3. Previous Archaeological Research at Mt Eburru
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
LJMU Research Online Van Baelen, A, Wilshaw, A, Griffith, P, Noens, G, Maíllo-Fernández, J-M, Foley, RA and Mirazón Lahr, M Prospect Farm and the Middle and Later Stone Age Occupation of Mt. Eburru (Central Rift, Kenya) in an East African Context http://researchonline.ljmu.ac.uk/id/eprint/11349/ Article Citation (please note it is advisable to refer to the publisher’s version if you intend to cite from this work) Van Baelen, A, Wilshaw, A, Griffith, P, Noens, G, Maíllo-Fernández, J-M, Foley, RA and Mirazón Lahr, M (2019) Prospect Farm and the Middle and Later Stone Age Occupation of Mt. Eburru (Central Rift, Kenya) in an East African Context. African Archaeological Review, 36. pp. 397-417. ISSN 0263- LJMU has developed LJMU Research Online for users to access the research output of the University more effectively. Copyright © and Moral Rights for the papers on this site are retained by the individual authors and/or other copyright owners. Users may download and/or print one copy of any article(s) in LJMU Research Online to facilitate their private study or for non-commercial research. You may not engage in further distribution of the material or use it for any profit-making activities or any commercial gain. The version presented here may differ from the published version or from the version of the record. Please see the repository URL above for details on accessing the published version and note that access may require a subscription. For more information please contact [email protected] http://researchonline.ljmu.ac.uk/ LJMU Research Online Van Baelen, A, Wilshaw, A, Griffith, P, Noens, G, Maíllo-Fernández, J-M, Foley, RA and Mirazón Lahr, M Prospect Farm and the Middle and Later Stone Age Occupation of Mt. Eburru (Central Rift, Kenya) in an East African Context http://researchonline.ljmu.ac.uk/id/eprint/11349/ Article Citation (please note it is advisable to refer to the publisher’s version if you intend to cite from this work) Van Baelen, A, Wilshaw, A, Griffith, P, Noens, G, Maíllo-Fernández, J-M, Foley, RA and Mirazón Lahr, M Prospect Farm and the Middle and Later Stone Age Occupation of Mt. Eburru (Central Rift, Kenya) in an East African Context. African Archaeological Review. ISSN 0263-0338 LJMU has developed LJMU Research Online for users to access the research output of the University more effectively. Copyright © and Moral Rights for the papers on this site are retained by the individual authors and/or other copyright owners. Users may download and/or print one copy of any article(s) in LJMU Research Online to facilitate their private study or for non-commercial research. You may not engage in further distribution of the material or use it for any profit-making activities or any commercial gain. The version presented here may differ from the published version or from the version of the record. Please see the repository URL above for details on accessing the published version and note that access may require a subscription. For more information please contact [email protected] http://researchonline.ljmu.ac.uk/ 1 2 Prospect Farm and the Middle and 3 4 5 Later Stone Age occupation of Mt 6 7 8 Eburru (Central Rift, Kenya) in an 9 10 11 East African context 12 13 14 15 Ann Van Baelen 1,*, Alex Wilshaw 1, Peter Griffith 1, Gunther Noens 1, José-Manuel 16 2 1 1 17 Maíllo-Fernández , Robert A. Foley , Marta Mirazón Lahr 18 19 20 1 21 Leverhulme Centre for Human Evolutionary Studies (LCHES), Department of 22 Archaeology, University of Cambridge, The Henry Wellcome Building, Fitzwilliam Street, 23 Cambridge CB2 1QH. 24 2 25 Departamento de Prehistoria y Arqueologia, UNED, c/ Paseo Senda del Rey, 7, 28040 26 Madrid, Spain 27 28 * corresponding author: [email protected], +44 1223 764719 29 30 31 32 33 Running head: Prospect Farm and the Middle and Later Stone Age occupation of Mt 34 Eburru 35 36 37 Archaeological time period: Middle Stone Age (MSA), Later Stone Age (LSA), Pastoral 38 Neolithic 39 40 41 Country and region discussed: Central Rift, Kenya, East Africa 42 43 Keywords (4 to 6 keywords): Middle Stone Age (MSA), Later Stone Age (LSA), Middle 44 45 Pleistocene, Upper Pleistocene, East Africa, Human evolution 46 47 Mots-clés: Middle Stone Age (MSA), Later Stone Age (LSA), Pléistocène moyen, 48 Pléistocène supérieur, Afrique de l’Est, Evolution humaine. 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 1 64 65 1. Introduction 1 2 Eastern Africa is a key area from which we can improve our information and 3 understanding of human evolution, including the emergence and subsequent dispersals 4 5 of Homo sapiens during the late Middle and Upper Pleistocene. The material record 6 produced by these prehistoric populations, and especially the lithic record, forms our 7 primary source of information for this period when studying behavioural variation and/or 8 change through time. In a first attempt to structure this lithic variability, a chrono-cultural 9 sequence based on the classification of stone tools was put forward for Kenyan and, by 10 11 extension, eastern African prehistory by Louis Leakey in the course of the first half of the 12 20th century (Leakey 1931, 1936). Drawing largely on analogues with similar, already 13 established, sequences in Europe and South Africa, he identified a succession of cultures 14 and described their relation to each other. Even though this terminology and scheme has 15 since been revised on multiple occasions (Ambrose 1980, 1984; Clark 1954, 1982; Cole 16 17 1954; Wilshaw 2016), much of today’s Middle Stone Age (MSA) and Later Stone Age (LSA) 18 terminology cannot be understood in detail without awareness of this historical 19 perspective. 20 21 The list of well-dated stratified sites providing a diachronic perspective on lithic variability 22 in eastern Africa during the late Middle and/or Upper Pleistocene is limited. Such 23 24 archaeological sequences are for instance known from Enkapune Ya Muto (GtJi 12; 25 Ambrose 1998), Marmonet Drift (GtJi 15; Ambrose 2002; Slater 2016), Ntumot (GvJh 11, 26 Ntuka River 3; Ambrose 2002) Lukenya Hill (GvJm 22; Gramly 1976; Tryon et al. 2015), 27 Panga ya Saidi (Helm et al. 2012; Shipton et al. 2013, 2018), and Prolonged Drift (GrJi 11; 28 Merrick 1975) in Kenya, from Goda Buticha (Leplongeon 2014; Pleurdeau et al. 2014; 29 30 Tribolo et al. 2017), Mocheno Borago (Brandt et al. 2012, 2017), and Porc Epic (Assefa 31 2002, 2006; Assefa et al. 2008; Breuil et al. 1951; Clark et al. 1984; Leplongeon 2014; 32 Michels and Marean 1984; Perlès 1974; Pleurdeau 2003, 2004, 2005a, 2005b; Rosso et al. 33 2014, 2017; Teilhard de Chardin 1930; Vallois 1951) in Ethiopia, from Laas Geel Shelter 7 34 (Gutherz et al. 2014) in Somaliland, from Midhishi 2 (Brandt 1986; Brandt and Brook 1984; 35 Brandt et al. 1984; Brandt and Gresham 1989) in Somalia, and from Kisese II (Deacon 36 37 1966; Inskeep 1962; Tryon et al. 2018), Mumba (Diez-Martín et al. 2009; Eren et al. 2013; 38 Gliganic et al. 2012; Marks and Conard 2008; Mehlman 1979, 1989; Prendergast et al. 39 2007), Nasera Rock (Mehlman 1977, 1989; Tryon and Faith 2016) and Magubike (HxJf-01; 40 Werner and Willoughby 2017; Willoughby 2012; Willoughby et al. 2018) in Tanzania. 41 However, good dating evidence is not always present for these sites, and studies of the 42 43 assemblages have often focused on the MSA-LSA transition, its timing and nature; only a 44 limited number of these sequences also document variation throughout the MSA. 45 46 Prospect Farm is one of the few eastern African sites to have yielded an archaeological 47 sequence consisting of multiple MSA horizons underlying both LSA and Pastoral Neolithic 48 49 levels. However, at present, our understanding of the site, its chronology, function(s) and 50 importance within the regional archaeological record is hampered by multiple factors, 51 including the lack of an up-to-date description of the site’s stratigraphic sequence, the 52 lack of insight into site formation processes, and the absence of independent, reliable 53 dating evidence. The latter is of key importance to assess the 14C and obsidian hydration 54 dating results currently available for the site, and to provide information on the age of the 55 56 two lower-most, presently undated MSA horizons. The different archaeological levels 57 present at the site, set against a background of volcanic activity and environmental 58 changes throughout the Middle and Upper Pleistocene, document the recurrent presence 59 (and absence) of prehistoric groups on the slopes of Mt Eburru. Although several 60 excavations have been conducted at the site, so far little research has focused on the local 61 62 63 2 64 65 context of the site and on the spatial distribution of surface finds in the wider area as an 1 indication of variation in land use through time. 2 3 This paper will focus on the latter aspect and in addition to providing an extensive 4 overview of previous (largely unpublished) work done at the site, it tries to improve our 5 6 understanding of MSA and LSA settlement dynamics in the Nakuru-Naivasha basin by 7 presenting new survey results from the northern slope of Mt Eburru. 8 9 10 11 12 2. Regional and local context 13 14 The site of Prospect Farm is situated in Nakuru County (Kenya), part of the former Rift 15 Valley Province. It is located within the Central Kenya Rift Valley (also known as the Central 16 Rift), which forms part of the eastern branch of the East African Rift System (Fig.