Jennifer Midori Miller
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Variability in Ostrich Eggshell Beads from the Middle and Later Stone Age of Africa by Jennifer Midori Miller A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Anthropology University of Alberta © Jennifer Midori Miller, 2019 Abstract Ostrich eggshell (OES) beads are the first kind of ornaments in human history to be mass-produced, and they exhibit variations that simulate cultural boundaries. Previous research into the stylistic variation of OES beads identified the importance of bead diameter in assemblages from southern Africa over the last 5000 years. Specifically, hunter-gatherer beads have small diameters, while larger beads appear only in conjunction with the first herding communities. This observation led to the general conclusion that OES bead size was a cultural marker that allows us to distinguish between hunting and herding sites, in absence of other forms of evidence. This dissertation builds upon the previous research to explore whether OES bead variation can reveal social boundaries in the Middle and Later Stone Age. Using principles of cultural transmission through social networks, I examine 2570 OES artifacts from five countries, searching for regional or temporal stylistic trends. This work expands this time depth of OES bead diameter research to 0-50 thousand years ago (kya), and includes data from sites around southern and eastern Africa. Results reveal that the previous understanding of bead size, and its link to the first herders in southern Africa, was incomplete. The initially negative correlation between time and size from 0-2500 years turns into a positive relationship from 2500-50,000 years ago, a result that contradicts the previously held belief that bead size alone can distinguish hunter-gatherer from herder sites. The oldest southern African diameters (40- 50 kya) are actually comparable in size to the younger herder beads (~2 kya). Comparing the eastern and southern data shows regional differences in bead size. The sizes of southern beads shift considerably through time, while the eastern sizes stay ii consistent over the entire 50,000-year history. The most surprising result is that the oldest beads (40-50 kya) from both eastern and southern Africa overlap in diameter, before the southern African beads begin to reduce in size from 40 to 2.5 kya. This similarity in size opposes the Isolation By Distance model of stylistic similarity, and may indicate a long distance trade network that connected eastern and southern Africa during the Middle Stone Age. This dissertation also documents two previously unknown stylistic variables, and a distinctive type of recycled OES ornament. The first variable (Outer Rim Donut Index 3) appears to result from a preform shaping technique, and is found preferentially in southern Africa. The second trait (pinching) is found only on finished beads, never preforms, and appears to be the result of a specific (but currently unidentified) stringing pattern. Future work should review ethnographic literature and conduct experimental replication to examine the importance of these traits further. I also documented a small number of OES preforms that have engravings on the cuticle surface. These specimens appear to be fragments of OES containers that were repurposed to make beads, and may be the first evidence for recycling in human history. OES beads and other decorative handicrafts are more than mere ephemera; they can be used to examine social relationships in the past. They are not only physical evidence of ancient technology, but they can also afford a glimpse into the minds of Palaeolithic people. The emergence of beads in the Palaeolithic is a tangible record of the increasing complexity of social interactions, and rising importance of symbolic communication, which are core issues in the study of human evolution. iii Acknowledgements I respectfully acknowledge that the University of Alberta campus is located on Treaty Six territory, the traditional and unceded lands of First Nations and Métis people. My appreciation goes to Dr. Pamela Willoughby for supervising me for nine years through two graduate degrees. I will always be grateful that she was willing to accept me as her student. I also thank the other members of my supervisory committee (Dr. Rob Losey and Dr. Andie Palmer) who provided guidance and input through my degree. Thanks also to members of the Iringa Region Archaeological Project (IRAP) for three entertaining field seasons, and many years together in the lab. I would also like to express my gratitude to the Department of Anthropology’s administrative and technical staff, including Heather Cook, Gayeung Doan, Harvey Friebe, Shirley Harpham, and Ruby Sutton. Last, but not least, I wish to thank my friends and family for their support through this long, long, long journey. For permissions and assistance with accessing archaeological collections for this research, I recognize the following people and agencies: the Tanzanian Commission on Science and Technology (COSTECH); the Tanzanian Division of Antiquities, Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism; the Government of the Republic of Botswana, Ministry of Environment, Wildlife and Tourism; the National Museum of Gaborone; the Iziko Museums of South Africa; the McGregor Museum; the National Museum of Namibia; Dr. Stanley Ambrose and Dr. Phil Slater; Dr. Mary Prendergast, Dr. Audax Mabulla and Dr. Manuel Domingo-Rodriguez; Dr. Michael Chazan; Dr. Pamela Willoughby. This degree was financially supported with funding from sources including: a Doctoral Tuition Scholarship from the Department of Anthropology (2012-2016); Queen iv Elizabeth II Doctoral Scholarships from the Government of Alberta and Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research (2014-2017); Graduate Student Travel Awards for conference travel from the Department of Anthropology (2013, 2014, 2016, 2018); the Society of Africanist Archaeologists Graduate Student Travel Grant (2016); the Palaeoanthropology Society Graduate Student Travel Grant (2018); Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada Standard Research Grant (#410-2011-0117) awarded to Pamela Willoughby; Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada Insight Grant (#345-2017-0152) awarded jointly to Pamela Willoughby and Katie Biittner; and financial support was also generously provided by my parents. v Table of Contents Abstract ........................................................................................................................... ii Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................ iv List of Tables.................................................................................................................. ix List of Figures ................................................................................................................. x Chapter 1 – Introduction .................................................................................................. 1 Hominins and material culture......................................................................................4 The earliest beads ....................................................................................................... 16 Why is the evolution of beads significant? ................................................................. 25 Chapter 2 – Literature Review, Theory, and Methods .................................................... 33 Ostriches .................................................................................................................... 33 Previous studies of OES beads ................................................................................... 35 Why do artifacts vary, and what does this mean?........................................................ 46 Laboratory methods ................................................................................................... 49 Chapter 3 – Overview of OES Bead Collections ............................................................ 63 Kenya ........................................................................................................................ 64 Enkapune Ya Muto Rockshelter ............................................................................. 64 Tanzania .................................................................................................................... 68 Mumba Rockshelter................................................................................................ 68 Daumboy Rockshelter 3 ......................................................................................... 70 vi Kisese II Rockshelter .............................................................................................. 71 Magubike Rockshelter ............................................................................................ 73 Mlambalasi Rockshelter ......................................................................................... 75 Botswana ................................................................................................................... 77 White Paintings Rockshelter ................................................................................... 77 Namibia ..................................................................................................................... 78 Apollo 11 Cave .....................................................................................................