South African Archaeological Society
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
South African Archaeological Society ANTIQUITY OF STONE-WALLED TIDAL FISH TRAPS ON THE CAPE COAST, SOUTH AFRICA Author(s): PHILLIP HINE, JUDITH SEALY, DAVID HALKETT and TIMOTHY HART Source: The South African Archaeological Bulletin, Vol. 65, No. 191 (JUNE 2010), pp. 35-44 Published by: South African Archaeological Society Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40985509 Accessed: 12-01-2016 09:10 UTC REFERENCES Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40985509?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. South African Archaeological Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The South African Archaeological Bulletin. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 137.158.114.126 on Tue, 12 Jan 2016 09:10:37 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions SouthAfrican Archaeological Bulletin 65 (191):35-44, 2010 35 ResearchArticle ANTIQUITY OF STONE-WALLEDTIDAL FISH TRAPS ON THE CAPE COAST, SOUTH AFRICA PHILLIP HINE,JUDITH SEALY, DAVID HALKETT& TIMOTHY HART DepartmentofArchaeology, University ofCape Town, Private BagX3, Rondebosch, 7701, South Africa E-mail:[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] (ReceivedMarch 2009. Revised March 2010) ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION Stone-walledtidal fish Thispaper attempts to answera long-standingquestion in South traps(hereafter referred to as fish are a well knownfeature of the Africanarchaeology: the age ofstone-walled tidal fish traps generally traps) WesternCape coast, the Indian believedto date back to pre-colonial times. Since the stone walls cannot especiallyalong Ocean coastline(Fig. 1). These structuresconsist of bedirectly dated, we sought datable fish bone in nearbyarchaeological stone-walledenclosures which are sub- at sites. Four open shell middensat Paapkuil Fontein,near Cape merged hightide, enabling fish to swim into them. The catch is then Agulhas,were excavatedand analysedand the contentsof two corralledwhen the water recedes, and canbe collected previouslyexcavated middens at StillBay were studied. Both areas are by nettingor spearing.Although some trapsremain in use renownedfor their numerous fish traps, but lack detailed archaeological today,they are generallybelieved to be of considerable studies.The middens yielded very little, if any fish bone, so areprobably antiquity.Goodwin (1946), on thebasis of his work at Oakhurst unrelatedto thetraps. There is, bycontrast, a greatdeal ofarchival RockShelter, first proposed that they might have been used by evidencefor the building and use of stonefish trapsby historical pre-colonialKhoe-San people. Avery(1975, 1976) proposed communities,with traps repeatedly built and dismantledin thelate datesof c. 3000-2000BR whilePoggenpoel (1996) suggested 19thand 20th centuries. Given the lack of any direct evidence in Later thatthey could have been in use as earlyas themid-Holocene. StoneAge sites,a pre-colonialage forthe practice of fishing with A widely-distributedposter published by the Directorateof stone-walledtidal fish traps can no longerbe entertained. Marineand CoastalManagement (a sectionof the Department ofEnvironmental Affairs and Tourism), and displayedin many Keywords:fish trap, weir, Later Stone Age, shell middens. localitiesalong the Cape coast,refers to 'ancient tidal fish traps7 I .Hermanus 15 .Cape Barracouta ' 2.Gansbaai ló.Hotnotbaai ' 3.DangerPoint 17.Haaibaai ) 4.Haaiklip 18.Jongensfontein C 5.PearlyBeach 19.StillBay Harbour/Morrispoint/Noordkapperpunt' ó.DieDam 2O.Rietvlei c^iowJ 7.'fyverbaaisites 2 1.Dantes Point F«&nx* 8. SuiderstrandI & II 22.Riesiesbaan :*?_ ^ ; Aretenlar*edbelow 9. Agulhas 23.Meelefontein 10.Struisbaai I & II 24.Ystervarkpunt I, II, III I 1.Arniston 25.Between 12.Ryspunt 26.Skool se Bank 1 series 27.Platbank/NeliesGifTBorrelfontein 3.Skipskop £ 14.Breede 28.Kannonstrand 19*a 24 26 3 I 27 ¿<r'/>4« ,<• jT »' -18 "1 21 25 12* /r^ v<>~' •Sitesrecorded | byAvery (1975) pN-pr m N A 3* I T ^^^»^v ''+ Sitesrecorded by Goodwin (1946) 5* I |'^W A •• i i 0 20 km FIG. 1. Distributionoffish traps along the south coast of the Western Cape. Map adaptedfrom Kemp (2006). This content downloaded from 137.158.114.126 on Tue, 12 Jan 2016 09:10:37 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 36 South AfricanArchaeological Bulletin 65 (191): 35-44,2010 and theiruse by Khoe-Sanpeople. There is, however,little theminimum period for sun- and wind-dryingof fish in the evidenceon which to base such claims. The primary aim of this southernCape in good weatherconditions was 4-5 days paperis to evaluatethe antiquity of fish traps in theWestern (Tothill1899 in litt.).The entireprocess of makingbokkoms, Cape. whichinvolves salting and thendrying, can takeup to two Previousresearch on fishtraps has beensporadic and has weeks(Anon. 2005). Any processing probably took place close focusedprimarily on mappingtheir distribution on theland- tothe catch site, in order to prevent spoilage. We would, there- scape,recording fish catches and assessingliving invertebrate fore,expect at least some fish bone to be presentin middens as a populationstherein (Goodwin 1946; Avery 1975, 1976; Gribble resultof meals consumedduring the processingperiod. If 2005;Kemp 2006). By contrast, our focus here is purelyon the processinginvolved removal of heads or otherparts, then antiquityof the traps. Since the stone walls themselves cannot evidenceshould be visiblein thearchaeological record. be dated,we excavatedseveral shell middens in close proximity Mulletbones are generallymore fragile and less likelyto to fishtraps. The aim was to investigatethe depositional survivein archaeological sites than those of larger bodied fish. historyof the middens, with particular emphasis on theidenti- Coastal shell middensin the winterrainfall area of South ficationand verticaldistribution of fishremains. Recognizing Africa,however, offer extremely good conditionsfor bone and datingfish species more likely to have been caught in fish preservation,and bonesof small fish species are preserved at trapsthan by othermeans should give an indicationof the a numberof sites (Poggenpoel1996; van Niekerk2004). antiquityof the traps. Consideringthe large quantitiesof mullettrapped today, Fishare well represented in coastal Holocene sequences of taphonomicprocesses ought not to have entirely removed this theWestern Cape, yet we knowrelatively little about their role speciesfrom fish-trapped archaeological assemblages. A recent in prehistoriceconomies (Poggenpoel 1996; Inskeep 2001; van study(Nagaoka 2005) demonstrated that the use of3 mmmesh Niekerk2004). Material remains relating to thetechnology of screensis adequateto ensure recovery of mullet remains from fishingare not well represented in southernAfrican archaeo- archaeologicaldeposits. All controlled archaeological excavations logicalassemblages. Stone 'sinkers' and fishgorges are known alongthe Western Cape coast,at leastduring the last 40 years, fromonly a fewsites and onlysome time periods (Louw 1960; haveused sieveswith 3 mmor smaller mesh sizes. This means Deacon 1970;Parkington 1977; Poggenpoel& Robertshaw thatarchaeological assemblages recovered during this time can 1981;Schweitzer & Wilson1982; Inskeep 1987; Orton & Halkett be usedto assess the importance ofmullet in the f aunal remains. 2007),and their use in the way the names imply is by no means certain.If coastalfish traps do, in fact,constitute a fishing PREVIOUS RESEARCH methodof considerable time-depth, there are wider implications The firstsystematic investigation into fishtraps was forour understanding of mid- to lateHolocene lifeways. The conductedby Goodwin (1946) in his paper "Prehistoric fishing labourrequired to buildand maintainthese traps, and the methodsin SouthAfrica". The stimulus for this work lay in his abilityto harvestlarge quantities of food would undoubtedly excavationsat OakhurstRock Shelter (Goodwin 1938), located havetied people to particular localities and influenced settlement about14 km inland from the coast. He noteda markedincrease patterns.From the mid-Holocene,hunter-gatherer societies inthe frequency of vertebrate fish remains in the mid- and late wereundergoing fundamental social and economic restructur- Holocene, compared with older layers. This suggested that the ing,viz. delayed return systems in theform of storage of plant inhabitantshad thetechnology to catchfish regularly and in foodsin the south eastern Cape (Deacon 1976; Hall 1990), possible quantityat thattime. Since no artefactswere foundthat processingand preservation ofshellfish along parts of the west seemed likelyto have been used for fishing,Goodwin coast (Jerardino1996), complex ritual behaviour (Hall & suggestedthe possible use of fishtraps, and he further Binneman1987; Hall 1990, 2000), and increasedsedentism and proposedthat the best way to investigatethis hypothesis territoriality(Sealy 2006). Populations were growing and there would be througharchaeological excavation