seem to have short necks. This KWH4 F2 ceramics indicate this same pattern,

65

whereby it the number of the short neck jars is higher than those of the long neck jars.

The Toteng typology also reviled that bowls form part of the pastoralist’s ceramic

typology and these bowls are perforated. This evidence of bowls from Toteng does

not correlate with the F2 data, as no bowls were recorded within this fabric, however,

this does not mean that that bowls were never made or used by the F2 makers.

However, the Toteng collection reviled that lugs were important in this collection.

Research by Schapera (cited in Rudner 1979: 11) indicated that the historic Khoekhoe

pastoralist’s ceramics had lugs, and these were rubbed ochre. The Toteng typology

also indicates variations of decorations, this includes punctates, red bands, red

chevron motifs and small applique lumps on the shoulder area (Huffman 1994:4)., and

some of these decorations were recorded within F2.

6.3.2 Tswana typology

The site of KWH4 dates to the 19th

century as such, according to the archaeological

literature it should illustrate the third phase of the Tswana ceramics, which dates to

post AD 1700. According to Hall (1998:249) this third phase present a single or a

double band of punctates (Hall 1998: 249). Huffman (2000: 12) has also documented

that the 19th century Tswana ceramics have triangles and chevrons motifs filled with

stabs and finger nail impressions. The vessel shapes within fabric 3 includes

hemispherical bowl, which Hall (1998: 250) has also recorded.

The hemispherical bowls from fabric 3 all have the same decoration, which is a red

band of slip on the rim and at times with punctates. . Hall (1998: 250-253) has

identified that the Tswana ceramic sequence post AD 1700 has recurved jars,

however, he does not make a clear distinction within these recurved jars if they are

short neck or long neck jars. This sequence has decorations with a single band

66

immediately below the rim, a zone of decorations on the neck (chevron), a constricted

pot with a wide of decoration on the body (Hall 1998: 250-252). The data indicates

that the body sherds from fabric 3 illustrate this pattern, as chevron motifs were

recorded.

The fabric that is associated with the Khoekhoe pastoralists, matches with what

Rudner (1976) has identified, as well as, what Sadr & Sampson (1999) have recorded

in the Seacow. The rim sizes of these sherds are smaller than what Sadr & Smith

(1991: 107-109) for the Kasteelberg. However, the decorations such as the punctates

seem to occur in the Western Cape Khoekhoe ceramics. Sadr & Smith (1991) and

Sadr & Sampson (1997) have identified bands of punctates as one of the decoration

for the Khoekhoe ceramics. With regards to the lugs Schapera 1933 (Rudner 1979:

11) early research indicated that the lugs were rubbed with red ochre. Some lugs from

this collection indicated that they have red slip as surface treatment.

Discussion

The oral history of the Khwebe Hills suggests that the inhabitants interacted with each

other. Dziewiecka (2008: 12) gives a narration that the arrival of the BaTawana was

invasive, it shifted the symbiotic clientship relationship, causing havoc within the

social structure of the hills (Tlou 1980: 39). Bowen (cited in Mautle 1986: 24) has

argued that this led BaTawana to dominate over Bakgalagadi and the Basarwa. This

domination led to the prohibition of Bakgalagadi to own property or keep any

proportion of their surplus produce (Mautle 1986: 24). As such, Bakgalagadi become

Makgobe (slaves) and were always referred to as Mokgalagadi wa lolwapa (Mautle

1986: 24-26). However, Mautle (1986: 24) narration seems to ignore the oral history

that Van Waarden (1998: 147) presents, which indicates that the Bakgalagadi are an

67

ancestry group of the Batswana people. Nevertheless, according to the oral history the

Bakgalagadi and the Basarwa of the Khwebe Hills were colonised by the BaTawana

when they arrived at the hills in 1805 (Tlou 1990; Dziewiecka 2008).

The data does not indicate such an interaction of colonisation, rather it seems that the

Khwebe Hills inhabitants experience culture contact and the frontier between them

was fluid. The anomalies within the fabrics indicate this idea, as the analysis indicates

that some F3 sherds are tempered with bone and according to Bollong et al (1993: 44-

45) has argued that such organic temper is associated to mobile hunter-gatherer

communities. The analysis by Diskin and Ashley (in prep) also indicates that F3 has

coarse inclusions that are characterise F2, which is associated with the Bakgalagadi

pastoralists. Even with these anomalies, the provenance of the raw material for these

fabrics seems to be different.

The oral history also indicates that the Tawana institutes and cultures were passed

onto the autochthonous people. As such, the Bakgalagadi pastoralist’s ceramics would

have lost its distinct features such as the lugs, and these lugs are vertically perforated

and the elongated lug is decorated with punctates and grooves, and red slip. This

correlates with Schapera (cited in Rudner 1979: 11) as he noted that the pastoralist’s

ceramics were rubbed with red ochre.

If the oral history is taken into consideration then the deco rations of both F1 and F2

should indicate such a relationship. The literature review also indicates that not much

is known about the hunter-gatherer ceramics particularly in the 19th

century. As such,

an interpretation cannot be given for F1. Decorations such as punctates, incisions,

grooves, red slip have been noted by Sadr and Sampson (1999) and Huffman (1994).

In addition, F2 still shows the characterisation of Short neck jars.

68

6.5 Conclusion

This chapter has given possible interpretation from the KWH4 data. This indicates

culture contact rather than colonisation. Although, the Short Neck Recurved (SNR)

jars occur frequently in all the fabrics, this does not mean that people were colonised.

The archaeological evidence indicates that the autochthonous people were not

colonised, however, that the shared information with the BaTawana. It also indicates

possible permeable boundaries between the indigenous people of Khwebe Hills and

the immigrants. It is possible that people moved in and out of boundaries that have

been set out, where certain ceramic types and temper are associated with certain

communities.

69

Chapter 7: Conclusion

This chapter will give a brief summary on the research and the project in general.

This study has illustrated the significance of ceramic analysis and research in

interaction studies. Where previously it was assumed and narrated that interaction

between hunter-gatherers, pastoralists and agriculturalists was invasive, this study has

shown that interaction are more complex than previously thought. This project has

built on the existing ceramic typologies of both pastoralists and Tswana

agriculturalists, particularly work by Diskin and Ashley (in prep). I have illustrated

that interaction between people of different ethnicity and economies can interact. This

interaction should not be approached from a colonial perspective where the

indigenous people are colonised by the core polities. The post-colonial paradigm was

also criticised for the lack of understanding that frontiers are fluid, people make the

choices of moving in and out of other frontiers. This was shown through the ceramic

data and results from KWH4, where vessel shapes, and tempering material were

considered to be agents. What is thought to be colonisation by Tlou (1980) and

Dziewiecka (2008) the archaeology illustrates a different story. In this scenario

colonisation verses culture contact. It is suggested that the interaction between the

Khwebe Hills inhabitant was culture contact, where Bakgalagadi and Basarwa choose

to adopt certain cultures (this includes the Moloko type of ceramics) from the

BaTawana. The same with the BaTawana, they adopted certain styles of making

pottery that is more associated with mobile hunter-gatherer bands than the Sotho-

Tswana ceramic sequence.

70

Future research

This research project has revealed an enormous amount of questions surrounding

previous and current investigations on interaction. As such, this project will lead to

Masters Degree that will address such questions; however, this will be done at a

regional scale in South Africa.

71

Bibliography

Alexander, J. 1984. Early frontiers in southern Africa. In Hall, M., Avery, G. Avery,

D.M, Wilson, M. L & Humphrey, A. J. B. (eds), Frontiers: southern African

archaeology today. Great Britain: Bar international series

Ashley, C. 2009. Migration, missionaries and contact: recent archaeological

research in Khwebe hills, Botswana. In (ed) Whitehouse, R, Archaeology

International institute of archaeology. University of Collage London, London:

36-41

Barnard, A. 1992. Hunters and herders of southern Africa: A comparative

ethnography of the Khoisan peoples. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Barnard, A. 2006. Kalahari revisionism, Vienna and the indigenous people debate.

Social Anthropology, 14: 1-16

Barnard, A. Ethnographic Analogy and Reconstruction of Early Khoekhoe Society.

South African Humanities, 10: 61-75

Bhabha, H. K. 1996. Cultures in between, in Hall, S and du Gay, P (eds). Questions of

cultural identity pp. 53-60

Bollong, C. A., Vogel, J. C., Jacobson, L., Van Der Westhuizen, W. A &

Sampson, A. 1993. Direct dating and identifying of fibre temper in pre-

contact bushman (Basarwa) pottery. Journal

Archaeological science, 20: 44-55

72

Bollong, C. A., Sampson, G. C & Smith, A. B. 1997. Khoikhoi and Bushman Pottery

in the Cape Colony: Ethno-history and Later Stone Age Ceramics of the South

African Interior. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 16(3): 269-299

Boeyens, J. C. A. 2003. The Late Iron Age sequence in the Marico and early Tswana

history. Southern African Archaeological Bulletin, 58 (178): 63-78

Bousman, C. B 1998. The Chronological Evidence for the Introduction of Domestic

Stock into Southern Africa. African Archaeological Review, 15 (2):

134-150

Chambanne, A. M & Monaka, K. C. 2008. Mapping Sekgalagadi in Southern Africa:

A Socio-historical and Linguistic Study. History in Africa, 35: 133-

143

Diskin, S & Ashley, S. in prep Characterisation of Archaeological Ceramics from

The Khwebe Hills of Northern Botswana.

Druc, I. C. 2001. Archaeology and Clay. Hadrian Books Ltd. John and Erica Hedges

LTD. England

Ehret, C. 2008. The early livestock-raiser of southern Africa. Southern African

Humanities, 20: 7-35

Emberling, G. 1997. Ethnicity in Complex Societies: Archaeological Perspectives.

Journal of Archaeological Research, 5(4): 295-344

Gosden, C. 2001. Postcolonial archaeology: issues of culture, identity and

knowledge. In Archaeological Theory Today (ed. I. R. Hodder).

Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 241–61.

73

Grauer, V. A. 2007. New perspectives on the Kalahari debate: a tale of two genomes.

Before farming, (2) 4: 14

Hall, M. 1984. Frontiers in Southern African Archaeology. In Hall, M., Avery, G.

Avery, D.M, Wilson, M. L & Humphrey, A. J. B. (eds), Frontiers:

southern African archaeology today. Great Britain: Bar international

series

Hall, S. 1998. A consideration of gender relation in the Late Iron Age “Sotho”

sequence of the western Highveld, South Africa in S Kent (e.d),

Gender in African Prehistory, AltaMira Press, CA, pp. 235- 258

Hall, S. 2012, Identity and Political Centralisation in the Western Regions of

Highveld, c.1770–c.1830: An Archaeological Perspective. Journal of

Southern African Studies 38(2): 301-318

Headman, T. N., Reid, L, A, Bicchieri, M. G, Bishop, C. A, Schroeder, F & Seitz, S.

1989. Hunter-gatherers and their neighbours from prehistory to the

present. Current Anthropology, 30(1): 43-66

Huffman, T. M. 1994. Toteng Pottery and the Origin of Bambata. Southern African

Archaeology, 3: 3-9

Huffman, T. M. 2002. Regionality in the Iron Age: the case of the Sotho-Tswana.

Southern African Humanities 14: 1-22

Huffman, T. N. 2007. Handbook to the Iron Age: The archaeology of pre-colonial

farming societies in southern Africa. University of KwaZulu-

Natal Press: South Africa

74

Humphrey, A. J. B. 1988 A Prehistoric Frontiers in the Northern Cape and Western

Orange Free State: Archaeological Evidence in Interaction and

Ideological Change. Kronos South African History 13: 3-13

Kent, S. 1992. The Current Forager Controversy: Real versus Ideal Views of Hunter-

Gatherer Man, New Series 27 (1): 45-70

Kopytoff, I. 1987. The African frontiers: the reproduction of traditional African

societies. USA: Indiana University Press

Lightfoot, K. G. & Martinez, A. 1995. Frontiers and Boundaries in Archaeological

Perspective. Annual Review of Anthropology, 24: 471-492

Marks, S. 1972. Khoisan resistance to the Dutch in the seventeenth and eighteenth

centuries. Journal of African History, 13: 55-80.

Mason, R. J. 1986. Origin of Black people of Johannesburg and the southern western

Transvaal, AD350-1880. Johannesburg: occasional paper.

University of Witwatersrand.

Mautle, G. 1986. Bakgalagadi-Bakwena relationship: a case study of slavery, c1840-

c1920. Botswana Notes and Records, 18: 19-31

Naum, M. 2010. Re-emerging Frontiers: Postcolonial Theory and Historical

Archaeology of the Borderlands. Journal of Archaeological Method

and Theory, 17:101–131

Phillipson, W. D. 2005. African archaeology. Third edition. United Kingdom

University Press: Cambridge

75

Potten, D. H. 1976. Aspects of the recent history of Ngamiland. Botswana Notes and

Records 8: 63-68

Reid, A., Sadr, K & Hanson-James, N. 1998. Herding traditions. In Lane. P, Reid, A

& Segobye, A. (eds) Ditswa Mmung: the archaeology of Botswana. Pula

press and the Botswana Society: Botswana

Reid, A. Lane, P. Segobye, A., Borjeson, L., Mathibidi, N & Sekgarametso, P. 1997

. Tswana Architecture and Responses to Colonialism. World

Archaeology, 28(3): 370-392

Rockman, M. 2003. Knowledge and Learning in the Archaeology of colonisation. In

Rockman, M & Steele, J (eds): Colonization of Unfamiliar

Landscape: The Archaeology of Adaptation. Routledge:

London

Rudner, J. 1979. The Use of Stone Artefacts and Pottery among the Khoisan Peoples

in Historic and Protohistoric. The South African Archaeological

Bulletin, 34 (129): 3-17

Sadr, K. 1997. Kalahari Archaeology and the Bushman Debate. Current

Anthropology, 38(1): 104-112

Sadr, K. 2002. Encapsulated Bushmen in the archaeology of Thamaga. In: S. Kent

(e.d), Ethnicity, hunter gatherers, and the “Other”. Washington &

London: Smithsonian Institution Press, pp. 29–47

Sadr, K. 2008. An ageless view of the first millennium AD southern African

ceramics. Journal of African Archaeology, 6(1): 103-129

76

Sadr, K. 2003. The Neolithic of southern Africa. The Journal of African History,

44(2): 195-209

Sadr, K. 2008. An ageless view of the first millennium AD southern African

ceramics. Journal of African Archaeology, 6(1): 103-129

Sadr, K. 2008. Invisible herders? The archaeology of Khoekhoe pastoralists. Southern

African Humanities, 20: 179-203

Sadr, K & Sampson, C. G. 1999. Khoekhoe Ceramics of the Upper Seacow River

Valley. The South African Archaeological Bulletin, 54(169):3-15

Sadr, K & Smith, B. 1991. On Ceramic Variation in the South-Western Cape, South

Africa. The South African Archaeological Bulletin, 46(154): 107-114

Stein, J. G. From Passive Periphery to Active Agents: Emerging Perspectives in the

Archaeology of Interregional Interaction: Archaeology Division

Distinguished Lecture AAA Annual Meeting. American

Anthropologist, New Series, 104 (3) pp. 903-916

Schrire, C. 1980. An Inquiry into the Evolutionary Status and Apparent Identity of

San Hunter-Gatherers. Human Ecology, Vol. 8, No. 1 (Mar., 1980),

pp. 9-32

Smith, A. B. 1998. Keeping people on the periphery: the ideology of social

hierarchies between hunter-gatherers and herders. Journal of

Anthropological Archaeology 17: 201-215

Smith, A. B. 2001. Ethno-history and the Archaeology of the Ju/’Hoansi Bushman.

African study of monographs, 26: 15-25

77

Thebe, C. P. 1996. An Archaeological Study of the Pottery from Ntsweng, Molepolole.

Unpublished: Honours dissertation

Tlou, T and Campbell, C. A. 1997. History of Botswana. Macmillan Botswana

publishing company, Gaborone, 1997.

Tlou, T. 1980. A history of Ngamiland~1750 to 1906: The formation of an African

state. Macmillan Botswana publishing Company: Botswana.

Van Dommelen, P. 2002. Ambiguous Matters: Colonialism and the Local Identity in

Punic Sardinia. In Lyons, C. L & Papadopoulos, J. K (eds):

The Archaeology of Colonialism. Getty Research Institute:

USA

Van Dommelen, P. 2005. Colonial Interaction and hybrid Practices. In Stein, P (ed):

The Archaeology of Colonial Encounters. School of American

Research Press: Santa Fe

Van Dommelen, P. 2006. Colonial Matters: Material Culture and the Post-colonial

Theory in Colonial Structures. In Tilley, C., Keane. W., Kuchler, S.

Rowlands, M. Spyer, P. (eds): Handbook of material culture. SAGE

Publication Ltd: London

Van Waarden, C. 1998. The Later Iron Age. In Lane. P, Reid, A & Segobye, A. (eds)

Ditswa Mmung: the archaeology of Botswana. Pula press and

the Botswana Society: Botswana

Wilmsen, E. N. 2003. Further Lessons in Kalahari Ethnography and History. History

in Africa, 30: 327-420

78

Young, R. J. C. 2001. Postcolonialism: An historical introduction. London:

Blackwell.