The Toromoja Late Stone Age Site: Lithic Assemblage Variability in Botswana and Southern Africa

Home , Dry Creek Rockshelter, History of archaeology, Matupi Cave, Shum Laka, Tsodilo

by Breanne Renae Clifton Bachelor of Arts, May 2008, Dickinson College

A Thesis submitted to

The Faculty of the Columbian College of Arts and Sciences of The George Washington University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts

August 31, 2010

Thesis directed by

Alison S. Brooks Professor of Anthropology

Abstract of Thesis

The Toromoja Late Stone Age Site: Lithic Assemblage Variability in Botswana and Southern Africa

The Later Stone Age in South Africa has been continuously studied since the early twentieth-century, but little work concerning the Later Stone Age in Botswana has been conducted until recently. Ultimately, a thorough examination of intra-regional and inter-regional activity differences and stylistic variability is integral to the understanding of the diverse ways of life of Later Stone Age peoples. A more detailed understanding of the technology, subsistence practices, and regional or territorial interactions of LSA groups that lived in Botswana would add to our understanding of the LSA record in southern Africa as well as providing a foundation for regional comparisons of various

LSA sites and groups in the Late Pleistocene and Holocene (Fig.1). The understanding of the practices of LSA peoples and the foundation for regional comparisons between sites can be constructed through the comparison of tool type frequencies across various sites in

Botswana and South Africa. In order to thoroughly understand the significance of the

LSA and technological variability, first the history of archaeology in Botswana, and of the San people and their relationship to the LSA archaeological record should be scrutinized. Stone tool variability is one method of studying regional variability in technology, subsistence, and culture, and this method is applied to sites in southern

ii southern Africa, and these techno-typological categorizations will be used to assess the assemblages considered. The Toromoja assemblage will be compared with assemblages from the Tsodilo Hills, ≠Gi, Rose Cottage Cave, Thamaga, Toteng, and general technological trends in Zimbabwe and Zambia. Analysis of assemblage variability, for example in tool typologies and their corresponding functions, across southern Africa may be employed to add to data supporting inferences concerning the way of life of the

Kalahari inhabitants and their relationships with other peoples.

iii

Table of Contents

Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………....ii

List of Figures…………………………………………………………………………..…v

List of Tables……………………………………………………………………………..vi

Chapter 1: Introduction………………………………………………………………..….1

Chapter 2: Historical Review of Archaeology in Botswana…………………….………18

Chapter 3: Geology and Paleoenvironment of the Kalahari…………………...………...40

Chapter 4: Toromoja…………………………………………………………………...... 45

Chapter 5: Questions Addressed and Methods……………………………………...... 52

Chapter 6: Analysis………………………………………………………………………55

Chapter 7: Comparative Sites…………………………………………………………....77

Chapter 8: Conclusion: LSA Variability in Botswana……………………………..……99

References………………………………………………………………………………118

List of Figures

Figure 1: Botswana and southern Africa……………………………………………….105

Figure 2: Industrial Complexes of southern Africa from Sampson (1974)…………….106

Figure 3: Satellite image of the Okavango Delta……………………………………….107

Figure 4: Geomorphic Chronology of the southern Makgadikgadi…………………….108

Figure 5: Soil profile of Toromoja……………………………………………………...109

Figure 6: Sediment profile of Toromoja lake bed……………………………………...110

Figure 7: Relict lakeshore at Toromoja………………………………………………...111

Figure 8: Toromoja profile……………………………………………………………..112

Figure 9: TM 4 2/0 Quartz convex scraper…………………………………………….113

Figure 10: TM 143 8/10 Convex scraper…………………………………………...….114

Figure 11: TM 197 22/0 Sidescraper and chert bladelet…………………………..…..115

Figure 12: TM 70 2/0 Pointed bladelet……………………………………………..…116

Figure 13: LSA tools from White Paintings Rock Shelter………………………...…..117

List of Tables

Table 1: Major industries of the southern African LSA…………………………………17

Table 2: Mammalian Taxa identified at Toromoja………………………………………49

Table 3: Non-Mammalian Taxa identified at Toromoja…………………………………50

Table 4: Retouched pieces from Toromoja………………………………………………56

Table 5-10: Lithic measurements…………………………………………………….58-63

Table 11: Size category percentages……………………………………………………..64

Tables 12-20: Debitage……………………………………………………………….65-68

Tables 21-29: Tool types by depth…………………………………………………...68-74

Tables 30-32: Totals by depth and size………………………………………………74-75

Table 33: Rose Cottage Cave frequencies of formal tools………………………………90

Table 34: Estimated dates for Thamaga shelters………………………………………...96

Table 35: Site tool type comparison……………………………………………………..98

Table 36: Site time frames compared……………………………………………………98

Chapter 1: Introduction

The Later Stone Age (LSA) in southern Africa was first distinguished from the

European typological nomenclature by Goodwin and van Riet Lowe in “The Stone Age

Cultures of South Africa” (1929). Goodwin and van Riet Lowe organized various technological industries and cultures within the phase. Typically the LSA, including roughly the past twenty thousand years in South Africa, or longer in East and Central

Africa, is thought to be characterized by items of personal adornment and portable art, polished bone points, backed microliths, a variety of formal scrapers, specialized food gathering tools and containers, and formal burial of the dead (Deacon, 1984).

Botswana and South Africa. In order to thoroughly understand the significance of the

LSA and technological variability, first the history of archaeology in Botswana, and of the San people and their relationship to the LSA archaeological record should be

1 scrutinized. Stone tool variability is one method of studying regional variability in technology, subsistence, and culture, and this method is applied to sites in southern

Africa and Botswana. This thesis will analyze the Central District of Botswana, specifically the site of Toromoja and will compare it with other sites, both in Botswana and South Africa. Various technological industries have been identified previously in southern Africa, and these techno-typological categorizations will be used to assess the assemblages considered. The Toromoja assemblage will be compared with assemblages from the Tsodilo Hills, ≠Gi, Rose Cottage Cave, Thamaga, Toteng, and general technological trends in Zimbabwe and Zambia. Analysis of assemblage variability, for example in tool typologies and their corresponding functions, across southern Africa may be employed to add to data supporting inferences concerning the way of life of the

Kalahari inhabitants and their relationships with other peoples.

The LSA of Southern Africa

Compared to the evolutionary developments of the Early and Middle Stone Ages and their ties to the spread of humans across the Old World, the LSA may seem of lesser global significance. In the global study of Paleoanthropology and Paleolithic

Archaeology, the LSA receives little focus and attention from researchers, and the LSA is most often studied in relation to the prehistory of the San, or Bushmen, and their reactions to „outsiders,‟ whether Europeans or „Bantu‟. In the scholarship of southern

Africa, this same trend of disinterest in the LSA persists (Mitchell, 2005). However, the study of LSA hunter-gatherers is important, and of interest far beyond southern Africa.

An issue of particular distinction is the history and life ways of the Kalahari Bushmen

(Mitchell, 2005). The Kalahari Bushmen have been used as the modern model of

2 idealized hunter-gatherer groups, yet the ethnographic parallels made are tenuous at best, especially since the actual history of these diverse people is still little understood and inadequately supported by the archaeological record (Sadr, 1997).

Southern African LSA archaeology also presents a unique and interesting context for studying the interactions between different social formations as they develop

(Mitchell 2005). Indeed, southern African LSA archaeology presents a rare opportunity for the study of hunter-gatherer relations with numerous other groups over such a relatively recent span of time. Also of great importance is the special potential of LSA study to contribute to global studies of how behaviorally modern humans responded to the new environments created during the most recent shift from the glacial to the interglacial across the Pleistocene/Holocene transition (Mitchell 2005). The good chronological resolution of the LSA makes it particularly advantageous as an area of study to ascertain how anatomically and behaviorally modern humans adapted and changed in response to their environments.

LSA archaeology of hunter-gatherers is not only the concern of narrowly interested academics, but also to anyone who retains a processual interest in generalizing studies of human behavior and cultural variation (Mitchell 2005). Often the only remains of the activities of prehistoric, non-pottery using peoples left to archaeologists are the stone tools, and thus identifying variation, and the sources of variation within and between assemblages, is of great importance. A central focus of LSA archaeology is the gradual shift in South Africa from MSA to LSA technology. The significance and meaning of the move to microlithic technology that marked the onset of the LSA should be considered.

Generally, the LSA is associated with microlithic and bladelet-based technologies; however, in some LSA assemblages these features are absent. Moreover, sometimes these features are also found in some MSA assemblages as well. The presence of „typical‟ LSA tool forms at MSA sites demonstrates this model‟s inability to explain the actual complexity of the MSA/LSA transition in Africa (Ambrose 2002). The

MSA/LSA transition is generally marked by high-frequencies of fine grained raw materials, bipolar cores, outìls écaillés, irregular small flakes, backed microliths, a few radial cores, and flakes with faceted platforms, points, and denticulates. In MSA/LSA transitional material, blades and bladelets are usually a minor component of the assemblages, unlike in „true‟ LSA assemblages.

Mitchell proposes that the replacement of the MSA by LSA stone tool assemblages took place around 20-25000 BP in Southern Africa, yet technology previously thought to be exclusive to the LSA has been discovered much earlier in the archaeological record (2005). Many MSA sites are blade-based but are not microlithic, though blade-based technology with backed microliths does occur in some MSA sites in

Africa (Ambrose 2002). Recently, the earliest blade technologies known thus far were identified in the Kapthurin Formation, Kenya, dating to 545-509 Ka (Johnson and

McBrearty 2010). 524 stone artifacts were recovered, and 95% of this assemblage is composed of flakes, flake fragments, and angular waste, but a small portion does consist of blade and blade fragments (Johnson and McBrearty 2010). Other MSA and early

Levantine Middle Paleolithic industries that contain a substantial number of blades and other „LSA‟ type tools include an Amudian assemblage at Tabun dating to approximately

208 Ka, Klasies River in South Africa dating to approximately 110-115 Ka, and Lower

Cave at Pinnacle Point, the assemblage of which has a significant microblade component and dates to 164 Ka (Johnson and McBrearty 2010). Industries such as Howieson‟s

Poort, South Africa, and the Mumba industry of Mumba Höle, Tanzania, have many characteristics of the LSA but are still considered MSA. Their industries have high frequencies of comparatively larger backed geometric microliths (Ambrose 2002). In addition to these „LSA‟ tool types being found in MSA assemblages, some early LSA industries actually have few features conventionally considered diagnostic of the Africa

LSA. Sites exemplifying this include Shum Laka, Cameroon; Matupi Cave, Zaire;

Border Cave, South Africa; and Ntuka River 3, Kenya (Ambrose 2002). These industries contain very small flakes rather than blades or bladelets and almost no backed or other formally shaped tools are present.

In southern Africa, the MSA/LSA transition in northern Botswana resembles that of eastern Africa more than that of South Africa. For example, the White Paintings Rock

Shelter‟s MSA/LSA transition dates to between 40 and 57 Ka and boasts abundant blades, bladelets, backed tools, and points (Ambrose, 2002; Brooks et al. 2008 SAA presentation). Blades and backed microliths are insignificant in most East African MSA industries (Ambrose, 2002). The East African MSA (more than 70 Ka) is characterized by flakes with faceted platforms struck from radial and Levallois cores on mostly local materials, with some use of exotics, especially obsidian, for formal tools, such as points.

Backed tools first appear in the late MSA (about 70 Ka) and are transitional to the LSA

(Ambrose 2002). Backed microlith production occurred at least by 70 Ka in southern and eastern African MSA lithic industries (those categorized as „transitional‟). Such sites have a combination of MSA (points, radial cores, faceted platforms) and LSA (backed

5 microliths, small blades, bipolar flaking) technological features, but „truly‟ microlithic

LSA industries appeared 40-50 Ka in Eastern Africa (Ambrose 2002). Understanding and explaining the MSA/LSA transition and the pattering of variability during this time is important for understanding later stone tool variability during the LSA.

The distribution of MSA sites where there is extremely little ESA evidence, such as along portions of the Makgadikgadi Pans, suggests either a population increase and/or a new ability to exploit a wider range of habitats and resources than had been possible

(Robbins et al. 1998). Other innovations ushered in with the MSA, along with Homo sapiens, in Botswana include the first use of specularite, the first stone tipped spears, and considerable transport of raw materials (Robbins et al. 1998). Surface sites on the

Makgadikgadi Pans margins exhibit evidence of seasonal visits with extensive and diffuse scatters of artifacts commonly made on silcrete (Robbins et al. 1998). These sites often yield well-made bifacial and unifacial points, awls or piercing implements, denticulates and various retouched flake tools (Robbins et al. 1998). The points and sharp flakes indicate that hunting and butchering were the primary activities on these pan margin sites (Robbins et al. 1998).

Beyond the Makgadikgadi, ≠Gi, in the northwest, was the first excavated MSA pan margin site in Botswana (Brooks and Yellen 1977). The site is important because of the rich assemblage of artifacts and fauna found in a well dated context (Robbins et al.

1998). The evidence at ≠Gi for the hunting of large and possibly dangerous animals is important due to the implications for modern human behavior patterns reflected in the organization skills and language capabilities required for hunting (Robbins et al. 1998).

The LSA/MSA transition in Botswana took place during a comparatively moist period

6 associated with paleolake Makgadikgadi‟s high stage at 945 meters above sea level, between 40 and 57 Ka (Robbins et al. 1998). This variation can be understood through the examination and comparison of stone tool assemblages at various sites of LSA occupation in southern Africa.

Phases and Industrial Complex Variability

Various technological industries have been defined for the LSA in southern

Africa, including the Robberg, Albany, Oakhurst, Loekshoek, Smithfield, and Wilton.

However, not only do these industries vary within themselves through time, they also vary over space. The differences in the relative importance of certain activities during the duration of an artifact tradition can be discerned through comparison of assemblages

(Deacon and Deacon 1999).

Many of the industrial terms and labels were standardized by Sampson‟s 1974 publication, Stone Age of Southern Africa (Fig. 2). Goodwin and Van Riet

Loweproposed the stone tool classification system for southern Africa in the late 1920‟s, establishing the three phases of Early, Middle, and Late Stone Ages (Murphy 1999).

Sampson‟s work built upon what Goodwin and others began and standardized it in a comprehensive, accessible book. His book was among the last of the standard volumes on industry organization, before such categories came into serious question along with processualism as a whole, but even in 1974 Sampson was aware of the perils involved in assigning assemblages to broader spatial-temporal industries. He wrote that “It should be stressed here that the nomenclature in this field must perforce remain flexible as fieldwork increases and more results become known. ... Whether the above terms are

7 thought suitable or not, it is evidence that a functional vocabulary will be essential to describe the numerous artifact samples that recent excavations have produced” (Sampson

1974:8). Though Sampson quite clearly defines and labels the technological industrial complexes of the southern African Stone Age, he does so aware that such terms and definition must remain malleable as new evidence comes to light. In his discussion of technological phases and industries, Sampson starts at the beginning, stating that an assemblage, that is a single mass of similar artifacts found in undisturbed context, is thought to reflect the skills, aims, and needs of a single group that utilized the artifacts

(Sampson 1974). However, as mentioned previously in the discussion of LSA archaeology in the Kalahari, this may not always be the case, as the mobile nature of the populations means that what appears to be a single depositional event likely represents multiple events over an extended period of time, and not necessarily by the same group.

Also, the nature of the sandy Kalahari sediment often meant that in that area artifactual remains were quite vertically mobile, further disturbing context. Of course, Sampson is speaking of an ideal situation, and even then the assemblage would represent only a fraction of a much larger body of remains left by that group over a wider hunting territory

(Sampson 1974). If groups in different parts of the country demonstrated similar artifacts designs, then artifacts deposited at one site would be a small part of a larger artifact group spread over a greater area (Sampson 1974). In this rather simplistic fashion Sampson builds to his definition of an industry as a group of similar samples found at multiple sites, possibly separated by great geographic distance (Sampson 1974). He states that the styles, shapes, and size of artifacts in industries change with time, and that these changes can be reflected in the stratigraphic archaeological record (Sampson 1974). Ultimately,

8 the largest unit described is the industrial complex, a group of similar industries covering a very large geographic region, with samples belonging to a complex possibly being found thousands of miles apart (Clark and Kleindienst 1967; Sampson 1974). Sampson states that “this similarity cannot possibly be the result of direct contact between the two groups that made the samples; yet it shows that they belong to the same technical tradition” (Sampson 1974:6).

In South Africa, the Robberg Industry is one of the first industries of the early

LSA. The Robberg was first identified at Rose Cottage Cave but is named for material recovered from Nelson‟s Bay Cave on South Africa‟s Robberg Peninsula (Mitchell

2002). Robberg assemblages have been identified at Sehonghong dating as far back as

20,000 BP and as recently as 10,000 BP is southeastern southern Africa (Mitchell 2002).

The industry exhibits similarities to microlithic assemblages before 20,000 BP such as having few retouched tools and an emphasis on fine-grained rocks (Mitchell 2002).

Scrapers are the most common tool type, but backed pieces are extremely rare, and are less standardized in size and shape than those found in the Holocene (Mitchell 2002).

Robberg assemblages are particularly distinguished by their systematic punch technique of production for standardized bladelet blanks from a very distinct type of bladelet core

(Mitchell 2002). Cores are often bipolar, especially where quartz was the primary raw material (Mitchell 2002).

In many parts of South Africa the Robberg Industry is followed by what J.

Deacon (1984) described as terminal Pleistocene/early Holocene non-microlithic assemblages, usually labeled as the Oakhurst Complex (Sampson 1974; Mitchell 2002).

The complex is named for Oakhurst cave, found four miles inland from the southern

Cape coast (Sampson 1974). Lasting roughly from 12,000 BP to 7,000 BP, the Oakhurst

Complex exhibits an emphasis on the production of large broad flakes from adjacent- platform and large single-platform cores, minimal blade production, and a high frequency of flakes with large unfaceted platforms (Sampson 1974; Mitchell 2002). Indeed, the most striking contrast between the Robberg and the Oakhurst is the rarity of bladelet production in the latter (Mitchell 2002). The primary raw materials utilized were quartz, quartzite, and sandstone (Sampson 1974).

Several regional industries have been identified within the Oakhurst Complex, such as the Albany, the Lockshoek (previously sometimes known as Smithfield A), and the Pomongwan (Sampson 1974; Mitchell 2002). The Albany is found in the Cape

Folded Mountain Belt and its coastal forelands, the Lockshoek in the Karoo and Free

State, and the Pomongwan in the Matopos Hills of Zimbabwe (Sampson 1974; Mitchell

2002). The raw material utilized for the Lockshoek is almost exclusively lydianite, and the Pomongwan was made primarily on agate, jasper, chalcedony, opal breccias, quartz, and quartzite (Sampson 1974). The Lockshoek is also distinguished from the rest of the

Oakhurst by having comparatively little worked bone and a high frequency of naturally backed knives, similar to the Robberg (Sampson 1974; Mitchell 2002). The Pomongwan has comparatively large numbers of thumbnail and circular scrapers, rare backed tools, and bone matting needles (Sampson 1974; Mitchell 2002). The Oakhurst Complex persisted well into the 8th millennium BC south of the Limpopo and immediately precedes the Wilton in South Africa (Sampson 1974; Mitchell 2002).

The term „Wilton‟ comes from the two rock shelters near Alicedale in the Albany district of the Eastern Cape that were excavated by Hewitt (1921) (Deacon and Deacon

1999). The label still refers to assemblages with a high incidence of backed bladelets, and particularly segments or crescents, found in Zimbabwe, Botswana, Namibia, and

South Africa (Deacon and Deacon 1999). The Mid-Holocene Wilton/Classic Wilton is now dated to between 8,000 or 7,500 and 4,500 years ago, and the Late Holocene Wilton to within the last 4,500 years (Deacon and Deacon 1999). The Late Holocene Wilton, which features fewer segments than its predecessor, would previously have been referred to as the Smithfield C, but now is variously referred to as Interior/Inland Wilton, Late

Wilton, Post-Wilton or Post-Climax Wilton (Deacon and Deacon 1999).

Of primary interest to this thesis, in order to facilitate assemblage comparisons, is

Sampson‟s definition of the Wilton Industrial Complex, the technical tradition that is most often thought to be synonymous with the later part of the Late Stone Age in southern Africa. He distinguishes the Wilton from other prehistoric assemblages by citing the presence of abundant microblades and small flakes that have been either marginally trimmed to from small convex scrapers and sidescrapers, or fashioned into a variety of microlithic backed bladelets, crescents, points, and some other forms (Sampson

1974). This list of features of the Wilton has largely remained the same, though some important differences have been marked at specific sites and regions.

Sampson also distinguishes between what he terms the Coastal Wilton and the

Interior Wilton. The early Coastal Wilton is marked by relatively abundant large sidescrapers, steep scrapers and core hammers, relatively few small convex scrapers, small sidescrapers, small circular scrapers, and outìls écaillés (Sampson 1974). Backed microliths (including backed crescents), double crescents, backed bladelets, and backed points usually with backing along two parallel or converging margins are found in small

11 numbers (Sampson 1974). The primary raw materials are commonly quartzite, quartz, and sandstone, with silcrete, chalcedony, crystal quartz, and chert as the preferred raw materials (Sampson 1974). Other artifacts commonly associated with Wilton assemblages include grindstones, reamers, bored stones, cylindrical bone points, bone awls, mattocks, tubes, beads, shell pendants, ostrich eggshell beads, and engraved ostrich eggshell fragments (Sampson 1974). Obviously, this exhaustive list defining the Wilton seems to be almost exactly the same as descriptions of LSA southern Africa materials as a whole, due in part to the relatively large number and widespread distribution of

“Wilton” sites.

The next spatial-temporal phase, the coastal Classic Wilton, is defined by a decrease or cessation in the frequency of larger heavy scraper types and an increase in the proportions of small convex scrapers, small sidescrapers, small circular scrapers, and backed adzes (Sampson 1974). Also, backed microliths increase in frequency with a wider range of forms represented (Sampson 1974). The following Coastal Wilton phase is the Developed Wilton, in which the proportion of coarse grained raw materials increases and there‟s a subsequent trend towards the production of large sidescrapers

(Sampson 1974). Large utilized flakes become frequent along with core scrapers, core choppers, and serrated pieces, and there is also a notable increase in the frequency of endscrapers at a few sites which corresponds with a decrease in the frequency of small scraper types (Sampson 1974). In some assemblages backed crescents are absent, though backed bladelets and points continue to persist. In general, a wider range of types is present in the Developed Wilton, each type forming only a small percentage of the assemblage and all individual types displaying a wider range of morphological and size

12 variation than in previous phases (Sampson 1974). The final coastal phase is the Ceramic

Wilton, which is the same as the Developed Wilton but with pottery found in assemblages (Sampson 1974).

The Interior Wilton differs from the Coastal somewhat, and encompasses the arid desert through semiarid, thornveld, bushveld, savannah, riverine woodland, and alpine pasture environments of the interior of southern Africa (Sampson 1974). Hunter gatherer groups used various strategies for exploitation of food resources in the diverse environmental regions, and thus it is expected that area would yield a number of different industries (Sampson 1974). However, as LSA tools were so multifunctional, the same tools could be utilized for various and diverse functions in different environments. The

Early Interior Wilton is marked by large scrapers, core hammers, fabricators, and utilized flake elements with a low percentage of small convex scrapers, outìls écaillés, and various backed microliths made from small bladelets struck from agate, chalcedony, or jasper pebbles (Sampson 1974). Later, J. Deacon redefined this large scraper variety of the Wilton as the Albany, part of the Oakhurst Complex (Mitchell 2002).

In the Classic phase, the tools become fully microlithic with crystalline pebbles as the primary raw material (Sampson 1974). Of course raw material choices can be highly site specific, so stating that one raw material is the preferred raw material for all of the

Interior Classic Wilton may be rather far reaching (Sampson 1974). In the Developed

Interior Wilton scrapers become larger and more elongated, though Sampson relates this primarily to the change in raw material to large river pebbles (Sampson 1974). In the final Ceramic phase, small potsherds are found along with small pressure flaked leaf point arrowheads (Sampson 1974). Features of the Coastal Wilton that are not found in

13 the Interior Wilton, according to Sampson, include extensive bone artifacts, double crescents, small double endscrapers, small circular scrapers, small sidescrapers, and shell crescents (Sampson 1974). However, since this work was published the situation has changed somewhat, such as the recovery of an extensive collection of double crescents from ≠Gi, „Ubi, Mahopa, and /Xai/Xai, as well as bone artifacts from ≠Gi, Toromoja, and the Tsodilo Hills (Brooks et al. 1977; Murphy 1999).

Sampson describes other variations on the Wilton Industrial Complex, such as the

Matopan Industry, which was proposed to describe the material from the southern and southwestern regions of what was once known as Rhodesia, now Zimbabwe, and had previously been referred to as Southern Rhodesian Wilton (Sampson 1974). The Pfupian

Industry was proposed to cover the north and east of the Matopan area, though very sparse data supported this interpretation (Sampson 1974). The Zambian Wilton covers primarily western Zambia, within the Zambezi Valley or within the broad drainage basins of the Zambezi headwaters and its large tributary, the Kafue River (Sampson 1974). This industry occurs in both open grasslands and dense woodlands, but so far little data suggest typologies or tool frequencies markedly different from the rest of the Wilton

(Sampson 1974).

The primary industrial complex in Zambia is the Nachikufan, named for the

Nachikufu Cave in eastern Zambia and divided into at least three phases (Sampson 1974).

Phase One, beginning approximately 18 Ka, is marked by poorly made backed bladelets and other backed microliths, including crescents, geometrics, and backed flakes, with convex chunk scrapers abundant at some sites (Sampson 1974). Phase Two A beginning around 9000 BP demonstrates an increase in the proportion of all scrapers and an increase

14 in backed flakes over other microlith forms (Sampson 1974). Phase Two B is dominated by deep and eared crescents, but scrapers do exist in a wide variety of proportions

(Sampson 1974). However, problems exist for the definition of these and other phases of the Nachikufan, such as Phase Two samples displaying rather little consistency in percentage values between sites, and most of the artifacts are associated with potsherds or iron (Sampson 1974). Also, though Phase One is easily distinguished from Phases Two and Three, most of the nuanced subdivisions between Phases Two and Three may merely be the result of activity variations between sites, rather than pure chronological changes in design (Sampson 1974). Phases Two and Three more closely resemble the Zambian

Wilton with an abundance of backed crescents and scrapers, although Nachikufan Phase

Two A may still be older than the earliest Wilton samples (Sampson 1974). Phases Two

B and Three markedly resemble the Preceramic and Ceramic phases of the Zambian

Wilton (Sampson 1974). Sampson dates Phase One to between 11,350 B.C. and 7,000

B.C1., Phase Two A dates to between 7750 and 5250 B.C., Phase Two B dates to between

3980 and 2850 B.C., and Phase Three dates are considerably younger (Sampson 1974).

Phase Three may be the continuation of the complex range of Phase Two assemblages after the first Iron Age contact (Sampson 1974).

The Wilton Industrial Complex is postdated by the Smithfield Complex in many parts of the southern African interior, though the organization and validity of this industry is still in question, and the designation has been largely abandoned since it seems to have been rooted in assemblages collected indiscriminately from a series of open scatters

(Sampson 1974; Walker 1998). Classification systems based on type categories, or

1 Miller 1971 dates Phase One to approximately 16 Ka.

„index fossils,‟ may eventually be abandoned, but likely not entirely (Murphy 1999).

Most archaeologists now acknowledge the fact that stone artifacts are not equivalent to a specific culture, and researchers stress variability in stone artifact assemblages, dedicating much effort to explaining the determinants of assemblage variability (Murphy

1999). Factors that are recognized as affecting assemblage variability include site function and location, time intervals represented by the assemblage, geographical distribution and physical properties of lithic raw materials, technological capacities of the stone knapper‟s techniques, immediate and future functional requirements of the tools, and also random variation (Murphy 1999). However, as mentioned, typological studies are still very useful for the description and comparison of artifact assemblages, as well as communication between scholars (Murphy 1999). Stone artifacts comprise the majority of the archaeological record due to their excellent preservation, thus making it necessary to define assemblages, at least initially, on the basis of stone artifacts (Murphy 1999).

These categories are useful, as long as it is remembered that they were developed by archaeologists to facilitate communication and analysis and should not be viewed as containing emic meaning for those who actually produced and used the artifacts (Murphy

1999).

Table 1: Major Industries of the southern African Late Stone Age

Complex Industry Location Dates Features Robberg South Africa 20,000-10,000 High frequency of (Rose Cottage BP scrapers; backed Cave) pieces extremely rare; punch technique of bladelet production Oakhurst Southern Cave 10,000-7,000 Large flake based; Coast BP very few blades; (Oakhurst flakes with large unfaceted Cave) platforms Albany Cape Folded Rare Mountain Belt microbladelets; dominated by large scrapers; few backed tools Lockshoek Karoo and Free High frequency of State naturally backed knives; little worked bone Pomongwan Matopos Hills Comparatively high number of thumbnail and circular scrapers; bone matting needles Wilton Southern Africa 8,000-4,500 High frequency of BP backed bladelets; numerous segments or crescents Coastal Wilton Southern Few thumbnail African Coast scrapers; high number of backed crescents and other tools Interior Wilton Southern Africa High frequency of Interior thumbnail scrapers; few backed crescents

Chapter 2: Historical Review of Archaeology in Botswana

Currently, the study of archaeology in Botswana is divided among three venues: the National Museum, Monuments, and Art Gallery, the University of Botswana, and the private sector (Campbell 1998a). Many gaps still exists in the archaeological record of

Botswana concerning prehistoric populations, their origins, advent, settlements, and cultures (Campbell 1998a). The Early Stone Age (ESA) record in the country consists of some surface scatters, though the Ngxaishini Pan may have some in situ ESA materials in association with faunal remains (Campbell 1998a). Many Middle Stone Age sites have been located, but few have been excavated, and little is known of the transition from the

MSA to the Late Stone Age except that it seems to have happened between 57,000 and

40,000 years ago (Campbell 1998a; Brooks et al. 2008 SAA presentation). Most notably, there is a division between the types of microlithic tools of the LSA with those in the western half of the country having affinities to the north and west, while those east appear to be more similar to tools from Zimbabwe and South Africa; the reasons for this are as yet unclear (Campbell 1998a). New rock art sites continue to be found in Botswana, and the nature of Bambata ceramic wares continues to be investigated (Campbell 1998a). For the San, LSA archaeology presenting the lives of their direct ancestors is particularly important, as the only written records of San history were written by Europeans

(Sampson 1974).

The history of archaeological investigation in Botswana is not a long narrative, particularly in comparison to the relatively well studied record of South Africa which adjoins Botswana to the south. Archaeology itself did not become a viable scholarly discipline until the end of the 19th century when it was realized that aspects of human

18 history not available in any other record, even during the historic era, could be gleaned through archaeology (Campbell 1998). Archaeology in southern Africa began as a colonial gentleman‟s activity, and research focused particularly in South Africa or

Zimbabwe, both countries with impressive visual remains such as the walls of Great

Zimbabwe or the rich shell middens on the shore (Campbell 1998). To this day colonial prejudices persist that Botswana‟s archaeological record is inferior or not worth investigating (Lane et al. 1998).

Botswana, a country roughly the size of France but almost entirely covered by the

Kalahari Desert, became a protectorate of the British Crown in 1885 (Campbell 1998).

The arid, parched land of Botswana with its sparse population did not make it an attractive settlement or research location. Additionally, until very recently Botswana did not have museums or universities interested in the land‟s prehistory, again in contrast with its neighbors such as South Africa and Zimbabwe (Campbell 1998). The first significant official archaeological act in Botswana was the Bushmen Relics and Ancient

Ruins Protection (Bechuanaland Protectorate) Proclamation of 1911, which was based on the contemporaneous and similar South African Act (Campbell 1998). As some current archaeological research in Botswana relates to the San, so did the first archaeological site protection act. The Proclamation defined “Bushman relics” as “including paintings on stone or petroglyphs, and anthropological contents found in graves, caves, rock shelters, etc.” (Campbell 1998:30). The act defined „ancient ruins‟ narrowly as walled structures or the remains of walled structures built with stone before the Bechuana tribes occupied the country, and also prohibited the damage of relics and ruins as well as their removal from Botswana without a Resident Commissioner‟s permit (Campbell 1998). The

19 antiquity of the “Bechuana tribes‟‟ ancestors move into Botswana was also not well understood in 1911.

The Proclamation continued to be altered and updated until its eventual replacement in 1969 by the Monuments and Relics Act, Chapter 59:03, which is still in effect (Environmental Legislation in Botswana). The act extended the definition of monuments to include any building or mine created before June of 1902 and explicitly defined ancient workings rather than vaguely combining them with stone walling under

„ancient monuments‟ (Campbell 1998). The act also created provision for funding and the appointment of a Commissioner of Monuments, Inspectors and Honorary Inspectors, stipulations for control of monuments, and an annual report through the Minister to the

National Assembly (Campbell 1998).

In contrast, the history of archaeological activity in Botswana is slightly longer and more detailed than the legal history of the discipline in the country. The earliest observations of Stone Age sites in Botswana were rock paintings and engravings, and in

1903 S. Schonland made two small collections of stone tools from the Central District

(Campbell 1998). In the later 1920‟s, A.J.H.Goodwin made his collection of „Levallois forms‟ from sites near Gaborone and Ramotswa; he searched for LSA sites in south eastern Botswana, but was not able to locate any (Campbell 1998). In the winter of 1930 the Vernay Lang Expedition traveled the country locating thirty-three Stone Age sites in the Central Kalahari and the findings were summarily reported in 1935 by C. van Riet-

Lowe (Campbell 1998). The report was scant, only briefly mentioning that Early,

Middle, and Late Stone Age materials were recovered and only listing an Early Stone

Age site south of Lake Ngami along with some photographs (Campbell 1998). In 1943

E.J. Wayland, Director of Geological Survey in Botswana, collected stone tools from around the country with careful notes concerning provenance, and until 1953 he collected material from 159 sites that in the end totaled 1.5 tons; the collection was located in the

Bulawayo Museum, Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) (Campbell 1998). C.K. Cooke, then director of the Bulawayo Museum, analyzed Wayland‟s collection and in 1979 published

The Stone Age of Botswana: A Preliminary Survey, organizing the stone tools in typologies formed in adjacent states: for instance, he refers to the LSA microliths as

„Botswana Wilton‟ (Campbell 1998). This was among the first major publications concerning archaeology in Botswana, in addition to F. Malan‟s collection and description of the first LSA microliths from the Kalahari Desert in 1953 (Campbell 1998).

One advantage of the late start in pursuing an archaeology of Botswana is that most sites were then excavated utilizing modern concepts. The first professional excavations in Botswana were by members of the Harvard University Bushman Studies

Project, later known as the Harvard Kalahari Research Group (Campbell 1998). In 1968 the Botswana National Museum opened, finally providing a domestic institution in which artifacts could be stored and studied, and John Yellen and Alison Brooks, members of the

Harvard Group, began excavations at eight sites in the Qangwa and Caecae areas of

Western Ngamiland, the first truly professional excavations in Botswana (Campbell

1998). The first stratified Stone Age site in Botswana to be carefully excavated was ≠Gi, where they concentrated their work and uncovered extensive Middle and Late Stone Age levels (MSA and LSA respectively) (Campbell 1998; Yellen and Brooks 1988). The sequence contains everything from MSA bifacially worked points to LSA microlithic crescents to Iron Age pottery and pieces of iron. For the first time in Botswana,

21 archaeology allowed new insights into the prehistory of the Kalahari to be pieced together (Campbell 1998; Yellen and Brooks 1988). Other excavations began to take place throughout the state, and new studies focused on the paleoenvironment, particularly by John Cooke with the University of Botswana, who from 1979 to 1984 studied past land forms and climates through his work on old strandlines, calcrete deposits and cave sinters (Campbell 1998). His work was continued by David Thomas and Paul Shaw

(1991), and by George Brook and others (1992), who together demonstrated the fluctuating climates and varying rainfalls throughout the history of the area. They showed how Kalahari land forms changed through time from almost bare, wind-transported dunes to large lakes, to forest, to rivers (Campbell 1998). Also in 1979, the National Museum was finally able to employ an archaeologist, James Denbow being the first incumbent, and the University of Botswana began teaching archaeology (Campbell 1998). In 1982

Larry Robbins and Alec Campbell began excavations at the Tsodilo Hills in northwest

Botswana, where research still continues (Campbell 1998; Campbell et al. 2010).

As of 1998, almost two thousand sites had been recorded in the sites register for the Botswana National Museum, Monuments, and Art Gallery, though site locations seem biased towards the eastern area of the country (Lane et al. 1998). Due to the lack of extensive archaeological data from Botswana the results of archaeological investigation conducted in the country have been forced to use the constructs and typologies from neighboring countries, thus causing the archaeological record of Botswana to be constructed in relation to the archaeological records of South Africa or Zimbabwe, for instance (Lane et al. 1998). Of course Botswana‟s archaeological record should be considered in the context of southern African archaeology in general, as a unique and

22 separate contribution to the reconstruction of southern African archaeology as a whole

(Lane et al. 1998). It should be remembered that southern Africa‟s geo-political boundaries were imposed by Europeans in the late nineteenth century and have little in common with pre-colonial geo-political or cultural boundaries (Lane et al. 1998).

The majority of southern Africa is occupied by speakers of the Bantu language.

The dominant language in Botswana, Tswana, is a Bantu language. The San belong to a distinct language family known as Khoisan. The marginalization of the San is related to their use of a minority language. Khoisan and Bantu languages are both known as „click‟ languages, though of the Bantu languages only Xhose and Zulu are „click‟ languages. It is likely that the Xhose and Zulu languages acquired this linguistic feature after contact with the Khoisan speaking San (Herbert 1990). Often Khoisan languages are thought to be descended from the „first‟ human languages, since the clicks as phonemes are unique and due to the apparently „primitive‟ lifestyle of the groups that speak these languages

(Güldemann and Stoneking 2008). However, this is unlikely and little evidence exists to support such a conclusion (Güldemann and Stoneking 2008).

Archaeological research in Botswana often focuses upon the history of the group known collectively as the San or Khoisan. Genetic and linguistic studies seem to confirm that the San are closely related to the history of the people of the Later Stone Age

(Deacon and Deacon 1999). San art, tools, and other remains of a hunter-gatherer way of life extends back as far as twenty to thirty thousand years ago, but their social structure is most clearly traceable during the Holocene (Deacon and Deacon 1999). In relation to this, evidence for a herder way of life associated with the Khoe language can be traced back approximately two thousand years ago (Deacon and Deacon 1999). The

23 archaeological history of the LSA San and the Khoekhoe herders can be traced through several stages: the elaboration of art and other indicators of a complex belief system, introduction of specialized LSA technology, noticeable increases in population density from about fourteen thousand years ago, the adoption of a herding economy by Khoe- speakers about two thousand years ago, trade and interaction with metal working agriculturists of the Early Iron Age (EIA) after two thousand years ago, and the loss of

Khoisan control over their land in the age of European colonization (Deacon and Deacon

1999). Of course, even though there is a widespread similarity in technology during the

Late Stone Age in southern Africa, it should not be assumed that all LSA material was made by the Khoisan: similar technology does not imply a shared language, religious beliefs, social structure, or other cultural elements (Deacon and Deacon 1999). However, the apparent cultural and technological continuity between the LSA inhabitants of the

Kalahari and the observed San since colonial contact does suggest they were the likely manufacturers of this material, particularly during the Holocene. Until recently, in the

Kalahari most people lived in nuclear family bands of between twelve and twenty-five people, consisting of immediate family along with one or more family members and their immediate families (Deacon and Deacon 1999). Each kin group held the rights to resources within a defined territory of the Kalahari, and generally band size and the territory they occupied remained stable (Deacon and Deacon 1999). Band composition, however, varied considerably over short time intervals, as individuals often acquired or inherited rights in multiple band territories, and individual transfers between bands were common (Lee 1972). Depending on resource availability and the season, occasionally the individual bands would come together to form macro-bands for certain periods of time,

24 particularly congregating around water sources during periods of heightened aridity

(Deacon and Deacon 1999). The various groups of bands were located within a larger territory within the Kalahari defined by language group (Deacon and Deacon 1999).

In 1964 the botanist Story conducted a survey of the vegetable foods used by San groups primarily in Botswana during the 1950‟s which demonstrated that plants provided a greater proportion of their diet than meat, though hunting was still necessary to provide protein and fat during periods where plant foods are not so easily obtained (Deacon and

Deacon 1999). Unfortunately, after colonial settlement took place in South Africa, the

South African San were regarded by their new neighbors as thieves and savages, and the colonists sought their extermination (Deacon and Deacon 1999). The repercussions of these early events and relationships are still a major socio-political issue in Botswana and southern Africa as a whole.

This history of variability in the archaeological record of southern Africa provides background to the changing conditions and cultural variability of the modern San people.

Particularly in Botswana, the San, or Basarwa, have attempted most recently to overcome their language and cultural differences by the creation of a pan-San identity to advocate their rights to land and a traditional way of life (Hitchcock 2002). The many groups that identify as San, from the !Kung to the G/wi, are culturally and linguistically distinct, occupying different environments and thus exploiting various subsistence methods

(Brooks 1982). However, they have united politically in the face of what they see as opposition and oppression from the ruling majority in Botswana, the Tswana (Werbner

2002).

A primary theme of LSA research is the relationships between the San and outsiders, particularly with the pastoralists that migrated from the north. The San are one of many minority groups in Botswana, among which are the Bakalanga, the Bayeyi, and the Bakgalagadi (Hitchcock 2002). The ruling Batswana have attempted to homogenize the diversity within the country in an attempt at a stable, single national identity

(Werbner 2002). In face of this, the San and other minorities have been forced to redefine and construct their ethnic identities in contrast to the prevailing Tswana ideology

(Motzafi-Haller 1994). The Tswana polities centered on a central chief ruling from an urbanized settlement, placing value on sedentarism and living in large, concentrated groups; politically subordinate groups resided in smaller outlying villages (Motzafi-

Haller 1994). The Basarwa, due to their nomadic nature and preference for living in small bands, were viewed as sub-human, animal-like, and unfit to participate in Tswana society and politics (Motzafi-Haller 1994). The San are still commonly viewed in this light in Botswana, being labeled as Remote Area Dwellers or RADS, the majority living on the lowest end of the socio-economic scale with the highest rates of infant mortality and the lowest standards of living and rates of literacy (Hitchcock 2002). The Tswana attempts to „develop‟ the San peaked in 1997 when the Botswana government forcibly resettled more than 2,000 San, from the G/wi and G//anakwe language groups, from their traditional home in the Central Kalahari Game Reserve (CKGR) to the resource poor sites of New !Xade and Kaudwane (Hitchcock 2002). The Botswana government claimed that the residents of the CKGR were over utilizing resources in the reserve and would not be able to „develop‟ unless settled in sedentary villages (Hitchcock 2002). The relocated San were forced to walk miles from their new homes to obtain the basic

26 resources necessary for survival and were almost entirely reliant on the government to fulfill their subsistence and income needs (Hitchcock 2002). The new homes and way of life in which the San were placed did not meet international standards for forced resettlement, which require the new location to provide equal or better living conditions than that from which the people were relocated (Hitchcock 2002).

Since then San NGO‟s and other advocacy groups have been working to address issues of security rights, subsistence rights, and cultural rights in southern Africa

(Hitchcock 2002). In 2002, the San organization the First People of the Kalahari sued the

Botswana government for illegal forced relocation (The Row about the Bushmen; Taylor

2007). The initial case was dismissed, but similar cases went in and out of the courts until finally in December 2006 a group of San won the right to return to their home in the

CKGR (Taylor 2007). This was the second successful San land claim in the region, the first being the ≠Khomani San case in South Africa in 1999 (Taylor 2007). The battle for

San rights continues in southern Africa and is part of the larger, ongoing debate concerning the position of indigenous peoples in southern Africa (Taylor 2007).

However, defining what it is to be „indigenous‟ can be difficult, and no all-encompassing definition exists (Hitchcock 2002). Usually, the term is used to refer to those individuals and groups of people who are believed to be descendants of the country‟s original populations (Hitchcock 2002). The unified San rights movement is based upon these multiple and diverse groups all self-identifying as indigenous and as participants in a specific way of life, namely hunting and gathering or pastoralism. Much debate has occurred concerning the socio-economic position of the San in recent history, whether they were independent foragers and hunters or encapsulated client-herders in an Early

Iron Age political and economic hierarchy. Whatever their historical socio-economic situation, the San find their indigenous identity in shared cultural and subsistence practices, in the archaeological record, and in a shared language family.

The Khoisan language family has five independent lineages, Tuu, Ju-≠Hoan,

Khoe-Kwadi, Sandawe, and Hadza, the last two spoken only in Tanzania (Güldemann and Stoneking 2008). Likely click languages used to be far more diverse but were supplanted by the spread of Bantu language groups (Güldemann and Stoneking 2008).

The spread of Bantu languages across sub-Saharan Africa is also thought to be linked with the spread of agriculture and pastoralism as the primary modes of subsistence, rather than traditional hunting and foraging (Phillipson 1976; Holden 2002). The maximum- parsimony Bantu language trees are consistent with the archaeological evidence demonstrating the spread of agriculture throughout southern Africa during the Neolithic and Early Iron Age (Holden 2002). Hundreds of languages are grouped within the Bantu family, with Eastern Bantu particularly hosting a diverse number of languages (Ehret

2001).

In Botswana, approximately 80% of the country speaks Tswana, but English is the country‟s only official language, leaving Tswana to be designated the „national‟ language

(Herbert 1999). As mentioned previously, the dominance of Tswana in Botswana masks the diversity of languages there, and the government‟s effort to homogenize the population with a national language only leads to a reduction in language diversity

(Herbert 1999). Too often, indigenous languages such as the Khoisan languages of the

San are associated with illiteracy, ignorance, and backwardness, often compelling indigenous language speakers to conceal their native language and to favor use of the

28 dominant language (Nyamende 2008). In this context, language becomes yet another marker of „otherness‟ for a marginalized people. In contrast to the language situation in

Botswana, South Africa has the highest number of official languages on a national level of any country and actively works to promote indigenous languages through the Pan

South African Language Board (Nyamende 2008). This type of recognition and official promotion is what San advocates have called for in Botswana, for the local schools to be taught in native languages and for San participation in government (Hitchcock 2002).

Like the variation in the archaeological record, a uniform San or Basarwa identity cannot be assumed, and artificial boundaries should not be drawn (Motzafi-Haller 1994).

Throughout southern Africa, different processes and histories mark the formation of local identities, and the formation of San identity can be fluid, changing with various socio- political climates (Motzafi-Haller 1994). The varied experiences of indigenous peoples cannot be homogenized or overlooked, even when forming pan-indigenous identities to fight oppression from the dominant culture. The history of the San in southern Africa is long and complex, and debate continues concerning their linguistic and socio-economic histories.

Socio-culturally, the problem of San land rights and cultural recognition continues in Botswana and South Africa in relation to the problems that arise in the creation of a pan San identity. Part of the marginalization of the San is related to their status as a minority language group, which is exacerbated by the considerable differences among the languages in the Khoisan group (Güldemann and Stoneking 2008). LSA archaeology in southern Africa and the study of the current San are inextricably linked and rarely can they be separated in scholarship. Archaeology and Linguistics can be used to study of the

29 history of the San and other indigenous people, aiding in the understanding of past and present identities. Archaeology will likely never be able to definitively tell us to which ethnic group prehistoric peoples belonged or which language they spoke, but it can tell us about population sizes, distribution, movement, settlement patterns, social stratification, manufacture and use of artifacts, subsistence techniques, trade, burial customs, and possibly the origin of certain customs such as bridewealth (bogadi) and cattle-loaning

(mafisa) (Campbell 1998). An appropriate theory to construct a San history from the archaeological record is necessary, for without this, analogies and other relationships can only be speculation (Deacon and Deacon 1999).

Ethnoarchaeology

Botswana is still primarily regarded as a country for ethnographic or ethnoarchaeological research due to the presence of the San, who often are not viewed as having a substantial past of change and development (Lane et al. 1998). These attitudes persist despite their blatant disregard of the archaeological record and the lack of evidence/logic to support the image of the Bushmen as „pristine‟ hunter gatherers (Lane et al. 1998). Many archaeologists have pointed out the obvious fact that it is highly unrealistic to think that the way of life of LSA hunter gatherers remained unaltered for twenty thousand years (Deacon and Deacon 1999). However it is equally improbable to describe a single trajectory for San cultural change or interaction with outsiders (Kent

2006).

The majority of ethnoarchaeological research has been conducted either exclusively among the Baswara populations or on the interactions between the San

30 groups and and the non Khoisan peoples, especially the Bakgalakgadi and Bangwato

(Lane 1998). However, as valuable as ethnoarchaeology can be it does pose some problems for archaeological interpretations (Lane et al. 1998). In ethnoarchaeology, situations in the present are used to help model and identify similar situations in the past in the archaeological record (Lane 1998). Naturally, this invovles the application of uniformitarian assumptions, that certain aspects of the present were the same or at least similar to the past (Lane 1998). Without these assumptions, the analogies drawn through ethnoarchaeology would be meaningless, but too often archaeologists can take the comparisons too far, assuming too much similarity and uniformitarity. Despite this, useful information has been collected through ethnoarchaeology, such as Wiessner‟s study of style, and what, if any, social information can be carried through material culture, among Kalahari San projectile points (Wiessner 1983). Through her analysis

Wiessner identified two types of style, emblemic and assertive (Wiessner 1983).

Emblemic style is marked by stylistically distinct material culture objects used to signal group affiliation, which is particularly important in areas where different groups come into contact (Wiessner 1983). Assertive style is identified as the stylistic variation of the individual, that is the attributes of an object that helped members of a particular linguistic community to distinguish an object made by a member of another group, but not to the point that they were able to identify the specific individual‟s group affliation (Wiessner

1983; Lane 1998). Wiessner also highlights the problems of assigning specific meanings to stylistic variation, as she could not identify a specific pattern of variation or a definition of a variable‟s meaning, and one varying attribute could carry different and multiple meanings in different contexts (Wiessner 1983). Even attributes which would

31 automatically be assigned to function in archaeological analysis, such as tip thickness of the projectile point, could be influenced by style due to events in San history that would leave no visible traces in the archaeological record (Wiessner 1983). Wiessner‟s findings lend support to the supposition that socially meaningful lithic typologies can only be generated through multivariate analyses of both individual tools and different classes of stone tools (Lane 1998).

Other ethnoarchaeological studies have yielded more immediately useful results, such as Brooks‟ analysis of San land-use patterns (Brooks 1984). The study through observation confirmed the minimal requirements for human activity to result in an archaeologyical site. As activities in hunter gatherer societies often involve few people and relatively little debris, the same or different activites must be repeated in the same spot often enough to produce a concentration of material that can be recognized in the archaeololgical record (Brooks 1984). Thus many hunter gatherer archaeological sites are concentrations representing a longer period of time and possibly a variety of activities, in contrast with a single occupation episode (Brooks 1984). The remains of passive hunting strategies such as blinds and other structures intended to conceal the hunter, traps, surrounds, and other structures to entrap, slow down, or channel prey were identified, along with common locations for their construction (Brooks 1984). For instance, blinds are often dug or built along river banks and pans close to game trails

(Brooks 1984). Activities that are not likely to leave archaeological remains include those that leave no debris, such as gathering wild food, trapping small animals, playing, dancing, and present day ritual life (Brooks 1984). Dispersal camps are more likely than more ephemeral sites to enter the archaeological record, but they are still unlikely to

32 result in recognizable concentration of archaeological material since rather small numbers of people were involved, time of occupancy was relatively short, the lack of trampling or burial, and that the dispersal camps were almost never reoccupied (Brooks 1984).

Aggregation camps are more likely than dispersal camps to be preserved in the archaeological record because more people gathered simultaneously in aggregation camps and for a longer period of time, thus creating more debris and trampling, and often the camps would be reoccupied at later times within the same limited area (Brooks 1984).

Both types of camps would gather around pans, which would be long-lasting water sources for the aggregation camp locations, and ephemeral sources for the dispersal camp locations (Brooks 1984).

As a result of this landscape-use patterning, the special-purpose site, specifically specialized hunting sites, is the San land-use strategy most likely to be visible archaeologically, since to construct these camps the land surface can be greatly modified in the form of pits or stone structures (Brooks 1984). Also, since these camps were often reused for the same purpose over extended periods of time, generations of debris could accumulate, and if the site involved was a pit hearth or a pit trap then the possibility for burial of the material would be very good (Brooks 1984). Thus the debris at these specialized passive hunting camps can be very concentrated and leave behind distinctive spatial patterning (Brooks 1984). For these reasons the most common and clearly recognizable sites archaeologically should be along river and pan margins, and sites further from water sources should be rarer, less visible, and lacking in internal structure, unless the site is related to a special activity repeated in the same spot for a great length of time (Brooks 1984).

The Bushman Debate

The so-called „Bushman Debate‟ centers on the level or extent of acculturation of the San through contact with Early Iron Age peoples (Campbell 1998). It is argued that those peoples such as the San who are thought to have typified the LSA hunter gatherer way of life for the past twenty thousand years could not have continued to live in isolation and likely came in contact with EIA agriculturists at least a thousand years ago or more and were possibly active participants in EIA economies (Deacon and Deacon

1999), although this interaction was variable in time and space. This raises questions concerning the use of studies of the lifestyle of twentieth-century San to reconstruct and interpret the behavior of LSA peoples (Deacon and Deacon 1999).

The first evidence of livestock in southern Africa dates to around two thousand years ago; scholarly emphasis has been placed on the origins of herding and its possible association with agriculture and metallurgy (Reid et al. 1998). For the Tswana people, cattle became a major source of social and economic wealth, but the question remains as to how domestic stock arrived in southern Africa and particularly as to why it first surfaces in the archaeological record at the region‟s furthest south margin, the Cape (Reid et al. 1998). Likely the evidence of domestic stock first arising at the Cape supports an acculturation model for pastoralism being increasingly practiced by hunter gatherers rather than a replacement model (Deacon et al. 1978). Other questions related to the introduction of livestock concern the ethnic association of the group responsible for the introduction of domesticated animals and the social structure of the early herders (Reid et al. 1998).

In Botswana, three diverse herding traditions have been recognized in the archaeological record, the first of which is associated with Bambata2 pottery, a rather enigmatic ceramic style the origins of which are not exactly known other than that it is consistently linked with the earliest evidence of domestic animals in both Botswana and

Zimbabwe, approximately 2,700 years ago (Reid et al. 1998). The next herding tradition, beginning in the 6th century AD, is associated with the earliest iron-workers and sedentary agriculturists initially of Bantu origin (Reid et al. 1998). Herding seems to have spread in more arid zones and is also identified with Khoe (non-Bantu) speakers: these are thought to have been mobile communities that utilized pottery but still used stone tools rather than iron (Reid et al. 1998). Of course such partitions present problems of divisions and terminology, as technologies did not simply replace each other in a sequential order. For example, Bambata sites predate and overlap with the arrival of EIA communities, and a thousand years later Khoi communities utilized pottery but continued to employ lithic technology (Reid et al. 1998). Thus these assemblages could be labeled as Late Stone Age pottery traditions or Iron Age stone traditions. Divisions between hunters and herders, iron uses and stone tool users, Bantu and Khoesan speakers are not as clear as was previously thought, an indication that artifact to ethnicity correlations may be unwise (Reid et al. 1998).

2 It is still unclear if Bambata ware and its association with LSA lithics belongs to a transitional period between the Stone and Iron Ages or if it represents evidence of the first farmers in Botswana (Campbell

1998a). Bambata ware is directly linked to the controversy surrounding the introduction of livestock to

Botswana 2,000 years ago and the so called „Bushman Debate,‟ the question of the extent of contact between immigrant farmers and resident hunter gatherers (Campbell 1998a).

The mixing of ceramics and stone tools demonstrates the general mixing of economies, technologies, and cultural messages or ideologies (Reid et al. 1998).

However, it is also apparent that differences do exist between sites that used Bambata ware and sites where isolated Bambata sherds were collected by the inhabitants (Reid et al. 1998). The lithic technology present at these latter sites demonstrates continuity from earlier hunter gatherer LSA traditions (Reid et al. 1998). Comparative analysis of stone tool assemblages from Bambata and LSA deposits shows a gradual movement from projectile points towards scraping implements, a phenomenon that has been observed at other sites before and after the occurrence of Bambata ware, such as in the Matopos Hills of southwest Zimbabwe (Reid et al. 1998; Walker 1995). Possibly users of Bambata ware were groups in transition, borrowing technologies and economies when advantageous and integrating them into their lifestyle, thus raising the question as to whether they were pastoralists or hunter gatherers with access to livestock (Reid et al.

1998). Pottery and sheep appear to have spread initially by the diffusion of new ideas and technologies from one hunter gatherer band to the next rather than by migration of a group of Khoe-speaking herders (Reid et al. 1998).

The actual Khoi migration can be traced through the distribution patterns from northern Botswana to the southern Cape of archaeological pierced lugs in southern

Africa, which matches closely the routes proposed for their migration south (Reid et al.

1998). The clear association between lugs and historic Khoi potters possibly makes the lugs valid markers for dating Khoi migration south, and these dates are earlier than twelve hundred to eleven hundred years ago, possibly between 800 and 900 AD (Reid et al. 1998). As mentioned, approaches based upon artifact typologies are limited, but the

36 archaeological evidence supports the conclusion that the pastoralist Khoi migrated from

Botswana to the Cape a significant amount of time after the earliest sheep and pottery had reached the southern tip of Africa through diffusion (Reid et al. 1998). Epistemologies which emphasize transition rather than uncompromising change may be more effective in demonstrating the gradual and interactive change in political economies that occurred in

Botswana (Reid et al. 1998). Though occasionally the distinction between hunter gatherers and pastoralists may be clear, such as when the remains of livestock coincides with other herder life style elements, usually this distinction should not be emphasized, as domestic animals often served even in historic times as merely an additional element in broadly based and eclectic subsistence methods (Yellen 1984).

Most often the Holocene history of the Bushmen is set in the context of Bushmen-

Bantu relations. An excellent example of one of the arguments in the so-called Bushmen debate is described by Karim Sadr (1997). He outlines the main lines of argument concerning the !Kung‟s economic status and each primary proponent: Lee and Guenther

(1995) claim that the mid-twentieth century !Kung were independent and prosperous foragers and Wilmsen and Denbow (1986) claim that the !Kung are a dispossessed and marginalized underclass separated from economies in which they were once integral players (Sadr, 1997). Denbow proposes that the !Kung in the past two millennia were encapsulated client-herders in an Early Iron Age political and economic hierarchy (Sadr,

1997). The archaeological evidence Wilmsen and Denbow cite to support their argument (!Kung commodities discovered in EIA sites, Iron Age commodities discovered in Bushman LSA sites, and Rock paintings in the Tsodilo Hills of northwestern

Botswana) can all be easily refuted (Sadr, 1997). For instance, of the long list of

37 commodities said to be traded by the !Kung, the only materials extant in the archaeological record are stone tools and the remains of wild game. Also, the remains of wild game found at the EIA sites would not necessarily have been supplied by the

Bushmen, as the Bantu were also extremely capable hunters (Sadr, 1997). As for the stone tools discovered in EIA sites, they were likely not traded during the Iron Age, and these artifacts are probable remnants of previous LSA occupation of the same site. The amounts of Iron Age goods found at LSA sites are extremely insignificant, and the remains of domesticated animals at LSA sites are also insignificant and controversial in date (Sadr, 1997). Wilmsen and Denbow clam that the paintings depicting Bushmen and cattle found in the Tsodilo Hills show that they are looking after cattle, but the dating of rock art is fraught with problems, and the stick figures could be herding or stealing cattle.

The cattle could also just be their own received in fair trade (Sadr, 1997). Looking for specific economic meanings in the paintings is only speculation. Thus Sadr concludes that archaeological evidence does not support the hypothesis that the !Kung were encapsulated client-herders in EIA economics and society, and evidence of this cannot be found at the Kalahari LSA sites (1997). Further research in Late Stone Age and Early

Iron Age archaeology in Botswana is necessary for any further conclusions to be drawn

(See section on Thamaga in Ch. VII). Of course an advantage of the Bushmen debate is that it has forced archaeologists to reconsider issues of pristineness in ethnoarchaeology, such as the role and extent of contact with other groups, the flexibility of shifts between reliance on foraging or other strategies, and the histories of hunter-gatherers, including colonialism and encapsulation (Pluciennik, 2001).

Ultimately, the LSA of southern Africa is comprised of numerous and diverse industries which distinctly differ between regions. The practice of archaeology in

Botswana and Namibia has developed dramatically in recent years, but it still lacks the history and quantity of research observed in South Africa. Also, the majority of research conducted in the Kalahari pertains to the „Bushman debate‟ and ethnoarchaeology.

Questions that remain to be addressed concern the presence of the Wilton in Botswana and the nature of the industry prior to agro-pastoralism, as well as the relationships between this area and those surrounding it.

Chapter 3: Geology and Paleoenvironment of the Kalahari

Botswana‟s climate is primarily influenced by two factors: its position in the center of southern Africa and its latitudinal position, particularly in relation to the main world distribution of pressure and winds (Cooke 1979). As a landlocked country,

Botswana is far from sources of maritime air, and is a tropical, hot country in a latitudinal zone where pressure tends to be high (Cooke 1979). Only the north and east of Botswana receives a notable rainfall, and the high daytime temperatures lead to high water losses throughout the year from evaporation and transpiration (Cooke 1979). In past millennia, the country‟s climate was at certain times very arid, but at other times had much better rates of rainfall than currently (Cooke 1979). The Kalahari is a basin in the southern

African plateau bordered by the highlands of Cape Province, the Orange Free State, and the Transvaal on the south-southeast, Zimbabwe on the east, and the Namibian highlands to the west (Murphy 1999). The great desert is northward from south of the Orange

River approximately two thousand kilometers north to the south Equatorial watershed, and is around twelve hundred kilometers at its widest (Murphy 1999).

The Kalahari basin is a vast plain of red, gray, and white fine-grained sand with the rare rocky outcrop rising above the sand mantle in places (Murphy 1999). The desert is marked by numerous ancient valleys carved out by once flowing rivers, now dry

(Cooke 1979). The Precambrian Kalahari, approximately 700 to 630 million years ago, had unconsolidated, shifting sands, and this sand and its associated heavy minerals metamorphosed and deformed during the early Paleozoic, around 560 million years ago, which produced the foliated, mica-rich quartzite underlying hundreds of meters of strata today (Brook 2010). The only permanent water source in the Kalahari is the Okavango-

Boteti system of swamps and rivers and the Linyati-Zambezi river system in the north

(Murphy 1999). Most of the Kalahari in Botswana is semi-arid, but pockets of vegetation do still exist (Murphy 1999). Evidence of a once wetter climate can be found in the caves of western Ngamiland and near Lobatse, and deposits typical of fresh water conditions alternate with layers of blown sand, indicating a succession of wetter and drier conditions during deposition (Cooke 1979). Of all the valley slopes, though, the most notable falls towards the huge inland basin now occupied by the Makgadikgadi Pans. The Pans contain clear evidence of old shorelines and coastal landforms around what was once a very large lake (Cooke 1979).

The Makgadikgadi Pans Complex, located in northeastern-central Botswana, is one of the largest salt flats in the world, with an area of more than 8400 km2 (Baillieul

1979). Two major pans comprise the Makgadikgadi: Ntwetwe Pan to the west and Sua

Pan to the East. The basin is the lowest point in a drainage system extending into

Botswana from Namibia, Angola, and Zimbabwe (Baillieul 1979). Currently, the

Okavango River drains into an inland delta and intermittently sends minor flows via the ephemeral Boteti River through a small gap into the Makgadikgadi Pans (Fig.3) (Murphy

1999). The origins of the basin lie in the complex climatic and tectonic changes that occurred in the Kalahari during the late Tertiary and Quaternary periods, during a time of frequent seismic activity due to faulting along a continuation of the East Africa Rift

System into central Botswana (Baillieul 1979). The pans are all that remains of a once great Pleistocene Lake, which possibly covered 34,000 km2 at its maximum, with a volume of around 500-1000 km3 (Baillieul 1979). A lake of this size would have required substantial inflow of water and a lower evaporation rate than now observed in

41 order to maintain it (Baillieul 1979). Likely the source was the Okavango River rising in the Angola highlands to the northwest before it was dammed by faulting and formed the swamp complex of its delta today (Baillieul 1979). Other water sources included five westward flowing rivers that drain into the Sua Pan, within the Makgadikgadi Pans and the approximate center of Botswana‟s Central District (Baillieul 1979; Ebert and

Hitchcock). The Okwa River system also possibly contributed inflow from the west, before it became dry (Baillieul 1979).

No outlet has been identified for Lake Makgadikgadi, thus it must have achieved a state where inflow was balanced by evaporation rate, and the lake became increasingly saline over time, which provided the source for the extensive brine aquifer beneath Sua

Pan (Baillieul 1979). Climatic changes caused the lake to fluctuate in size, and multiple shoreline features from different points in time have been identified (Baillieul 1979).

The Makgadikgadi is the continuation of rift faulting beneath the Okavango Delta

(Baillieul 1979). A possible structural origin of the Makgadikgadi Basin may be proposed, in light of the shapes of the present-day pans along with information on faulting in the region, leading to the possibility that there was a series of grabens bounded on the east and west by northeast-trending faults (Fig. 4) (Baillieul 1979). The cross faulting in a west-northwest direction likely helped to define the northern and southern margins of the basin (Baillieul 1979). Today the Sua Pan measures to around 3000 km2 and is partially flooded during the wet season, being fed by the Nata River from the north, the Botletle from the west, and a number of ephemeral drainages from the east and south (Ebert and Hitchcock 1978). Again, this is a closed basin lake, and it has been estimated that in areas without continuous vegetative cover, around 25% of total

42 evaporation takes placed directly from exposed soil (Ebert and Hitchcock 1978). A more equitable rainfall pattern, higher average water table and especially reduced erosion would favor the establishment of continuous savannah cover in areas where extremely seasonal rainfall, fast seepage deep into the earth, and erosion make the land today only able to support thorn scrub mosaic (Ebert and Hitchcock 1978).

The lake was slowly reduced in size during the Pleistocene and Holocene, and this process may have been linear or cyclical (Ebert et al. 1976). Middle and Late Stone Age sites have been located in multiple and various environmental zones, but particularly in the interior basin (Ebert et al. 1976). Late Stone Age remains are the most common, and can often at first glance appear very similar to MSA assemblages except for deposition position (Ebert et al. 1976). LSA tools seem have been made primarily on fine, non-local materials, except for the most expedient functions, suggesting a wide territorial range for the tool makers (Ebert et al. 1976).

Rather than a lake, the Makgadikgadi is now the arid region downstream of the nearly transcontinental drainage system, mentioned previously, that begins in central

Angola (Helgren 1989). The Okavango Delta, Linyanti, Chobe Swamps, Makgadikgadi

Pan, and the northern Kalahari desert are all part of the Sudano-Zambezian phytogeographic regions (Van Houten, 1992). Bedrock outcrops are infrequent, and modern soil development is greatly limited (Helgren 1989). Ancient pedogenic calcretes are common, and vegetation is dominated by thorn-bush savanna and halophytic grassland (Helgren 1989). The Boteti channel is bordered by gallery forest, and savanna woodlands are common only on the deeper ancient dunes away from the basin margin

(Helgren 1989). During unusually wet years in Botswana, the Makgadikgadi basin may also receive inflow from eastern and southern tributaries (Helgren 1989).

The southwestern margin of the basin preserves two relict shorelines, one at 945 m above sea level, the other around 920 m above sea level, which represent the tectonically induced capture at one time of the Zambezi River (Helgren 1989). The highest water mark possibly dates to the Middle Pleistocene, and the other shoreline to the Middle-Upper Pleistocene (Helgren 1989). Of these high lakes, the lower one left at least ten meters of lake sediments with a surface at around +912 m above sea level

(Helgren 1989). This dry, ancient lacustrine plain is the dominant feature of the floor of the modern Makgadikgadi Pan, and after the +920 m lake disappeared, various small ephemeral lakes were eroded in the +912 m lacustrine plain, also around the time of origin of the small Gwi Pan to the south (Fig. 5 and 6) (Helgren 1989). In time the Boteti

River extended downstream from the Okavango Delta into the Makgadikgadi Pan, and the channel followed minor structural lines into the +912 m lake floor, connecting the pans and creating ephemeral deltas and lakes as the flooding moved into the basin

(Helgren 1989). Naturally, these water sources attracted LSA settlement, as the climate in the Makgadikgadi basin remained arid to semiarid; these shorelines were lush with life

(Helgren 1989).

Chapter 4: Toromoja

The site of Toromoja is located in the southwestern carbonate/evaporate terrains of the Makgadikgadi Pans Complex of Botswana‟s central Kalahari and preserves mid-

Holocene, LSA settlement materials along the shore of the desolate lake (Helgren 1989).

Of the two large pans that comprise the Makgadikgadi Complex (Ntwetwe and Sua),

Toromoja is south of Ntwetwe. The site fits the general location criteria of being near fresh water with aquatic resources and migratory game, and proximity to a steep shoreline near to deeper water perhaps offered the opportunity to trap ungulates on a peninsula (Helgren 1989). Of course this was not long lasting, not due to climate change primarily, but to systemic and tectonic changes in hydrography (Helgren 1989). The reconstruction of the paleoterrain chronology at Toromoja is important because the terrains that at one time were accessible from a site, even fragmentarily preserved, are the framework for the geography of available resources, evolving subsistence patterns and culturally preferred areas for settlement (Helgren 1989). Toromoja was occupied in the

LSA on the shore of one of these ephemeral lakes, utilizing „Wilton‟ LSA tools such as thumbnail scrapers and micro-blades made from cobbles of imported green and gray quartzite to obtain foods of both aquatic and dry land resources (Fig. 7) (Helgren 1989).

Faunal remains of fish, water birds, two wetland browsers, reedbuck (Redunca arundium) and lechwe (Kobus leche), crocodile, freshwater barnacle, dry land grazers such as zebra

(Equus burchelli) and wildebeest (Connochetes taurinus), and more testify to the importance of lake and shore resources (Helgren 1989). Soil carbonates collected from within the excavations yielded a radiocarbon date of 2960±50 B.P., but the actual age of the site is likely closer to the middle Holocene (Helgren 1989).

The site‟s immediate terrain is a high point on the relict shoreline, and ancient beach features along with coeval lacustrine sediments are well preserved (Helgren 1989).

The ancient lake sediments below the shore of Toromoja preserve the root casts of large aquatic vegetation (Helgren 1989). Toromoja is on the surface of the relict +912 m above sea level lacustrine plain with a northwards view (Helgren 1989). The water in this zone was unusually deep, reaching to depths of almost three meters, and the mesoscale site terrain is actually the end of a long peninsula that extended into the lake (Helgren 1989).

Perhaps this peninsula provided a convenient trap for the dry land mammals that left the

Kalahari after the brief summer rains and migrated northward toward the Boteti and

Okavango during the dry winter (Helgren 1989). These abundant resources for LSA peoples likely would only have become available during the early Holocene when the

Boteti entered the region, and Toromoja would have been the perfect location to take advantage of these resources given its strategic position at the end of a long peninsula

(Helgren 1989). Of course as settlement here depended upon the lake, when changes in water supply upstream caused the Boteti River to flood southward and extend its channel beyond the Toromoja area, the lake dried and LSA settlement moved elsewhere (Helgren

1989).

The site of Toromoja is approximately 250 km southeast of the Okavango Delta and 6 km north from the eponymous village. Outcrops of gray or green quartzite, which is one of more than a dozen different „silcrete‟ facies in the Makgadikgadi, are well exposed in the area of Gwi Pan, and other outcrops are on the surface immediately west of Gwi Pan (Helgren 1982). The quartzite has a distinctive green color which suggests a genesis through recementation of weathered dolerite by-products (Helgren 1982). On the

46 southern edge of the Ntwetwe Pan, outcrops of weathered dolerite show the same distinctive green color (Helgren 1982). Additionally, tough pedogenic calcretes occur quite conspicuously all around Toromoja (Helgren 1982). On an apparent low horst between Sua Pan and Ntwetwe Pan is a basement outcrop of granite and migmatite

(Baillieul 1979). Gwi Pan West is also an LSA site, where a burial has been excavated which is likely only several hundred years old (Helgren 1982). Gwi Pan West is located approximately 6 km east of the Toromoja village along the western margin of the Gwi

Pan basin (Helgren 1982). Many of the stone tools excavated from Toromoja are made of the green quartzite or silcrete material from Gwi Pan (Van Houten 1992).

Preliminary excavation began at Toromoja in June and July of 1980 under the direction of A.S. Brooks, D.M. Helgren, and A. Mann (Helgren 1982). Seventeen one- meter squares were excavated (Fig. 8). Three sedimentary horizons were identified:

Horizon A, the top layer of soft aeolian sand; Horizon AC, the intermediate layer of sand mixed with calcrete rubble; and Horizon CCa, a hard calcrete layer. Sediment and Soil profiles for Toromoja are given in Figures 5 and 6. The A horizon at Toromoja is a mixture of aeolian sands and pedogenically altered lacustrine sand (Helgren 1982). The site shows evidence of continuous bioturbation of the terrain in the bioturbation lag gravel that composes the calcrete rubble of the AC-horizon and the modern dissolution of the Cca-horizon calcrete (Helgren 1982). The collection of artifacts retrieved at

Toromoja has almost no horizontal integrity, leaving the assemblages thoroughly mixed

(Helgren 1982). In the Cca-horizon, artifacts were found cemented to a depth of more than one meter, indicating bioturbation was active when the area was settled and the pedogenic calcrete developed post-occupation, likely during a semiarid climate slightly

47 more arid than the current conditions (Helgren 1982). The A-horizon is not continuous across the site‟s terrain, thinning and eventually disappearing as the slope angle increases down slope (17⁰ slope, along the lower edge of the site) (Helgren 1982). The calcrete exhibits joints paralleling the ancient shoreline‟s lower levels, suggesting incipient slumping (Helgren 1982). Signs in the terrain point to several shorelines below the excavation datum, which presumably is at the +912 m mark (Helgren 1982). The subsequent shorelines would have been at +910 m, +909 m, and +908 m above sea level, the highest being the most conspicuous of the group and includes cusps (Helgren 1982).

As mentioned previously, a radiocarbon ate of 2960±50 B.P. was obtained on the Cca horizon, but it must be regarded as a minimum date on the soil formation after the LSA occupation (Helgren 1982).

20, 476 faunal bone fragments were collected from Toromoja, and only 467 could be identified (Van Houten 1992). 153 of these fragments belonged to fish (Van Houten

1992). Faunal taxa identified included specimens from the Mammalian Orders

Carnivora, Perissodactyla, Artiodactyla, and Rodentia, and specimens from the Reptilian

Orders Chelonia, Crocodilia, and Squamata (Van Houten 1992). Bird and fish bone fragments were assigned generally to the Classes Aves and Osteichthyes respectively

(Van Houten 1992). All of the species identified from Toromoja continued to be hunted or trapped in northern Botswana (Van Houten 1992). However, only eleven mammalian species, 10.19% of the species now living in northern Botswana, have been identified in the sample from Toromoja (Van Houten 1992). Species from the Orders Insectivora,

Chiroptera, Lagomorpha, Primates, Pholidota, Tubulidentata and Proboscidea are found currently in northern Botswana, but no species from these Orders were identified at

Toromoja (Van Houten 1992). Though 97.72% of the faunal bone sample from

Toromoja remains unidentifiable, possibly the absence of other species from the site indicates that the faunal remains accumulated from the selective hunting and foraging practices of LSA inhabitants (Van Houten 1992). The identified faunal remains are associated with lakeshore and swamp environments and are possibly the result of hunting and foraging activites near a standing body of water (Van Houten 1992). However, the species identified also share a dependence on a standing body of water and its associated environment and resources, which may support the possibility that these are natural deposits (Van Houten 1992).

Table 2: Mammalian Taxa Identified at Toromoja

Taxon Number of Fragments

Order Carnivora Family Viverridae Herpestes ichneumon 1 Family Felidae Felis serval or Felis caracal 1 Order Perissodactyla Family Equidae Equus burchelli 55 Equid cf. Equus burchelli 8 Order Artiodactyla Family Bovidae Subfamily Bovinae Tribe Bovini Bovini gen. et. sp indet 2 Bovid IV cf. Bovini 16 Subfamily Hippotraginae Tribe Hippotragini Hippotragus sp. 3 Subfamily Reduncinae Tribe Reduncini Reduncine cf. Kobus leche 31

Bovid III cf. Kobus or Redunca 39 Subfamily Alcelaphinae Tribe Alcelaphini Alcelaphine cf. Connochaetes taurinus 21 Bovid III cf. Connochaetes 43 Subfamily Antilopinae Tribe Antilopini Antidorcas marsupialis 6 Bovid II cf. Antidorcas 28 Family Suidae Phacochoerus africanus 3 Family Hippopotamidae Hippopotamus amphibius 12 Order Rodentia Family Pedetidae Pedetes cf. capensis 16* Total 285 *Includes 9 fossilized and 7 unfossilized intrusive specimens From Van Houten 1992

Table 3: Non-Mammalian Taxa Identified at Toromoja

Taxon Number of Fragments

Class Reptilia Order Chelonia Family Testudinae Testudo sp. 4 Order Crocodilia Crododylus cf. niloticus 5 Order Squamata Suborder Lacertilia Family Varanidae Varanus cf. niloticus 5 Suborder Squamata Family Boidae Python cf. sebae 6 Class Aves 9 Class Osteichthyes 153 Total 182 From Van Houten 1992

A significant positive correlation exists between the vertical distribution of stone tools and faunal remains at Toromoja, which supports the premise that the faunal material accumulated due to human subsistence activities (Van Houten 1992). However, this is not definitive evidence that this deposit was created by humans rather than natural taphonimc processes such as hydraulic transport or burrowing animals and ungulates

(Van Houten 1992). The differences in vertical distribution for the faunal remains also seem to be linked to differences in sample size, such that species with NISPs of 25 or more are usually recovered from a wider range of levels (Van Houten 1992).

Generally the bone fragments recovered from Toromoja were medium gray in color and encrusted with a calcareous deposit 2 to 4 mm thick (Van Houten 1992). No cutmarks were detected on the faunal bones, nor were carnivore toothmarks identified, though the fragmented nature of the faunal sample prevents these from being significant observations (Van Houten 1992). The bones do not exhibit charring or calcining, thus it cannot be known if the bones were cooked prior to deposition (Van Houten 1992).

However, it does seem likely that these faunal remains were associated with LSA populations subsistence activies, such as hunting, fishing, and trapping and use of other resouces associated with a lake environment.

Chapter 5: Questions Addressed and Methods

A notable aspect of the Late Stone Age in southern Africa and elsewhere is the technological conservatism, that is, where relatively uniform tool-types persisted throughout difference ecological zones with diverse resources (Helgren 1982).

Typological and functional contrast between assemblages can be found in place, time, and in the interaction between spatial and chronological patterning (Parkington et al.,

1980). Assemblages may be assigned to a particular tool-making tradition or industry to indicate that particular technological options were utilized by the producers while others were neglected, possibly indicating a unique functional, cultural, or stylistic component in the assemblage character (Parkington et al., 1980). Thus the LSA is divided into temporally distinct industries such as the Robberg, Albany, and the Wilton. Assemblages are assigned to an industry based upon the dominance or infrequency of certain tool types, though by no means is the distinction always clear. However, inter and intra assemblage variability is far more complex and the divisions- spatially, temporally, and typologically- are not always so easily defined. Also, it is often unclear exactly what it means for assemblages to be identified as belonging to the same industry: do the peoples who produced them share a culture, a language, or just have similar subsistence patterns?

Clearly delineated, bounded „tribes‟ or „industries‟ should not be expected. More likely the reality is far more complex, being “Venn diagram-like landscapes comprised of overlapping communities of practice that do not neatly stack up” (Stahl, 2009:250).

However, this does not negate the general usefulness of industrial categories for organizational purposes in analysis and for quickly communicating the general nature of

52 an assemblage. One should just never forget the underlying variability and complexity that may be subsumed under a general industry label.

Quantitative analysis of variability in retouched tools can delineate patterns of morphological variability in edges. However, questions concerning the behavioral significance of lithic variability have yet to be adequately answered. Other sources of variation must be eliminated before accepting an ideological or symbolic explanation.

The form we observe of extant stone tools is a function of their life cycle. As Mitchell opines, “And how do we know that certain artifact attributes were really used to signal social affiliation or adherence to particular genders, when we still have so much to learn

(from residue, microwear and technological analysis) about artifact use and know so little ethnographically about stone tools?” (Mitchell, 2005:67). We also need to examine the process of microlithization and its role in the development of hunting technologies and change in subsistence strategies. According to Mitchell and his work in Lesotho, microlithization was a move towards more efficient exploitation of raw materials which also led to a reduction in the time needed for procurement (Mitchell, 1988). Another avenue of study for examining the function and variation of stone tools is through the identification of damage and use fracture types which can then be used to establish the possible hunting function, or that of other subsistence activities, of hafted stone tools

(Lombard, 2005).

In my analysis of a sample of stone tools recovered from Toromoja I examined the type of the artifact, raw material, looked for retouch, and measured and recorded each piece by the number assigned to the artifact upon excavation and the grid square where it was excavated. I measured each piece with calipers by length (proximal to distal

53 midline), width (midline perpendicular to length), and height or thickness at the midline.

I sketched each piece for reference and photographed several pieces. I then placed these data within those already recorded for the entire Toromoja lithic assemblage. The assemblage data from Toromoja, particularly the type frequencies, are compared to those from other southern African sites, and from this inferences concerning subsistence practices and cultural groups can be proposed.

Chapter 6: Analysis

Originally it was hoped that the site would yield a lengthy occupation sequence from the early MSA into the LSA, but only LSA material has been identified (Van

Houten, 1992). Typical LSA pieces were also recovered from beneath the calcrete layer

(Van Houten 1992). The technology at Toromoja suggests assignment to the Wilton industry (Mode 5), which is characterized by advanced microlithic flaking technique, a wide range of formal tools, highly standardized backed microliths, and a significant number of small convex scrapers. The primary raw materials utilized are chert, quartzite, chalcedonies, and other cryptocrystalline materials. The green silcrete mentioned previously was highly favored. As of 1992, preliminary analysis had been undertaken on

1743 lithic pieces from squares 2N/0, 8N/10W, and 18N/0 (Van Houten, 1992). Over eighty percent (1441 pieces) of the Toromoja (later referred to as Toromoja 1 in this paper) lithic sample consists of microliths, i.e. those pieces less than 25 mm. In the original analysis, five size categories were defined: very large (56 mm or more), large

(41-55 mm), medium (26-40 mm), small (11-25 cm), and very small (10mm or less). 451 pieces (25.87%) were categorized as very small, 990 (56.80%) as small, 216 (21.39%) as medium, 57 (3.27%) large, and 29 (1.66%) as very large (Van Houten, 1992). Notched pieces, cores, and chunks were found in all size categories. Flakes composed 51.06% of the assemblage (890), blades 13.10% (227), retouched tools 10.7% (188), chunks 3.90%

(68), cores 3.27% (57), and indeterminate 17.96% (313) (Van Houten, 1992). Thus the assemblage from Toromoja is dominated by flakes. The assemblage is also dominated by scrapers, but markedly lacks a large number of bladelets (see below).

Table 4: Retouched Pieces from Toromoja (from Van Houten, 1992)

Artifact Category Number Percentage of Total

Scrapers 48 25.53

Thumbnail Scrapers 36 19.15

Crescents 34 18.09

Misc. notched pieces 29 15.43

Notched pieces 12 6.38

Retouched blades 9 4.79

Retouched flakes 7 3.72

Splinters 3 1.60

Burins 3 1.60

Perforators 2 1.06

Ground stone 2 1.06

Pointed bladelets 1 0.53

Denticulates 1 0.53

Trimming flakes 1 0.53

Total 188 100

Based upon these data, it is also obvious that there is a preponderance of scrapers in this assemblage, which is characteristic of the later Wilton. Many of these characteristics are shared by the most recent sample from Toromoja to be analyzed.

I examined a sample of 94 retouched lithic pieces and cores from Toromoja

(which I will label Toromoja 1a to avoid confusion) which shares many aspects with the data garnered from the rest of the sample. The pieces are encrusted with calcareous deposits and are mostly of a very small size. Of the 94 pieces, one is a grindstone (77.5 mm at its largest), and seven pieces are surface finds, all less than 20 mm. The sample comes from the excavation units 2N/0E, 8N/10E, 18N/0E described above, and also from

22N/0E (6 pieces). 25 pieces (26.59%) are made of the green or gray silcrete, and quartz and chalcedony are common, whereas in the global sample of 1743 pieces, approximately

71.94% are made on green silcrete. The majority of retouched pieces are not made on the green silcrete. Using the same size category as the analysis for the other lithic finds from

Toromoja, of the remaining 86 pieces, four are in the very large category (4.65%), four into the large category (4.65%), thirteen into the medium (15.12%), fifty four into the small designation (62.79%), and eleven in the very small category (12.79%), proportions which match well those of the global sample (Table 11), given the small sample size of

Toromoja 1a.

Approximately twenty of the pieces (23.26%) are cores, primarily microcores, though one or two pieces may be core fragments. Ten of the pieces (11.63%) fall under the „other scrapers‟ category, that is, not convex/thumbnail scrapers. The majority of these are endscrapers, with one side scraper present in the group. Five of the pieces

(5.81%) are notched or denticulated pieces, and these are some of the largest tools with three of them falling into the medium category and two into the large. Three pieces

(3.49%) are perforators or piercers. Forty two of the pieces (48.84%) are all less than 20 mm and are thumbnail scrapers (Fig. 9 and 10). The remainder of the assemblage could

57 be classified as „other,‟ though there is a small black chert bladelet, a marbled gray quartz backed crescent, and a fine black chert pointed bladelet. The majority of all the tools are steeply retouched (Fig. 11 and 12). In the global sample, 3.27% consists of cores, scrapers comprise 25.33%, thumbnail scrapers 19.15%, perforators and piercers 1.06%, and notched or denticulated pieces 6.91% (Van Houten 1992).

In the Toromoja 1a sample, the chert cores are highly reduced, in contrast to the very large green silcrete cores that were retrieved. The bulk of the sample, the convex scrapers, is microlithic, the majority of which are less than 20 mm in size. In contrast,

60% of the other scrapers, primarily endscrapers and sidescrapers, are larger than 25 mm.

Notched or denticulated pieces are all greater than 30 mm. Unlike the larger pieces, the convex scrapers are primarily made on chert or materials other than the green silcrete or another quartzite.

Table 5: Lithic Measurements: Small Convex Scrapers

(Unless otherwise noted; 43 pieces all less than 20 mm)

Number Grid Square Material Measurements (LxWxH) TM 3 2/0 Dark gray chert; 8.0mm x 10.0mm x translucent edges 4.0mm TM 161 8/10 Light gray/white chert; 12.0mm x 12.0 mm x opaque; dark 4.0 mm encrustation on left distal edge TM 151 8/10 Light to dark gray 13.0 mm x 13.0 mm x chalcedony (dark neo- 5.0 mm cortex?); surface cracking; pitting TM 150 8/10 Quartz; translucent with 11.5mm x 11.0mm x a greenish hue; slight 4.0mm encrustation on top (whitish-green) TM 149 8/10 Dark brown chert; 10.0mm x 8.5mm x highly faceted 6.0mm TM 148 8/10 Translucent quartz; 9.0mm x 7.5mm x speckled with black 4.0mm

TM 147 8/10 Coarse gray chert or 13.0mm x 9.5mm x basalt? Small inclusions 4.0mm TM 131 8/10 Light gray coarse chert 8.5mm x 6.0mm x 2.5mm TM 128 8/10 Translucent quartz with 9.5mm x 11.0mm x many small beige 3.0mm inclusions TM 130 8/10 Light grayish brown 11.5mm x 8.0mm x quartzite; semi- 2.0mm translucent TM 104 18/0 Transparent quartz; 11.5mm x 7.5mm x backed 2.0mm TM 103 18/0 White quartz; backed 11.0mm x 11.5mm x 3.0mm TM 96 18/10 Light gray quartz; same 10.0mm x 10.0mm x black residue? 4.0mm TM 95 18/0 (Plate 7) Dark green fine chert; 11.0mm x 8.0mm x backed crescent?; 3.5mm convex TM 94 18/0 Whitish-beige coarse 12.0mm x 11.0mm x chert; very thin 1.8mm TM 49 2/0 Coarse black chert or 6.5mm x 7.5mm x basalt; white-beige 2.8mm incrustation TM 48 2/0 Balck, brown, gray, 10.5mm x 11.5mm x beige striped 3.0mm chalcedony TM 46/TM 16 2/0 Translucent quartz 13.0mm x 12.0mm x speckled with black 4.2mm (same as TM 148); white-beige encrustation TM 35 2/0 Green chert with small 15.0mm x 11.0mm x inclusions 7.0mm TM 31 2/0 Light brown/beige 15.0mm x 14.0mm x quartzite 8.0mm TM 23 2/0 Translucent quartz; 11.0mm x 9.0mm x three tiny shiny black 4.0mm stripes and green encrustation TM 22 2/0 Very coarse chert; 8.0mm x 12.0 mm x 4.0 sandstone? mm TM 21 2/0 Very coarse chert; 11.0mm x 11.5mm x sandstone? 3.0mm TM 14 2/0 Translucent quartz with 11.0mm x 8.5mm x green encrustation 2.0mm TM 13 2/0 Green quartzite; backed 11.0mm x 9.0mm x 3.0mm TM 12 2/0 Brown coarse chert or 14.0mm x 13.0mm x quartzite; segment 3.0mm

TM 11 2/0 Very coarse chert; 12.0mm x 8.5mm x flimsy 2.0mm TM 10 2/0 Fine brown chert; beige 11.0mm x 14.0mm x encrustation 4.0mm TM 9 2/0 Very light gray chert 13.0mm x 13.0mm x 4.5mm TM 63 2/0 Dark gray fine chert 8.0mm x 10.0mm x 3.0mm TM 180 8/10 Grayish light brown 10.0mm x 10.0mm x chert; heavily covered 3.0mm in fine beige material TM 195 8/10 Gray chert; semi- 9.0mm x 11.0mm x translucent edges; 5.0mm TM 179 8/10 Light brown/beige chert 13.0mm x 11.0mm x with black speckling; 6.0mm white encrustation TM 178 8/10 Red/burgundy fine 11.5mm x 12.0mm x chert with heavily black 2.5mm inclusions/speckling; encrustation on dorsal TM 143 8/10 (Plate 7) Fine light gray chert 13.0mm x 12.0mm x with black inclusions; 4.0mm TM 144 8/10 (Plate 7) Fine pink chert; highly 11.0mm x 11.0mm x faceted 4.5mm TM 4 2/0 Semi-transparent quartz 10.0mm x 7.5mm x backed 1.0mm TM 47 2/0 Fine black chert with 14.5mm x 12.5mm x gray inclusions 5.0mm TM 36 8/10 (Plate 7) Dark reddish-black 14.0mm x 10.0mm x chert; very small 8.0mm inclusions; very thick, almost prismatic TM 195 22/0 Fine chert; red, white, 10.0mm x 9.0mm x brown 4.0mm TM 196 22/0 White chert; tiny 4.0mm x 2.0mm x crescent; green 2.0mm encrustation; backed TM 2 2/0 (Plate 7) Coarse reddish chert 14.0mm x 12.0mm x 3.0mm TM 70 2/0 (Plate 3) Fine black chert with 15.0mm x 1.5mm x light translucent edges; 2.0mm pointed bladelet

Table 6: Lithics Measurements: Mixed Cores

Number Grid Square Type/Material Measurement (LxWxH) Cores #44 8N/10W;30-40 Microcore; 16.0mm x 13.0mm sandstone/silcrete/quartzite x 6.0mm Cores #44 8N/10W;30-40 Microcore; dark gray with 31.0mm x 22.0mm lighter gray/greenish striped x 17.0mm includsions #34 8N/10W;50-60 Microcore; fine black chert 17.0mm x 8.5mm x with beige encrustations and 7.0mm inclusions #74 18/0;85-100 Possible core; greenish- 42.0mm x 31.0mm reddish quartzite with x 28.0mm encrustation #74 18/0;85-100 Possible microcore; green 23.0mm x 15.0mm quartzite with encrustation; x 16.0mm cortex? TM 90 18/0 Core; large chunk of raw 61.0mm x 57.0mm dark green quartzite x 27.0 mm TM 724 SS 792; 2N0;65-75 Core; large chunk of raw 78.0mm x 67.0 mm sift dark green silcrete with x 49.0mm encrustation Toro #54 0/18N; surf. 55 Possible core; oddly shaped 50.0mm x 26.0mm BD chunk of green x 33.0mm quartzite/silcrete with encrustation Toro #54 0/18N; surf. 55 Small piece of same green 31.0mm x 18.0mm BD silcrete/quartzite x 14.0mm Toro #54 0/18N; surf. 55 Microcore; fine brown/gray 23.0mm x 21.0mm BD chert with encrustation x 1.0mm #81 18/N;55-65 Core; green 32.0mm x 26.0mm quartzite/silcrete x 20.0mm #81 18/N;55-65 Core/out.ec.?; green 27.0mm x 32.0mm quartzite/silcrete with top x 19.0mm layer of fine gray/green chert #81 18/N;55-65 Microcore; green/red 22.0mm x 15.0mm quartzite with large x 9.0mm inclusion of quartz/fine gray chert Cores #75 65-75 Dark green silcrete with 47.0mm x 40.0mm encrustation x 3.4mm Cores #75 65-75 Brown/beige silcrete with 28.0mm x 24.0mm encrustation x 16.0mm #65 18/0; 55-65 Microcore; green/beige 15.0mm x 9.0mm x silcrete 1.0mm #65 18/0; 55-65 Bipolar core?; brownish- 17.0mm x 9.5mm x green chert 7.0mm #65 18/0; 55-65 Tiny piece of grayish-green 12.5mm x 8.5mm x

chert 5.0mm #65 18/0; 55-65 Bipolar microcore?; tiny 14.0mm x 9.0mm x piece of grayish-green chert 7.0mm #65 18/0; 55-65 Reddish-brown gray silcrete 28.0mm x 18.5mm with encrustation x 14.0mm

Table 7: Lithics Measurements: Other Scrapers (10 pieces)

Number Grid Square Type/Material Measurements (LxWxH) TM 53 2/0 Endscraper; green/gray 58.0mm x 42.0mm x silcrete 14.0mm TM 190 22/0 Endscraper; red/green 25.0mm x 22.0mm x quartzite 8.0mm TM 8 2/0 Endscraper (?); green 20.0mm x 24.0mm x quartzite 9.0mm TM 184 22/0 Dark gray chert with 18.0mm x 18.5mm x dark lines 5.0mm TM 113 18/0 Dark green chert 16.0mm x 13.0mm x 0.6mm TM 181/191 22/0 Pinkish quartzite with 26.0mm x 28.0mm x green/neocortex 12.0mm bottom TM 142 18/10 Brown quartzite with 16.0mm x 15.0mm x encrustation 6.0mm TM 127 8/10 Sidescraper; green 39.0mm x 24.0mm x quartzite with 6.0mm encrustation/dirt TM 75 18/0 Endscraper; green 26.0mm x 19.0mm x quartzite with 12.0mm encrustation and black inclusion TM 177 8/10 Dark gray quartzite 15.0mm x 17.0mm x 4.0mm

Table 8: Lithics Measurements: Notched and Denticulated Pieces (5 pieces)

Number Grid Square Material Measurement (LxWxH) TM 109 8/10 Green quartzite with encrustation 35.0mm x 26.0mm x 14.0mm TM 74 18/0 Green silcrete with encrustation 30.0mm x 24.0mm x 7.0mm TM 189 8/10 Green quartzite/silcrete with 39.0mm x 25.0mm x encrustation/dirt 8.0mm None Unknown Red/brown green silcrete 45.0mm x 36.0mm x 8.0mm TM 206 2/0 Dark green quartzite with darker 42.0mm x 57.0mm x inclusions; clear bulb of percussion on 15.0mm ventral

Table 9: Lithics Measurements: Perforators/Piercers (3 pieces)

Number Grid Square Material Measurements (LxWxH) TM 173 8/10 Light dark gray chert; backed 21.0mm x 8.0mm x 3.0mm TM 188 8/10 Pinkish brown quartzite with 15.0mm x 11.0mm x encrustation 0.5mm TM 186 8/10 Light dark gray quartz 31.0mm x 20.0mm x 13.0mm

Table 10: Lithics Measurements: Mixed

(*=unique, not included in size count) (30 pieces larger than 20 mm)

Number Grid Square Type/Material Measurements (LxWxH) *TM 57 2/0 Groundstone 77.5mm x 65.0mm x 52.0mm Toromoja #52 2N/0; 0-10 Retouched piece; 14.0mm x 7.0mm x black  gray  clear 3.0mm chalcedony; backed TM 176 8/10 Greenish-brown chert 15.0mm x 11.5mm x (was in a rubber 5.5mm mount); highly faceted; thick TM 197 22/0 Sidescraper; very 23.0mm x 12.0mm x light/seafoam green 3.0mm quartzite with a quartz inclusion on left distal end on dorsal

TM 155 8/10 Bladelet; black chert 16.5mm x 6.0mm x 2.5mm #54/-8 82-12A2 Marbled gray quartz 22.0mm x 9.0mm x 0.5mm *TORO #48 36N/0; 20 Top Stone surface finds; All less than 20mm 7pieces; flakes of silcrete and quartz

Both Toromoja collections are dominated by scrapers, though thumbnail scrapers seem to be more prominent in the smaller collection. Only one pointed bladelet is in the assemblage, though the larger collection has a number of blades without retouch that the smaller collection lacks. As far as size, though, the two assemblages are extremely similar (see below).

Table 11: Size Category Percentages

40 Toromja 1 30 Toromoja 2 20

0 Very Small Small Medium Large Very Large

Though the sample sizes are drastically disparate, the same general size trends are still present in both samples. The debitage of the entire Toromoja assemblage demonstrates a preponderance of green silcrete pieces. The opposite is true of the retouched tools of the assemblage, which is dominated by raw materials other than the green silcrete. This may

64 indicate a preference for finer exotic raw materials for formal tools, while the local green silcrete was utilized for everyday convenience in making sharp flakes. Unusually, smaller pieces are found in deeper levels, indicating some level of bioturbation.

3Table 12: Medium, Large (#), and Very Large (#) Debitage for 2 N/0

Depth4 Core Chunk Blade Flake Indet.5 Totals G NG G NG G NG G NG G NG G NG 0-10 (1) 3 4 (1)12 21 10-20 4 (3)5 12 20-30 (2)(1)2 (2)(4)3 4 (5)14 1 38 30-40 (1)(2) (1)(1) (2)1 1 9 40-50 (1)4 (1)(2) (1)7 0 16 50-60 2 2 1 2 (1)1 6 3 65-75 (1) 1 2 (1)(3)1 6 3 75-85 (1) 1 85-95 1 1 100-110 110-120 120-130 1 1 140-150 1 1 Totals 16 2 22 2 12 2 60 0 2 0 112 6

Table 13: Medium, Large (#), and Very Large (#) Debitage for 8N/10W

Depth Core Chunk Blade Flake Indet. (Retouch6) Totals G NG G NG G NG G NG G NG G NG 0-30 (1)1 (1)2 3 (1)1 (1)3 1 (2)(2)11 1 1 4 25 7 30-40 1 1 (1) (2)(1)5 1 10 1 40-50 (1) (1)2 (1)6 (1)(5)12 1 29 1 50-60 2 1 (1)5 2 8 1 - 0 0 70-80 1 (1)3 1 5 0 - 0 0 95-110 1 1 0 1 Totals 6 4 7 4 12 1 51 2 1 0 9 77 11

3 Tables 12-29 from the notes of Alison S. Brooks 4 Depth is in cm below surface, G= Green silcrete material, NG= Material other than the green silcrete

5 Indeterminate 6 In Tables 9-17 retouched pieces not included in totals

Table 14: Medium, Large (#), and Very Large (#) Debitage for 18N/0

Depth Core Chunk Blade Flake Indet. (Retouch) Totals G NG G NG G NG G NG G NG G NG 0-55 (1)1 (1)1 1 2 (1)7 3 14 1 55-65 3 (1)2 (2)2 1 (2)(3)13 (1)(2)3 28 1 65-75 (1) 1 (1)1 4 1 (1)5 1 13 2 75-85 3 2 (1)1 5 2 85-100 (1) 2 1 2 100-110 1 2 1 0 Totals 10 1 7 1 11 6 34 0 0 0 12 62 8

Table 15: Small Debitage for 2N/0

Depth Core Chunk Blade Flake Indet. Totals G NG G NG G NG G NG G NG G NG 0-10 6 4 78 7 84 11 10-20 9 4 32 9 41 13 20-30 6 8 72 24 78 32 30-40 4 8 36 17 3 2 43 27 40-50 2 6 5 3 1 9 8 50-60 1 1 3 3 6 6 1 12 9 65-75 2 2 6 6 7 4 8 3 21 17 75-85 0 0 85-95 1 2 2 8 1 1 12 3 100-110 3 1 1 3 2 110-120 0 0 120-130 1 1 1 1 140-150 1 1 0 Totals 1 2 2 2 36 38 250 73 16 8 305 123

Table 16: Small Debitage for 8N/10W

Depth Core Chunk Blade Flake Indet. (Retouch) Totals G NG G NG G NG G NG G NG G NG 0-30 1 1 7 1 6 1 17 6 7 2 1 38 11 30-40 1 2 1 12 3 18 7 6 5 7 39 16 40-50 2 4 7 65 18 14 71 25 50-60 1 1 3 2 2 21 6 2 10 26 12 70-80 3 1 4 3 5 1 9 12 5 95-110 1 1 1 2 2 1 Totals 5 2 9 5 28 14 125 41 21 8 43 188 70

Table 17: Small Debitage for 18N/0

Depth Core Chunk Blade Flake Indet. (Retouch) Totals G NG G NG G NG G NG G NG G NG G NG 0-55 1 1 1 4 21 1 4 3 7 1 31 5 55-65 2 3 2 9 4 30 8 3 1 4 8 46 16 65-75 5 1 30 17 1 5 35 18 75-85 1 1 1 2 1 2 3 1 4 4 85-100 1 1 3 1 6 1 1 1 11 2 100-110 1 1 1 1 2 Totals 4 3 5 1 22 8 90 28 7 7 16 16 128 47

Table 18: Very Small Debitage for 2N/0

Depth Core Chunk Blade Flake Indet. Totals G NG G NG G NG G NG G NG G NG 0-10 28 7 1 1 29 8 10-20 8 9 8 9 20-30 1 21 5 48 8 69 14 30-40 3 1 12 5 13 7 28 13 40-50 1 1 1 3 3 9 5 13 50-60 1 1 1 4 3 6 4 65-75 1 2 3 3 15 6 19 11 75-85 0 0 85-95 2 2 1 6 5 9 7 100-110 0 1 2 2 1 110-120 0 0 120-130 0 0 140-150 0 0 Totals 0 0 0 0 8 8 75 33 92 39 175 80

Table 19: Very Small Debitage for 8N/10W

Depth Core Chunk Blade Flake Indet. (Retouch) Totals G NG G NG G NG G NG G NG G NG 0-30 3 1 3 4 3 30-40 2 4 4 5 35 19 4 41 28 40-50 1 10 13 5 11 13 50-60 1 5 1 8 1 5 14 2 70-80 1 2 5 3 1 7 4 95-110 1 1 0 Totals 0 0 0 0 5 5 24 19 49 26 15 78 50

Table 20: Very Small Debitage for 18N/0

Depth Core Chunk Blade Flake Indet. (Retouch) Totals G NG G NG G NG G NG G NG G NG G NG 0-55 1 1 8 4 13 3 22 8 55-65 2 5 2 4 2 11 2 65-75 3 2 2 3 2 75-85 1 1 2 0 85-100 4 2 2 4 2 100-110 1 1 0 Totals 0 0 0 0 3 1 18 8 22 5 2 4 43 14

Table 21: 8N/10W Medium (L) (VL)

Depth End SCBE7 Bkd MRB9 MRF10 Notch Other Totals Scraper Blt8 G NG G NG G NG G NG G NG G NG G NG G NG 0-30 1 1 (1) (1) 3 1 30-40 1 1 0 40-50 0 0 40-50 0 0 Calc.11 50-60 1 1 1 1 50-60 0 0 Calc. 70-80 1 1 2 0 95-110 1 1 0 Calc.

Totals 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 2 0 2 1 1 0 8 2

7 Single Crescent Blunt End 8 Backed Bladelet 9 Miscellaneous Retouched Blade 10 Miscellaneous Retouched Flake 11 Calcrete layer

Table 22: 8N/10W Small

Depth End TB Misc. SC13 SCBE BCXC14 RET BR16 Scraper 12Scraper Scraper 15BLT Cres G NG G NG G NG G NG G NG G NG G NG G NG 0-30 30-40 1 1 1 1 40-50 40-50 2 7 1 1 1 1 Calc. 50-60 1 3 50-60 Calc. 70-80 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 95-110 1 Calc.

Totals 2 5 2 9 1 1 1 2 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 3

8N/10W Small continued

Depth BR BKD17 MRF Notch MRP18 Totals Piece G NG G NG G NG G NG G NG 0-30 1 1 1 0 30-40 1 1 3 4 40-50 0 0 40-50 Calc. 1 4 10

50-60 2 1 2 2 7 50-60 Calc. 0 0

70-80 1 2 7 95-110 1 1 1 Calc.

Totals 1 3 1 1 2 0 2 2 13 29

12 Thumbnail Scraper 13 Single Crescent 14 Backed Crescent 15 Retouched Bladelet 16 Broken 17 Backed 18 Miscellaneous Retouched Piece

Table 23: 8N/10W Very Small

Depth End TB RET BR BKD Out. Ec. MRP Totals Scraper Scraper BLT Piece G NG G NG G NG G NG G NG G NG G NG 0-30 0 0 30-40 3 1 0 4 40-50 1 0 1 40-50 2 2 0 4 Calc. 50-60 1 1 1 2 0 5 50-60 0 0 Calc. 70-80 1 0 1 95-110 0 0 Calc.

Totals 0 2 0 5 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 4 0 15

Table 24: 2N/0 Medium (L) (VL)

Depth End Burin MRF Notch Dentic. Out. Ec. Other Totals Scraper G NG G NG G NG G NG G NG G NG G NG G NG 0-10 (1) 0 1 10-20 0 0 20-30 (1) 1 0 30-40 1 1 0 40-50 0 0 50-60 (1) 1 0 Calc. 65-75 (1) (1) 1 1 65-75 0 0 Calc. 85-95 0 0 Calc. 85-95 0 0 100-110 0 0 120-130 1 1 0 140-150 0 0 Totals 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 5 2

Table 25: 2N/0 Small

Depth End TB Misc. Duckbill Peripheral SC SCBE INC Scraper Scraper Scraper Scraper Scraper CR G NG G NG G NG G NG G NG G NG G NG G NG 0-10 1 1 1 10-20 3 2 1 20-30 2 1 1 1 1 30-40 1 1 40-50 1 1 1 1 50-60 1 3 Calc. 65-75 65-75 1 1 1 Calc. 85-95 Calc. 85-95 1 1 100- 1 110 120- 130 140- 150 Totals 4 4 4 8 1 1 1 0 2 2 0 2 0 1 0 1 2N/0 Small continued

Depth PTD BR Cres BR BKD Burin MRF MRP Totals BLT Piece G NG G NG G NG G NG G NG G NG G NG 0-10 1 3 1 10-20 1 4 3 20-30 1 3 4 30-40 1 0 3 40-50 2 1 6 1 50-60 2 1 1 1 8 1 Calc. 65-75 0 0 65-75 1 1 3 Calc. 85-95 0 0 Calc. 85-95 1 1 2 2 100-110 0 1

120-130 1 0 1 140-150 0 0 Totals 0 1 0 4 0 3 0 1 2 2 1 2 27 20

Table 26: 2N/0 Very Small

Depth End Scraper TB Scraper RET BLT BR BKD MRP Totals Piece G NG G NG G NG G NG G NG G NG 0-10 1 0 1 10-20 1 1 1 1 2 20-30 1 1 1 1 1 3 30-40 0 0 40-50 3 0 3 50-60 1 1 1 0 3 Calc. 65-75 0 0 65-75 0 0 Calc. 85-95 0 0 Calc. 85-95 1 1 0 2 100-110 0 0 120-130 1 0 1 140-150 0 0 Totals 0 2 1 5 0 1 0 1 1 6 2 15

Table 27: 18N/0 Medium (L) (VL)

Depth End Misc. Ret BL Ret FL MRF Notch Other Totals Scraper Scraper G NG G NG G NG G NG G NG G NG G NG G NG 0-55 1 1 1 3 0 55-65 1 (1) (1) (1)1 5 0 55-65 1 1 0 Calc. 65-75 0 0 65-75 1 1 0 Calc. 75-85 0 0

85- 0 0 100 100- 1 1 2 0 110 Totals 2 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 3 0 2 0 12 0

Table 28: 18N/0 Small

Depth End TB Duckbill SC SCBE BCXC INC CR Bkd Blt Scraper Scraper Scraper G NG G NG G NG G NG G NG G NG G NG G NG 0-55 2 1 1 55-65 1 55-65 2 1 1 Calc. 65-75 65-75 1 2 1 Calc. 75-85 1 1 1 85-100 1 1 100- 110 Totals 2 4 1 1 1 0 1 2 1 2 1 0 0 1 1 0

18N/0 Small continued

Depth Burin Ret BL MRF Notch Out. Ec. MRP Other Totals G NG G NG G NG G NG G NG G NG G NG G NG 0-55 1 3 8 0 55-65 1 1 2 2 3 55-65 1 1 1 2 5 Calc. 65-75 0 0 65-75 1 1 1 5 Calc. 75-85 1 3 1 85- 1 1 100 100- 0 0 110 Totals 0 1 1 1 2 0 1 0 1 0 4 3 0 0 17 15

Table 29: 18N/0 Very Small

Depth TB Scraper BR Cres MRP Totals

G NG G NG G NG G NG 0-55 0 0 55-65 0 0 55-65 Calc. 2 2 0 65-75 0 0 65-75 Calc. 2 0 2 75-85 0 0 85-100 1 1 0 2 100-110 0 0

Totals 2 2 0 1 0 1 2 4

Table 30: 8N/10W Totals by Depth and Size

Depth Very Small Small Medium (L) Totals (VL) G NG G NG G NG G NG 0-30 0 0 1 0 3 1 4 1 30-40 0 4 3 4 1 0 4 8 40-50 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 40-50 Calc. 0 4 4 10 0 0 4 14 50-60 0 5 2 7 1 1 3 13 50-60 Calc. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70-80 0 1 2 7 2 0 4 8 95-110 Calc. 0 0 1 1 1 0 2 1 Totals 0 15 13 29 8 2 21 46

Table 31: 2N/0 Totals by Depth and Size

Depth Very Small Small Medium (L) (VL) Totals G NG G NG G NG G NG 0-10 0 1 3 1 0 1 3 3 10-20 1 2 4 3 0 0 5 5 20-30 1 3 3 4 1 0 5 7 30-40 0 0 0 3 1 0 1 3 40-50 0 3 6 1 0 0 6 4 50-60 Calc. 0 3 8 1 1 0 9 4 65-75 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 65-75 Calc. 0 0 1 3 0 0 1 3 85-95 Calc. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

85-95 0 2 2 2 0 0 2 4 100-110 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 120-130 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 2 140-150 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Totals 2 15 27 20 5 2 34 37

Table 32: 18N/0 Totals by Depth and Size

Depth Very Small Small Medium (L) (VL) Totals G NG G NG G NG G NG 0-55 0 0 8 0 3 0 11 0 55-65 0 0 2 3 5 0 7 3 55-65 Calc. 2 0 2 5 1 0 5 5 65-75 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65-75 Calc. 0 2 1 5 1 0 2 7 75-85 0 0 3 1 0 0 3 1 85-100 0 2 1 1 0 0 1 3 100-110 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 Totals 2 4 17 15 12 0 31 19

The Toromoja assemblage represents the remains of the activities of Later Stone

Age hunter-gatherers on the shore of ancient Lake Makgadikgadi. Microliths comprise

82.67% of the assemblage, which is dominated by thumbnail scrapers and lacks a substantial bladelet component. The primary raw material is the green silcrete that could be obtained in the nearby area of Gwi Pan, but the majority of the microlithic formal, retouched tools are made on a finer material such as chert (62.24%). The chert cores in the collection are highly reduced, unlike the large green silcrete cores excavated. Large pieces such as denticulates and large scrapers are made on the green silcrete as well.

Possibly this indicates a preference for finer non-local raw materials for formal tools, and the more easily obtainable local green silcrete for expedient tools. The collection shares more characteristics with the coastal Classic Wilton than with the Interior Wilton as described by Sampson (1974), in that there is a low frequency of large heavy scraper types, and a marked abundance of small convex scrapers, sidescrapers, and backed

75 microliths. The Toromoja assemblage lacks the large elongated scrapers by which

Sampson distinguishes the Interior Wilton. The sample also is close to Deacon and

Deacon‟s (1999) definition of Late Holocene Wilton, such as in the diminished frequency of segments.

The archaeological material in conjunction with the faunal remains indicates a standard lake shore environment and the utilization of the associated resources by LSA hunter-gatherers. Though no cut marks or evidence of cooking could be identified on the faunal remains, they are all species still hunted and trapped in northern Botswana. The faunal remains indicate fishing and the trapping or hunting of land animals dependent upon the lake as a food and water source. Like the lithic material, the smaller specimens of the faunal sample are found in deeper levels, likely indicating some level of bioturbation from animal activity, from small mammals or insects. Likely LSA hunter- gatherers congregated at this site when the lake was full and offered substantial resources, making it an ideal location for hunting blinds or pit traps.

Chapter 7: Comparative Sites

Tsodilo Hills

The windswept expanses of the Kalahari present a major difficulty in the interpretation of Stone Age data, as the majority of sites known from here are open air

(Robbins 1988). Hills with natural rock shelters and caves like those found in countries such as Namibia, Zimbabwe, and South Africa are rare (Robbins 1988). Rock shelters are extremely useful for archaeologists since they often provide stratified radiocarbon date sequences along with excellent preservation of archaeological materials, which is not the case for open air sites. In the Kalahari, the Tsodilo Hills is one of the few places where rock shelter sites exist. The Tsodilo Hills are located in the Kalahari in northwestern Botswana, approximately thirty-five kilometers west of the Okavango River

(Murphy 1999). The three primary hills are known as the Male Hill, the Female Hill, and the Child. The Hills consist of Upper Proterozoic Damara Sequence schists, quartzite, and dolomite marbles that are variously metamorphosed (Murphy 1999) and contain extensive veins and outcrops of quartz (Murphy 1999). Silcrete, which is common here, is generally found in several of the fossil river drainages in the Kalahari (Murphy 1999).

Southeast of the Male and Female hills is a large pan with the area of five by eight km, which is covered in a calcrete that is all that remains of the once shallow lake (Brook

2010). The calcrete is composed of mollusk shells and fossil diatoms from freshwater algae and indicates a deposition from standing water of no more than five or seven meters deep (Brook 2010). At one point the lake hit the basal slopes of the Male and Female hills to the north and east, and in the south wave action eroded a curved shoreline into the

77 northernmost linear dune (Brook 2010). Unlike the lakes of the Makgadikgadi Pan, fossils such as Melonoides tuberculata indicate that this lake was not ephemeral, as that species cannot survive in ephemeral water bodies (Brook 2010). Lacustrine conditions predominated here over two stages, from 27,000 to 22,000 years ago and from 19,000 to

12,000 years ago (Brook 2010). Elsewhere in Botswana and Namibia wet intervals have been documented at 41,000 to 33,000 years ago, 28,000 to 26,000 years ago, and from

20,000 to 14,000 years ago (Brook 2010).

The Precambrian quartzite formations around the Tsodilo Hills were covered by

Kalahari Group sediments of Cretaceous (around 136 million years ago) to recent age and now mantle the area around the Hills (Brook 2010). The sediments are approximately one hundred to two hundred meters thick and are comprised of conglomerates and gravel, marl, sandstone, alluvium, lacustrine deposits, unconsolidated windblown Kalahari sand, and duricrusts, which are accumulations of iron deposits (ferricrete), silica (silcrete), and calcium carbonate (calcrete) (Brook 2010). These accumulated elements either rest on top of preexisting sediments or are cemented within them, a process that results in hardened masses anywhere from a few centimeters thick to tens of meters thick (Brook

2010). West and northwest of the Okavango Delta dune ridges stand tall and straight, rising up to twenty-five meters high, and are spaced approximately one to two and a half kilometers apart (Brook 2010). They continue for more than two hundred kilometers, but immediately south of Tsodilo the dunes have subsided and rounded crests rise only about ten meters above inter-dune areas (Brook 2010). The Tsodilo Hills rise out of this field of linear dunes aligned east-to-southeast and west-to-northwest, stretching from the

Okavango Delta in the west into Namibia (Brook 2010).

Human populations must have been drawn to the Hills for a considerable amount of time due to the presence of permanent water in both natural pools and springs and the natural rock shelters (Murphy 1999). Well over three thousand individual rock paintings are documented and are under investigation at Tsodilo, and the high quality cherts and chalcedonies that consistently appears in the archaeological record here are not local and cannot be located in the region, indicating human transport (Murphy 1999).

The two groups who now occupy the Hills are the San-speaking Ju/‟hoansi and their Hambukushu neighbors (Taylor 2010). The Late Stone Age peoples of the Tsodilo

Hills were likely the ancestors of the San, who inhabited southern Africa for at least forty thousand years, and were likely the only residents there until around two thousand years ago, when Bantu-speaking agriculturalists arrived from Central Africa (Taylor 2010).

The principal archaeological sites investigated in the Tsodilo Hills are the White

Paintings Rock Shelter, the Depression Shelter, and Rhino Cave (Robbins et al. 2010).

White Paintings shelter is one of the largest shelters at Tsodilo, and initial excavations were conducted there in August of 1989 by Alec Campbell and Larry Robbins (Robbins

1989). The White Paintings shelter is the only rock shelter thus far known in the

Kalahari that during certain times directly overlooked a lake (Brook 2010). Located at the base of Male Hill, the shelter receives its name from the painting of a large white bull elephant with its trunk and tail projecting out, which features prominently on the shelter wall (Robbins et al. 2010). Surrounding this painting are geometric designs accompanied by animals and human figures with hands on their hips and some mounted on horses

(Robbins et al. 2010). Approximately seventy white paintings have been identified in the

White Paintings shelter and at least three in red pigment (Murphy 1999). The shelter

79 enjoys an advantageous position, as the surrounding hills provide a „funnel‟ for the natural concentration or driving of wild game (Murphy 1999). The site is within one day‟s walk of the riverine and marsh environments of the Okavango, making the hills a convenient stop for travelers from the Okavango to the deep sandveld of the northwest

Kalahari (Murphy 1999).

White Paintings offers the most extensive and complete archaeological record of the Tsodilo shelters and from approximately one hundred thousand to seventy years ago

(Robbins et al. 2010). The LSA and MSA deposits are separated by a minor rock fall layer 4.2 m beneath the surface (Robbins et al. 2010). The fauna excavated is a mixture of fish and wetland animals, and numerous microlithic artifacts have been recovered, particularly backed bladelets thought to have been used as arrow barbs (Robbins et al.

2010). The sequence at White Paintings Rock Shelter spans from the MSA to historic periods, an estimated 100,000 year sequence that has the potential to help clarify and correlate data from other archaeological sites in the interior regions of southern Africa and help explain the nature of the technological and behavioral changes that occurred

(Murphy 1999).

The lithic tools and debitage excavated from the shelter are in pristine condition, and primarily made of local quartz and some non-local chert (Fig. 13) (Murphy 1999).

Large quantities of fish bones and at least fifteen barbed bone points have been recovered, and fish bones were recovered in every level from the surface to a depth of four meters (Murphy 1999). White Paintings has an extensive archaeological record, presenting evidence of human habitation covering a time span from approximately fifty to sixty years ago through a period of chronological overlap with the Iron Age villages of

Ngoma and Divuyu located on the Female Hill, and then into a long sequence of Late

Stone Age deposits that date to the Middle to Early Holocene (Murphy 1999). Deeper still, there is evidence of a transitional early Late Stone Age/Middle Stone Age sequence, beneath which was a typical Middle Stone Age assemblage that pushed the time frame for the site back into the Pleistocene (Murphy 1999). The most recent archaeological material, the LSA and EIA lithics, includes crescents (segments), backed bladelets, backed points, side and end scrapers, burins and awls, two drills, and numerous bladelets

(Murphy 1999). Quartz and quartzite bipolar cores dominate, but flat bladelet cores and core reduced pieces are also found (Murphy 1999). Non-quartz cores include bladelet cores, multi-platform cores, single platform cores and core reduced pieces (Murphy

1999). The faunal material associated with this period is all wild in origin (Murphy

1999).

The next level corresponds the closest chronologically to the Toromoja material, which is the Late Stone Age level approximately eighty or ninety to one hundred and thirty centimeters in depth. In this layer pottery is no longer evident at around a depth of eighty centimeters, and dense microlithic assemblages along with grindstones, hammerstones, barbed bone points, ostrich egg shell beads, and faunal and botanical remains (primarily mongongo nut fragments) are found (Murphy 1999). This layer dates to the early to mid Holocene, approximately 4,000 to 7,000 B.P., or between 5,000 to

2,000 BCE (Murphy 1999). This assemblage also demonstrates a notable increase in fish bones (Murphy 1999). The majority of the stone tools are microlithic and included backed bladelets, backed points, crescents (segments), side and end scrapers, burins, awls, drills, and notches (Murphy 1999). Non-retouched bladelets dominate the

81 collection, and most cores are quartz or quartzite and bipolar with a few flat bladelet cores (Murphy 1999). However, there are numerous non-quartz bladelet cores, multi- platform cores, and a few radial cores (Murphy 1999). The primary raw material is local quartz and quartzite, but approximately twenty-one percent of the collection was produced on imported chert or jasper (Murphy 1999). Unlike the Toromoja assemblage, this collection is dominated by bladelets, backed points, and crescents and lacks a significant quantity of small convex scrapers.

The second Tsodilo site, the Depression shelter, was the first deep rock shelter excavated at the Tsodilo Hills (Murphy 1999). Excavation of the site began in 1987 under the direction of Robbins and Campbell and revealed over five meters of archaeological deposits, the upper 2.8 m of which dated to approximately 400 B.P. to

19,000 B.P. (Robbins 1990; Murphy 1999). Notable archaeological findings include evidence for a relatively continuous LSA microlithic tradition of substantial time depth, and that the use of grinding and pounding equipment can now be proven to date back at least to the terminal Pleistocene (Murphy 1999).

The Depression Shelter is located on the Female Hill and the site consists of a rock overhang, and adjacent cave-like fissure and an open area (Robbins 1988). The hundreds of small depressions ground into the vertical walls of the shelter give the site its name (Robbins 1988). The sequence goes back rather far, with notable artifact density at a depth of 400 centimeters, or about 30,000 years ago, indicating more intensive use of the site (Robbins et al. 2010). However, the densest accumulation of artifacts is in the top meter of the deposits, which roughly corresponds to the past 3,500 years (Robbins

1988).

The top meter of deposits is characterized by microlithic crescents, small scrapers, and some bladelets and other tools (Robbins 1988). Like Toromoja, local quartz and quartzite are the primary raw materials and a majority of tools are made from these materials. Also like Toromoja, the formal tools recovered are most commonly made of non-local chert (Robbins 1988). Though this uppermost meter is the densest accumulation of artifacts, at a depth of 60 to 110 cm, or roughly 2,000 to 3,500 years ago, the density of occupational debris dramatically drops (Robbins 1988; Robbins et al.

2010). This time period is considered to be „pure‟ LSA as no Iron Age artifacts were found and is roughly contemporaneous to the occupation sequence at Toromoja. The lithic material found during this time at the Depression Shelter largely consists of backed microliths, small scrapers, and some burins and other tools (Robbins 1988). Unlike

Toromoja, there is no significant frequency of small convex scrapers. Not until the top

30 cm, approximately 1,000-1,500 years ago during the Iron Age, do small convex scrapers increase in frequency.

Ultimately, the LSA sequence at the Depression Shelter does not show any major changes in artifacts through time (Robbins 1983). There are very few recognizable cores present and bladelets are rare, possibly because of the flaking qualities of the quartz

(Robbins 1983). Microliths and small scrapers are present throughout the sequence, but true thumbnail scrapers and large scrapers are rare (Robbins 1983). Generally the artifacts are similar to LSA artifacts found in other parts of Northwest Botswana, but there are distinctions in workmanship, style, and the frequencies of various artifact types

(Robbins 1983). The densest LSA material is in the upper meters of the deposits, or within the last 3,500 years (Robbins 1988). The assemblage consists primarily of

83 microlithic crescents and small scrapers, along with some various backed bladelets, awls, drills, and retouched artifacts (Robbins 1988). Debitage is mostly numerous small flakes and bladelets, and grinding and pounding stones are frequent (Robbins 1988). As noted, the primary raw material is local quartz, but there is also a variety of imported chert used

(Robbins 1988). Bone points and ostrich eggshell beads were also recovered (Robbins

1988).

The upper 60 centimeters is contemporaneous with the Iron Age as Iron Age ceramics are occasionally found in association with the tools (Robbins 1988). The discovery of iron artifacts and Iron Age pottery with „classic‟ LSA materials implies that the local „LSA‟ peoples were interacting and trading with Iron Age populations, rather similar to the dynamic currently present in the Tsodilo Hills (Robbins 1988). Thus once again the distinction between Stone and Iron Age is blurred.

The artifacts recovered from 60 to 110 centimeters in depth may be seen as a

„pure‟ LSA occupation layer, in that it predates the arrival of food production or iron technology in southern Africa (Robbins 1988). There is no evidence of livestock at the

Depression shelter, and likely access to mongongo nuts was the biggest draw for hunter gatherers (Robbins 1989). The decrease in density of artifacts indicates changing mobility patterns, and this is most noticeable in the middle to early Holocene deposits

(between 120 and 150 cm) dated to between approximately 4,000 and 7,100 years ago, though none of the layers were sterile (Robbins 1988). This indicates that the Depression shelter was inhabited continuously during this time, but occupation may have been reduced to relatively brief visits (Robbins 1988). The nature of the technology found

84 does not change though, as backed microliths and stone artifacts generally similar to those found in the overlying levels persist (Robbins 1988).

The third shelter, Rhino Cave, is also on Female Hill and is named for the white painting of a large rhinoceros or possibly an elephant that has been painted over a red giraffe along with other faded red geometric designs (Robbins et al. 2010). The LSA deposit here, excavated at a depth of between 70 and 75 centimeters, is dated to slightly older than 5,000 years ago, and overlies MSA material (Robbins et al. 2010). Also like the other shelters at Tsodilo Hills and Toromoja, the primary raw material used in the assemblages found here are quartzite and silcrete (Robbins et al. 2010). However, due to a lack of significant stone tool deposits, no reliable comparisons with the Toromoja assemblage can be made.

Another notable similar site about 125 km southwest of the Tsodilo Hills is

Drotsky‟s Cave (Yellen et al. 1987; Robbins et al. 1996). Drotsky‟s Cave is located in the dolomite marbles of the Gewihaba hills, where six outcrops emerge from the now dry

Gwihaba Valley (Robbins et al. 1996). The area is surrounded by low longitudinal sand dunes stabilized by vegetation (Robbins et al. 1996). The first excavations here were in

1969 under the direction of John Yellen accompanied by the !Kung San from the Dobe area, and excavation focused on the northeast entry chamber of the cave (Robbins et al.

1996). Excavation at Drotsky‟s Cave began again in 1991 under the direction of Robbins

(Robbins et al. 1996). The test excavations at the cave provided new information concerning the paleoenvironment and archaeology of the western Kalahari during the later and terminal Pleistocene, and there is an occupation layer dated to the terminal

Pleistocene that was rich in LSA artifacts, pieces of ostrich egg shell, the remains of

85 carnivorous bullfrogs, springhare, and other fauna (Robbins et al. 1996). The fauna here is well preserved, and includes mammals, birds, amphibians, and reptiles, but no fish

(Robbins et al. 1996). The main occupation layer, in the terminal Pleistocene, is marked by a continuous layer of charcoal between 50 and 80 centimeters below the surface

(Robbins et al. 1996). Faunal remains such as those of Angon vlei rat, climbing mouse, an aquatic Xenopus frog, and side neck turtle, along with a detailed sediment study, confirms that conditions were substantially moister than at present between approximately 30,000 and 11,000 years ago (Robbins et al. 1996). According to analysis of a diatom assemblage dated to this period, the currently dry Gwihaba Valley was flowing for most of the year (Robbins et al. 1996). Thus the nearby Gwihaba River and valley were probably being systematically exploited and the mouth of Drotsky‟s Cave was inhabited as a camp (Robbins et al. 1996). Of the LSA material recovered here, the primary raw material is silcrete and there were 146 pieces of debitage, 56 of which were chert, six cores (five chert), ten retouched pieces (eight chert), and eight with edge damage from use (Robbins et al. 1996). Notably, no backed microliths were recovered, but well-made chert bladelets and four cores with negative bladelet scars were excavated

(Robbins et al. 1996). Only one chert scraper was found (Robbins et al. 1996). Although the scant accumulation of artifacts indicates that this site was not frequently occupied, the lithic material recovered indicates a higher frequency of bladelets than of scrapers, unlike at Toromoja.

≠Gi

According to Yellen and Brooks, the sites in the !Kangwa and Mahopa valleys are a single LSA industry characterized by numerous small crescents and relatively few short

86 endscrapers (1988). For example, the LSA industry at the site of /Xai/Xai likely stretches westward into Namibia, and also into the northwest Cape region of South Africa, and is characterized by steep biconvex crescents (Yellen and Brooks, 1988). The site ≠Gi has a microlithic industry based on blade technology (Vrabel, 1981). Tool forms include simple and „double‟ crescents, backed bladelets, duckbill scrapers, awls, and numerous retouched flakes and blades variously identified as side and end scrapers (Vrabel, 1981).

An important feature of the assemblage differences between ≠Gi and Toromoja is the dominance of crescent tools at the former, and the comparative infrequency of crescents at the latter. Thumbnail scrapers are also not found at ≠Gi. The Okavango Delta marks the eastern boundary of this line of demarcation of the LSA industry from the Tsodilo

Hills and Toteng, which is distinctly differentiated from the LSA materials of similar age from Toromoja and the other sites in central and southeastern Botswana. (Yellen and

Brooks, 1988).

≠Gi is one of many small pans located in the broad relict channel-way in the Dobe

Valley north of the Aha Hills (Helgren 1978; Helgren and Brooks 1978). ≠Gi is an open air site, and excavations there intersected a variety of lacustrine, fluvial, and colluvial sediments and yielded evidence of both MSA and LSA settlement (Helgren 1978). The site provides historic context for the modern San population and preserves important paleoenvironmental data (Helgren and Brooks 1978). The circular pan is 180 meters at its maximum diameter, and is located one kilometer east of the border between Botswana and Namibia and 100 kilometers south of the Caprivi Strip (Brooks et al. 1977). The ≠Gi

Pan holds water for less than half a year and is dotted with shallow depressions where locals have excavated for water (Brooks et al. 1977). The ≠Gi beds record multiple

87 environmental changes from more humid than the present to more arid during the Upper

Pleistocene and Holocene (Helgren and Brooks 1978). LSA settlement did not arrive until after the disappearance of a major lake and its replacement by a mosaic of ephemeral lakes (Helgren and Brooks 1978). After this, another humid period allowed another valley-wide lake during the Late Upper Pleistocene, and LSA settlement then resumed when this second lake dried into the present pan terrain of the Dobe Valley

(Helgren and Brooks 1978).

The site is located on the eastern edge of the pan where excavations by Yellen

(1969-70) and by Brooks (1975-1983) confirmed the presence of a long archaeological sequence (Brooks et al. 1977). On the eastern side of the pan is a well defined ridge that is raised between fifty centimeters and one meter above the level of the ridge elsewhere

(Brooks et al. 1977). This raised margin has at least two series of LSA levels in a fine silt-clay matrix with rounded regular limestone inclusions, with the layers separated by a discontinuous sheet of calcrete rubble (Brooks et al. 1977). The site is composed of a series of pits which could be anything from pit traps to hunting blinds to wells, and they contain large mammal mandibles, horn cores, and ostrich eggshell beads along with a variety of microlithic tools (Helgren and Brooks 1978). The LSA material is most concentrated north of the original Yellen East West trench and has a highly compressed vertical distribution with an excellent preservation of associated faunal remains (Brooks et al. 1977). As at Toromoja, vertical mobility of artifacts is high here due to the unconsolidated substrates (Helgren and Brooks 1978).

The primary raw material of the tools found here is local silcrete in the form of river cobbles (Brooks et al. 1977). The tools that most characterize the ≠Gi LSA

88 assemblage are simple and „double‟ crescents (crescents with a convex retouched edge opposite the backed side), elongated bilaterally backed bladelets (drills), duckbill scrapers, awls, a wide range of retouched flakes and blades classed as side and end scrapers (Brooks et al. 1977). Thumbnail scrapers are extremely rare at ≠Gi, and what scrapers there are, are few and crude: biconvex crescents are also poorly represented

(Brooks et al. 1977; Brooks 1984). Generally, the industry at ≠Gi seems to be blade based with numerous crescents, and the cores and all removals are very small (Brooks et al. 1977). The ≠Gi LSA assemblage is primarily distinguished by its relatively large number of double crescents and on this basis is very distinct from the LSA material collected by Cooke (1967) in the Nata River area and from a number of sites in the

Matopos Hills, as well as from Toromoja (Brooks et al. 1977). However, the nature of the assemblage fits in very well with the samples from the Brandberg in Namibia (Brooks et al. 1977). Interestingly, the double crescent is listed by Sampson (1974) as characteristic of the Coastal Wilton, and although the distance and environmental distances between the Northern Kalahari and Southern Cape are considerable, the lithic typological similarities are evident (Brooks et al. 1977). This further supports the diverse purposes to which stone tool types can be applied.

Other Sites in Botswana and Southern Africa

Located in eastern South Africa, Rose Cottage Cave has been under extensive modern excavation since 1987 (Wadley, 2000a). Rose Cottage Cave has a long occupation history from the MSA to the later LSA. An Oakhurst lithic assemblage has been identified there dating to 9250-8160 BP, thought to have replaced a late expression of the Robberg industry at around 9560 BP (Wadley, 2000). The Smithfield industry has

89 also been identified here, which is an LSA non-microlithic industry (Wadley, 2000).

Smithfield A/Lockshoek is demarcated by sidestruck flakes and large, D-shaped scrapers, and Smithfield B by „duckbilled‟ scrapers, which are the most common at Rose Cottage

Cave in the layers dating to 8600-8300 BP (layers Cm and Ph) (Wadley, 2000). The

Wilton industry identified here dates to 7630-5970 BP, labled Classic Wilton, and a pre- ceramic post-classic Wilton industry as been identified at approximately 2240 BP

(Wadley, 2000a). Both industries contain numerous backed tools, including segments.

Wadley identifies the least heterogeneity in the post-classic Wilton industry. The Wilton industry at Rose Cottage occurs in a single layer, Pt. This layer is thought to have been accumulated at two separate visits due to two separate dates being recorded for the deposit (Wadley, 2000a). The pre-ceramic post-classic Wilton also occurs in a single layer, A2, a layer with large ash deposits (Wadley, 2000a). In level Pt, only 2.9% of the assemblage can be identified as formal tools, and 55% of those are scrapers (70% of which are endscrapers). In layer A2, 5.7% of the assemblage is identified as formal tools,

62.7% of which are scrapers (81.6% of these endscrapers, 80.9% of which are small microliths). Also, the primary raw materials here are opalines. (Wadley, 2000a).

Table 33: Rose Cottage Cave Frequencies of Formal Tools from Layers Pt and A2 (from Wadley, 2000a).

Layer Pt Layer A2 Scrapers Large (30+mm) 6 6 Medium (20-29 mm) 35 109 Small (<20mm) 136 403 Backed Tools Segment 40 56 Blade 6 13 Miscellanous 3 13 Broken 7 19

Other Tools Tanged arrowhead - 1 Adze/spokeshave 33 65 Awl/borer 5 10 Broken tool 11 38 Miscellaneous retouch 16 30 „antique‟ 9 27 „antique‟ reworked 1 8 Ground Stone Upper 1 2 Lower 1 - Hammerstone 3 1 Other 10 25 Total 323 826

The frequencies are very similar to the Wilton industry at Toromoja. Once again, the assemblage is dominated by small scrapers, although they are described as “end scrapers” rather than thumbnail scrapers. Like Toromoja, the great majority of pieces found could not be identified as formal stone tools. Also, despite the similarities, Rose Cottage Cave is a strikingly different environment from that of Toromoja. Not only is Rose Cottage

Cave an enclosed rock shelter in contrast to the open air site of Toromoja, but it is also not located in arid to semi-arid savanna, which is the environment of Toromoja.

Rose Cottage Cave demonstrates well temporal change within a single industry at the same geographic location. According to Deacon (1972), the Smithfield/Wilton development was indigenous to South Africa and represented a time-controlled series of variations on a basic tool kit. The comparison of the Rose Cottage Cave and Toromoja

Wilton industries demonstrates well the temporal and spatial change within a single industry. Backed tools along with segments are considered the hallmarks of the Wilton industry, yet the proportions of the frequencies of these tools can vary considerably from the type site. For instance, the Wilton industry at Rose Cottage Cave is composed of

17.4% backed tools, but that at Sehonghong is only 12.4% at 6870±60 and 5950±70 BP.

The Wilton type site itself is 39.7% backed implements, but there are sites that surpass this. (Wadley, 2000a) The post-classic Wilton demonstrates an extreme drop off in the number of backed implements in assemblages in favor of a preponderance of scrapers, particularly those that are small and convex. This process seems complete by approximately 3000 BP (Wadley, 2000a). However, a late occurrence of an assemblage with a high frequency of backed tools is documented at Tuli Lodge, Botswana, which is close to the South African border (Wadley, 2000a).

Many other southern Africa LSA sites can be compared and contrasted with

Toromoja and between each other. Central Botswana shares more affinities with South

Africa than with Northwestern Botswana. Sites such as ≠Gi, Jwaneng, and Thamaga represent long lithic sequences from the ESA or MSA levels to LSA. Lithics material from Thamaga, in southeastern Botswana, has been called a local variant of Wilton, and the Unit 1 LSA assemblage at ≠Gi as „coastal Wilton‟ (Helgen and Brooks, 1983) in view of its double crescents. In the early 1980s Robbins excavated an LSA assemblage characterized by thumbnail scrapers and microlithic tools, such as crescents and other backed pieces, near the village of Manyana in southeastern Botswana (Robbins, 1984).

This material is similar to what is found at Wilton sites in other parts of southern Africa.

Also at this time Robbins began excavation of the Thamaga site, excavating one of three rock shelters (Robbins, 1984). Unit 1, inside the rock shelter, was rich in microlithic tools and thumbnail scrapers of the Wilton type, and calibrated radiocarbon dating of a charcoal sample places the material at approximately A.D. 760±90 (Robbins, 1984). Unit

2, located outside the rock shelter, was very dense in material, with over eight hundred

92 pieces of debitage recovered from a 40-50 cm level in a one by two meter excavation unit

(Robbins, 1984). The assemblage contained a variety of large and small scrapers, crescents, and other microliths, with calibrated radio carbon dating of another charcoal sample placing the collection at approximately 2560±30 BC (Robbins, 1984). Also in this unit, beneath a sealed layer, MSA material, possibly transitional to the LSA, was discovered (Robbins, 1984).

Thamaga presents an excellent opportunity to examine how autonomy, interaction, and trade can be distinguished archaeologically from subjugation, assimilation, and dependence (Sadr 2002). After the work begun by Robbins, five rockshelters were excavated around Thamaga, containing remains of hunter-gatherer occupation dating from 4,500 years ago until the recent past (Sadr 2002). Thamaga also has extensive remains of Iron Age herders and farmers, and this combined with the abundant historical and ethnohistorical record of the presence of subjugated Bushmen there during the past few centuries creates an ideal opportunity to discover the archaeological signature of subjugated ex-foragers (Sadr 2002). The five excavated shelters in the area demonstrate very marked differences in the composition of material remains dating to the last few hundred years and those from earlier periods (Sadr 2002). Contact between the hunter- gatherers and farmer-herders began around 2,000 years ago, but initially the contact had very little impact on the traditional way of life of the hunter-gatherers (Sadr 2002). The material remains of the Precontact and Early Contact periods are almost identical (Sadr

2002). The evidence indicates that the transformation of the material culture of foragers happened during the past two centuries, signaling the transition from independent hunter- gatherers to dependency upon the farmer-herders in the area (Sadr 2002).

Thamaga is located 40km off the southeastern edge of the Kalahari Desert in the

Metsemotlhaba River valley, the seasonal drainage of which empties into the Limpopo via the Notwane River (Sadr 2002). The site elevation is approximately is 1,000m and it receives an average annual rainfall of 500-550mm (Sadr 2002). The area is a mixture of tree and bush savannah, and current land use is agricultural and pastoral (Sadr 2002).

The area is Kwena tribal territory, the first major Tswana-speaking tribe to settle in

Botswana, but they were not the first Bantu-speaking herder-farmers to settle there, as the

Bakgalagadi seem to have arrived sometime in the late 15th century (Sadr 2002). When the Kwena arrived, they subjugated, assimilated, and exiled the Bakgalagadi, and also subjugated the Bushmen as serfs, though the Bushmen themselves likely would not have agreed with that point of view (Sadr 2002). The San considered themselves as independent and only serving the Kwena when it suited them (Sadr 2002). Not until they were completely encapsulated and thus unable to withdraw did they become truly serfs

(Sadr 2002).

By 600 AD in southeastern Botswana, there were Early Iron Age sites with iron working, agriculture, and pastoralism. Robbins‟ work at Thamaga 1 shows that LSA hunter-gatherers did not reoccupy this area until around 4,500 years ago, and other excavations indicate intermittent occupation of the Thamaga rockshelters until 100-150 years ago (Sadr 2002). The earliest phases of contact between the San and the Kwena were characterized by avoidance and conflict (Sadr 2002). The San would hide in the

Kalahari, their residences far from water sources and would conceal their supplies in pits filled with sand and covered with a hearth in order to elude the Kwena (Sadr 2002).

Eventually the Bushmen entered into a tributary relationship with the Kwena (Sadr

2002). The intensification of Kwena exports in direct trade with the British after the

1840s resulted in the Bushmen being given guns and dogs in order to hunt for the

Tswana, and all of the animals and materials obtained in hunting belonged to the Tswana

(Sadr 2002).

The rockshelters at Thamaga with Late Contact Period evidence are Ostrich, Damp, and Rocky shelters on Thamaga Hill (Sadr 2002). All three sites have numerous potsherds, very few flaked stones, very few bones, and sheep make up a large part of the faunal sample, possibly indicating rations obtained from the farmer-herders (Sadr 2002).

The shelters contained negligible quantities of remains indicating hunting, skin processing, or craft manufacture (Sadr 2002). Possibly the rations and the occasional metal and glass artifacts were payment for labor such as professional hunting or in the cattle fields (Sadr 2002). Radiepolong and Thamaga 1, 4 km south of Thamaga Hill, also have some Late Contact Period remains but generally indicate a population less assimilated and less dependent on the Tswana (Sadr 2002). These shelters contain few exotic goods such as pottery, metal, or glass and many more traditional items such as stone tools (Sadr 2002).

The remains for the Early Contact Period only differ from Precontact remains in the presence of a few potsherds, which indicate contact and interaction, but there is no evidence of subjugation, assimilation, or dependence on the Tswana (Sadr 2002). Lithics are numerous in the Early Contact period levels, and the few pottery sherds found are at the interface of the early and late periods, possibly indicating intrusion from the Late

Contact Period (Sadr 2002). Radiepolong and Thamaga 1 are the only shelters with

Precontact remains, though primarily the artifacts are found at Radiepolong. Like

Toromoja, the assemblage is dominated by thumbnail scrapers, with a lower frequency of segments and other backed implements. Ostrich eggshells are rare in the Late Contact but are common in the Early and Precontact periods (Sadr 2002). Typical LSA artifacts such as ochre, specularite, quartz crystals, petrified wood, and mica occur mostly in Early

Contact levels and rarely in Late Contact levels (Sadr 2002).

Table 34: Estimated Dates for the Thamaga shelters

Site Radiocarbon Date Estimated Date

Ostrich Shelter 140±60 B.P.; 280±50 B.P. A.D. 1655-1950; A.D.

1475-1675, 1775-1800,

1945-1950

Damp Shelter No dates available No dates available

Rocky Shelter No dates available No dates available

Radiepolong 200±60 B.P. A.D. 1535-1545, 1635-

1950

Thamaga 1 No dates available No dates available

Thus assimilated hunter-gatherer groups can be recognized archaeologically by the scarcity of traditional remains and the prevalence of foreign remains related to craft and subsistence technology (Sadr 2002). An obvious material distinction exists at

Thamaga between ex-hunter-gatherers living on the periphery of farmer-herder villages and those keeping to more traditional ways of life, demonstrating that assimilation and dependence dramatically altered the hunter-gatherer material remains (Sadr 2002).

Like Toromoja, Toteng 7 in northwestern Botswana is also a ridge site on a lake shore. The site did not yield extensive LSA material (265 lithic pieces), but it does occur.

Few formal tools are present with the exception of a few segments. The size of the pieces ranges from 10-20mm long, 4-9mm wide, and 1-4mm thick. Approximately 11% of the collection are bladelets, and the primary raw materials are chert and silcrete. Quartz is rare as a raw material. Also, the only formal scraper found here was a double sided scraper, 27mm long. Radiocarbon dating on a charcoal sample places this material at approximately 3830±100 to 2440±80 BP (Robbins et al., 1998). Toteng 8 has a much later occupation date of the second to third centuries A.D., and 169 lithic pieces were found there (Robbins et al., 1998). The primary raw materials found were much more varied, with cherts, silcrete, quartz, chalcedony, and jasper (Robbins et al., 1998).

Among the finds were segments, small scrapers, awls, notches, burins, and a double- backed drill (Robbins et al., 1998). Chert bladelets are common in the collection, and of the three blades present, one is pointed (Robbins et al., 1998). Ten microlithic cores were also identified in a variety of raw materials (Robbins et al., 1998). Thus the later assemblage, Toteng 8, actually shares more in common with the Toromoja collection than the more contemporaneous Toteng 7: Though Toteng 8 is also dominated by bladelets, there are almost as many scrapers. Outside of South Africa and Botswana, a relatively low frequency of scrapers in LSA sites of northern Zimbabwe and Zambia has been identified. Though very similar to the southern Africa industries such as the Wilton, the differences are marked, such as the low frequency of scrapers.

Table 35: Site Type Comparison

Site TB Side and Bkd Blt Blt Crescents Backed Notched/ Scraper End points denticulated Scrapers pieces White rare present common common common common present Paintings Depression rare present present present common rare present Shelter Drotsky‟s rare rare rare common rare rare rare Cave ≠Gi rare present common common common rare present

Rose rare common common present common rare present Cottage Cave Thamaga common common present present present rare present

Toteng 7 rare rare rare common present rare rare

Toteng 8 present common rare common present rare rare

Table 36: Site Time Frames Compared

Site Time Frame Compared White Paintings 4,000-7,000 BP Depression Shelter 3,500-1,000 BP Drotsky‟s Cave 12,200±150 BP-5,470±90 BP ≠Gi 110±50 BP; 810±60 BP

Rose Cottage Cave 7,630-5,970 BP; 2,240 BP Thamaga 140±60 BP; 280±50 BP; 200±60 BP; other dates not available Toteng 7 3,830±100- 2,440±80 BP Toteng 8 1,900 BP

Chapter 8: Conclusion: LSA Variability in Botswana

The study of the African LSA and hunter-gathere archaeology has come a long way since eighteenth century constructions of hunter-gatherers as inferior peoples because they lacked what was viewed as the only tangible evidence of improvement, specifically agriculture, enclosures, and individual property (Pluciennik, 2001). The greater importance of studying the LSA is now acknowledged beyond narrow academic circles. In general, technological changes through space and time can reflect import variations in cultural and subsistence practices. Also of interest is the eventual replacement of microlithic technology in South Africa by larger and broader flakes, which does not take place in the sequences of the central and western Kalahari (Vrabel,

1981). Indeed, most assemblages in Botswana continue to be dominated by thumbnail scrapers well into the Holocene. Future research will focus on the significance of this variability. Thus it is important to understand these differences and variations in technology, as related to intra-regional activity difference and inter-regional stylistic variability, if the way of life the people of the LSA is to be understood.

When attempting to classify archaeological assemblages on a regional scale it is necessary to consider activity and seasonal behavior which is likely to have affected the relative frequency or occurrence of particular stone tools (Jacobson 1979). Thus it is essential to understand the functional and stylistic variability of the assemblages before any cultural or industrial classification can take place (Jacobson 1979). Differences between two sites in the presence or absence of certain tool types cannot suggest cultural inferences, but only subsistence strategy inferences (Jacobson 1979). However, tool assemblages do not always fit into presupposed models of environmental exploitation and

99 function (Mazel 1984). It is also necessary to remember that technological similarity does not mean cultural or linguistic similarity (Deacon and Deacon 1999). Assemblage composition is defined by the frequencies of tool classes and subclasses which together give character to the total assemblage (Mazel and Parkington 1981). However, relevant questions may not always have immediate answers, such as whether backed scrapers are functionally different form small convex scrapers or if the two types merely reflect stylistic alternatives designed for the same functions, or what meaning should be attributed to different shapes of backed pieces (Mazel and Parkington 1981). Indeed, it would be useful if the grouping of similar assemblages into higher order terms were replaced by regional studies of the function interrelationships between tools, sets of tools, and resources (Mazel and Parkington 1981).

Arid zone archaeologists in the Kalahari must deal with assemblages that have been deposited by small, mobile groups of hunter gathers, and these groups were generally very efficient technologically. Their material strategies often created situations where technological remains were discarded in very small numbers and often without discernible stratigraphy (Ebert and Hitchcock). The LSA in southern Africa encompasses the assemblages of the past 20,000 years, when toolmakers were using very similar techniques to flake stone or polish bone (Deacon and Deacon 1999). The classification

„LSA‟ implies that there was technological unity in the way that tools were produced as well as functional unity in that similar tasks were done in like ways with similar tools, regardless of who the people were or their location (Deacon and Deacon 1999). In

Botswana, though, the LSA is frequently linked with the ancestors of the San due to the associated organic artifacts or rock art similarities with the recent material culture and

100 religion of the San (Walker 1998). Ironically, some the weaknesses of the LSA category are clearest in Botswana, such as the scarcity of suitable stone for flaking in much of the

Kalahari spurring local pre-Iron Age hunter gatherers to utilize a technology based almost entirely on animal and plant products (Walker 1998). Also, many groups not identified as hunter gatherers used stone tools when metal was scarce, and southern African foraging groups who are not San also had a well developed stone technology in the past in Botswana (Walker 1998). Technological terms such as LSA and Iron Age have declined in popularity as socio-economic issues have gained prominence, which falls into the same trap of simplistic ethnic categories such as San forager, Khoi pastoralist and

Bantu agropastoralist (Walker 1998). In reality there has been genetic and cultural flow between groups, and subsistence practices do not always equate how a group self- identifies (Walker 1998). Rigid terminologies have distorted the complex relationships of peoples past and present, and often leads to anomalous associations being ignored, not recognized, or inadequately accommodated (Walker 1998).

Phase labels such as ESA or LSA are still useful, particularly in a country such as

Botswana where archaeology has not progressed as far as in other southern African countries and Stone Age sites are often surface scatters that lack dateable materials

(Walker 1998). Technology remains the most visible testament of former cultural entities and is helpful in ordering periods of the past and identifying distributions (Walker 1998).

Thus despite the dangers of falsely inferring behavioral shifts, these terms continue to be used and applied: labels remain useful and period markers and can focus attention on technological aspects of behavior that need testing (Walker 1998). The primary objective of stone artifact analysis and typologies is the study of human behavior, and these

101 typologies have been useful in ordering stone tool assemblages into defined categories and classes to enable similarities and differences to be compared at both inter- and intra- site levels (Deacon 1984).

In Botswana, the majority of sites are located in a stretch that starts in the southwest tip, then eastwards along the Molopo River, north through the eastern hardveld, west through the Makgadikgadi Pan and the Boteti River, and continues into

Ngamiland (Walker 1998). The environment of Botswana is diverse but marginal, which suggests a high level of seasonal and regional variability in assemblages, but this could also be related to the large number of linguistic divisions within the various San groups living in the country and it is likely that aspects of cultural differentiation also influenced the variability encoded in the archaeological record (Walker 1998). As noted by Brooks and Yellen (1987), assemblages are most likely to be swiftly covered by animal traffic in soft sand rather than on hard soil or rock, and people will more probably choose the same location in topographically diverse terrain, such as hill bases, than in the more uniform sandveld to shelter from the wind, watch game, and avoid dangerous animals (Walker

1998). Additionally, when possible, the San groups tend to converge and spend longer periods of time near permanent water, making debitage and features in these places more likely to become marked in the archaeological record (Walker 1998).

Often the frequency of segments and backed blades relative to scrapers is used as an index of hunting taking precedence over gathering, though at sites such as Toromoja and White Paintings the resources gained by gathering were likely strongly bolstered by fishing (Jacobson 1983). Segments and backed blades may have been used as projectile points on arrows (Jacobson 1984). Backed pieces imply hunting of small or medium

102 sized game, the shift to more adzes implies more gathering of plant resources with digging sticks, the inferences being they were used for the maintenance of the digging sticks (Manhire et al. 1984). It has also been noted, that backed scrapers seem to be distinctive of the western area, but are also found in small numbers to the south and north-east, but not further east (Walker 1998). The west of Botswana seems to be closer typologically, such as in the frequency of backed pieces, to South Africa than to

Zimbabwe (Walker 1998). Unlike the south, the northwest area has a high number of backed tools and borers, and the east seems to have thinner backed tools than the west

(Walker 1998).

According to Brooks, other LSA distinctions in Botswana that should be considered include that small „backed scrapers‟ or „double‟ or „biconvex‟ segments are a prominent feature of northwestern Botswana (Ngamiland) (Deacon 1984). Significant regional distinctions exist within the small scraper class, particularly between thumbnail scrapers, which are common in the eastern and southern sites, and small end-scrapers on blades, more common in Ngamiland. The evidence from Toromoja and the comparative sites supports this supposition. It is also suggested that these clusterings result from a period of mid-Holocene absence of people from large portions of Botswana, particularly the central Kalahari, with subsequent immigration from neighboring populations bringing in distinct cultures (Walker 1998). Thus assemblages from the eastern part of the country are very similar to those from Zimbabwe and those from the south with the adjacent

South Africa where there were mid-Holocene populations (Walker 1998). Northwestern

Botswana seems to have been the only area of the country with population continuity, other than long term water holes that were repeatedly revisited (Walker 1998). The

103 major provinces perhaps represent linguistic families, such as the Khoe in the east

(Walker 1998). At the moment this scenario can only be applied to the end of the LSA as technological regional differences from other periods have not yet been examined

(Walker 1998). More research on the technological variability in southern Africa during the last 4,000 years would provide a better foundation for the study of regional variability.

104

Figures

Figure 1: Botswana and southern Africa from Main (1987)

105

Figure 2: Table 1 from Sampson (1974) listing the industrial complexes of southern Africa as they stood in 1974

106

Figure 3: Satellite image of the Okavango Delta and environs with the Tsodilo Hills in the west, from Brook (2010)

107

Figure 4: Table One from Helgren (1982) outlining the geomorphic chronology of the southern Makgadikgadi

108

Figure 5: Table 2a from Helgren (1982) describing the soil profile by level of the site platform at Toromoja

109

Figure 6: Table 3 from Helgren (1982) giving the sediments profile of the Toromoja lake bed

110

Figure 7: From Helgren (1989)

111

Toromoja 8: Profile,Fig. drawn by Alison Brooks

112

Figure 9: TM 4 2/0 Quartz convex scraper

113

Figure 10: TM 143 8/10 convex scraper

114

Figure 11: TM 197 22/0 green quartzite sidescraper and black chert bladelet

115

Figure 12: TM 70 2/0 pointed backed bladelet, rare at Toromoja

116

Figure 13: LSA tools from White Paintings Rock Shelter (Robbins et al. 2010)

117

References

Ambrose, S., 2002. Small things remembered: origins of early microlithic industries in sub-Saharan Africa. In: Elston, R., Kuhn, S. (Eds.), Thinking Small: Global Perspectives on Microlithic Technologies. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 12, pp. 9-29.

Baillieul, T.A., 1979. Makgadikgadi pans complex of Central Botswana: summary. Geological Society of America 90(2), 133-136.

Barham, L.S., 1987. The bipolar technique in southern Africa: a replication experiment. S. Afr. Archaeol. Bull. 42(145), 45-50.

------, 1992. Let's walk before we run: an appraisal of historical materialist approaches to the Later Stone Age. S. Afr. Archaeol. Bull. 47(155), 44-51.

Barton, C. M., 1990. Beyond style and function: a view from the middle paleolithic. Am. Anthropol. 92(1), 57-72.

Brook, G.A., 2010. The paleoenvironment of Tsodilo. In: Campbell, A.C., Robbins, L., Taylor, M. (Eds.), Tsodilo Hills: Copper Bracelet of the Kalahari. Michigan State University Press, Michigan, pp. 30-49.

Brooks, A.S., 1982. Review: hunter and habitat in the Central Kalahari Desert by George B. Silberbauer. Human Ecology 10(3), 425-429.

------, 1983. Geoarchaeology at ≠Gi, a Middle Stone Age and Later Stone Age site in the northwest Kalahari. J. Archaeol. Sci. 10, 181-197.

------, 1984. San land-use patterns, past and present: implications for southern African prehistory. In: Hall, M., Avery, G., Avery, D.M., Wilson, M.L., Humphreys A.J.B. (Eds.), Frontiers: Southern African Archaeology Today. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford, pp. 40-52.

Brooks, A.S., Crowell, A.L., Yellen, J.E., 1977. ≠Gi: a Stone Age archaeological site in the northern Kalahari Desert, Botswana. In: Leakey, R.E., Ogot, B.A. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th Panafrican Congress of Prehistory and Quaternary Studies, Nairobi, Sep. 1977, pp. 304-309.

Campbell, A., 1998a. Archaeology in Botswana: origins and growth. In: Lane, P., Reid, A., Segobye, A. (Eds.), Ditswa Mmung: The Archaeology of Botswana. Pula Press & the Botswana Society, Gaborone, Botswana, pp. 24-49.

------, 1998b. The present status of archaeology in Botswana. In: Lane, P., Reid, A., Segobye, A. (Eds.), Ditswa Mmung: The Archaeology of Botswana. Pula Press & the Botswana Society, Gaborone, Botswana, pp. 249-259.

118

Clark, A.M.B., 1997. The MSA/LSA transition in southern Africa: new technological evidence from Rose Cottage Cave. S. Afr. Archaeol. Bull. 52(166), 113-121.

Clark, J.D., Kleindienst, M., 1967. In: Bishop and Clark (Eds.), Background to Human Evolution in Africa. Cambridge University Press.

Conard, N.J., Soressi, M., Parkington, J.E., Wurz, S., Yates, R., 2004. A unified lithic taxonomy based on patterns of core reduction. S. Afr. Archaeol. Bull. 59(179), 12- 16.

Cooke, H.J., 1979. Botswana‟s present climate and the evidence for past change. In: Hinchey, M.T. (Ed.), Symposium on Drought in Botswana. The Botswana Society. University Press of New England, Hanover, NH, pp. 53-58.

Deacon, H.J., Deacon, J., 1980. The hafting, function and distribution of small convex scrapers with an example from Boomplaas Cave. S. Afr. Archaeol. Bull. 35(131), 31-37.

------, 1999. Human Beginnings in South Africa: Uncovering the Secrets of the Stone Age. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, CA.

Deacon, J., 1972. Wilton: an assessment after fifty years. S. Afr. Archaeol. Bull. 27(105/106), 10-48.

------, 1984a. Later Stone Age people and their descendents in southern Africa. In: Klein, R.G. (Ed.), Southern African Prehistory and Paleoenvironments. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 221-328.

------, 1984b. Numerical coding scheme for southern African Stone Age artefacts with special reference to the Later Stone Age. In: Hall, M., Avery, G., Avery, D.M., Wilson, M.L., Humphreys A.J.B. (Eds.), Frontiers: Southern African Archaeology Today. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford, pp. 311-322.

Ebert, J.I., Ebert, M.C., Hitchcock, R.K., 1976. Anthropological, archaeological and ecological investigations in the central district of Botswana, II: February-June, 1976. Report to the Ministry of Local Government and Lands, Gaborone, Botswana.

Ebert, J.I., Hitchcock, R.K., 1978. Ancient Lake Makgadikgadi, Botswana: mapping, measurement, and paleoclimatic significance. In: van Zinderen Bakker, Sr., E.M., Coetzee, J.A. (Eds.), Paleoecology of Africa and the Surrounding Islands 10. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 47-56.

119

------, 1980. A short note on some special data handling problems for arid zones of Africa. In: Leakey, R.E., Ogot, B.A. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th Panafrican Congress of Prehistory and Quaternary Studies, Nairobi, Sep. 1977, pp. 31-32.

Ehret, C., 2001. Bantu expansions: re-envisioning a central problem of early African history. The International Journal of African Historical Studies 34(1), 5-41.

Güldemann, T., Stoneking, M., 2008. A historical appraisal of clicks: a linguistic and genetic population perspective. A. Rev. Anthropol. 37, 93-109.

Helgren, D.M., 1978. Environmental history in the northwest Kalahari: preliminary report. In: van Zinderen Bakker, Sr., E.M., Coetzee, J.A. (Eds.), Paleoecology of Africa and the Surrounding Islands 10. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 65-66.

------, 1982. Geological and palaeoenvironmental observations in relation to the BHM excavations at Toromoja I and Owi Pan, Botswana.

------, 1989. Palaeo-terrain chronology as the contextual basis for the regional study of Pleistocene sites: example of Toromoja, Kalahari Basin, southern Africa. Paper presented at the International Symposium on Paleoanthropology in Commemoration of the 60th Anniversary of the Discovery of the First Skull of Peking Man, Beijing, Oct. 1989.

Herbert, R.K., 1990. The relative markedness of click sounds: evidence from language change, acquisition, and avoidance. Anthropological Linguistics 32(1), 120-138.

------, 1999. Review: languages in Botswana: language ecology in southern Africa by Lars-Gunnar Andersson and Tore Janson. Anthropological Linguistics 41(4), 561- 563.

------, 2002. “We are the first people”: land, natural resources and identity in the Central Kalahari, Botswana. Journal of Southern African Studies 28(4), 797-824.

Holden, C.J., 2002. Bantu language trees reflect the spread of farming across sub-Saharan Africa: a maximum-parsimony analysis. Proceedings: Biological Sciences 269(1493), 793-799.

Jacobson, L., 1979. The classification of archaeological assemblages. Paper presented to the Southern African Association of Archaeologists Conference, Cape Town, South Africa.

------, 1984. Hunting versus gathering in an arid ecosystem: the evidence from the Namib Desert. In: Hall, M., Avery, G., Avery, D.M., Wilson, M.L., Humphreys A.J.B. (Eds.), Frontiers: Southern African Archaeology Today. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford, pp. 75-79.

120

Johnson, C.R., McBrearty, S., 2010. 500,000 year old blades from the Kapthurin Formation, Kenya. J. Hum. Evol. 58, 193-200.

Kent, S., 2006. Cultural diversity among twentieth-century foragers: an African perspective. Cambridge University Press.

Korsman, S., Plug, I., 1994. Two Later Stone Age sites on the farm Honingklip in the eastern Transvaal. S. Afr. Archaeol. Bull. 49(159), 24-32.

Lane, P., 1998. Ethnoarchaeological research: past, present and future directions. In: Lane, P., Reid, A., Segobye, A. (Eds.), Ditswa Mmung: The Archaeology of Botswana. Pula Press & the Botswana Society, Gaborone, Botswana, pp. 177-205.

Lane, P., Reid, A., Segobye, A., 1998. Introduction. In: Lane, P., Reid, A., Segobye, A. (Eds.), Ditswa Mmung: The Archaeology of Botswana. Pula Press & the Botswana Society, Gaborone, Botswana, pp. 13-23.

Lee, R.B., 1972. !Kung spatial organization: an ecological and historical perspective. Human Ecology. 1(2), 125-147.

Lombard, M., 2005. A method for identifying Stone Age hunting tools. S. Afr. Archaeol. Bull. 60(182), 115-120.

Main, M., 1987. Kalahari: life‟s variety in dune and delta. Southern Book Publishers Ltd, Cape Town, South Africa.

Manhire, A.H., Parkington, J.E., Robey, T.S., 1984. Stone tools and Sandveld settlement. In: Hall, M., Avery, G., Avery, D.M., Wilson, M.L., Humphreys A.J.B. (Eds.), Frontiers: Southern African Archaeology Today. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford, pp. 111-120.

Mazel, A.D., 1984. Through the keyhole: a preliminary peep at the lithic composition of Later Stone Age sites in the Central and Upper Tugela River Basin, Natal. In: Hall, M., Avery, G., Avery, D.M., Wilson, M.L., Humphreys A.J.B. (Eds.), Frontiers: Southern African Archaeology Today. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford, pp. 182-193.

Mazel, A.D., Parkington, J., 1981. Stone tools and resources: a case study from southern Africa. World Archaeol. 13(1), 16-30.

McBrearty, S., 1993. Review: Ju/Wasi: bushmen of the Kalahari by Irven DeVore, Barbara Isaac, Allan L. Marea, John Yellen, Susan A. M. Shumaker and Kathleen K. Skelly. Am. Anthropol. 95(1), 258-259.

121

Mercader, J., Brooks, A.S., 2001. Across forests and savannas: Later Stone Age assemblages from Ituri and Semliki, Democratic Republic of Congo. J. Anthropol. Res. 57(2), 197-217.

Mitchell, P., 1988. The late Pleistocene early microlithic assemblages of southern Africa. World Archaeol. 20(1), 27-39.

------, 1990. Preliminary report on the later Stone Age sequence from Tloutle rock shelter, western Lesotho. S. Afr. Archaeol. Bull. 45(152), 100-105.

------, 1999. Pressure-flaked points in Lesotho: dating, distribution and diversity. S. Afr. Archaeol. Bull. 54(170), 90-96.

------, 2002. The archaeology of southern Africa. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.

------, 2005. Why hunter-gatherer archaeology matters: a personal perspective on renaissance and renewal in southern African Later Stone Age research. S. Afr. Archaeol. Bull. 60(182), 64-71.

Miller, S.F., 1971. The age of Nachikufan industries in Zambia. S. Afr. Archaeol. Bull. 26(103/104), 143-146.

Motzafi-Haller, P., 1994. When bushmen are known as Basarwa: gender, ethnicity, and differentiation in rural Botswana. Am. Ethnol. 21(3), 539-563.

Murphy, M.L., 1999. Changing human behavior: the contribution of the White Paintings Rock Shelter to an understanding of changing lithic reduction, raw material exchange, and hunter-gatherer mobility in the interior regions of southern Africa during the Middle and Early Late Stone Age. Ph.D. Dissertation, Michigan State University.

Musonda, F.B., 1984. Late Pleistocene and Holocene microlithic industries from the Lunsemfwa Basin, Zambia. S. Afr. Archaeol. Bull. 39(139), 24-36.

Netterberg, F., 1969. The interpretation of some basic calcrete types. S. Afr. Archaeol. Bull. 24, 117-122.

Noten, F.V., Hiernaux, J., 1967. The Late Stone Age industry of Mukinanira, Rwanda. S. Afr. Archaeol. Bull. 22(88), 151-154.

Nyamende, A., 2008. Beyond 2000: sharpening the focus on the indigenous languages. South African Journal of African Languages 28(2), 126-132.

Orton, J., 2002. Patterns in stone: the lithic assemblage from Dunefield Midden, western cape, south Africa. S. Afr. Archaeol. Bull. 57(175), 31-37.

122

Parkington, J., Cable, C., Carter, P.L., Deacon, H.J., Deacon, J., Humphreys, A.J.B., 1980. Time and place: some observations on spatial and temporal patterning in the Later Stone Age sequence in southern Africa [with comments and reply]. S. Afr. Archaeol. Bull. 35(132), 73-112.

Parsons, I., 2003. Lithic expressions of Later Stone Age life ways in the Northern Cape. S. Afr. Archaeol. Bull. 58(177), 33-37.

Phaladi, S.G.G., 1991. Hunter gatherers and non-hunter-gatherers: a lithic analysis from Nioma, Tsodilo Hills, Botswana. M.A. Thesis, Michigan State University.

Phillipson, D.W., 1976. Archaeology and Bantu linguistics. World Archaeol. 8(1), 65-82.

Pluciennik, M., 2001. Archaeology, anthropology, and subsistence. J.R. Anthropol. Inst. 7(4), 741- 758.

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 & the Botswana Society, Gaborone, Botswana, pp. 81-100.

Robbins, L.H., 1983. Stone artifacts from the Tsodilo Depression rock shelter.

------, 1984. Archaeology in southeastern Botswana. Curr. Anthropol. 25(2), 229.

------, 1987. Stone Age archaeology in the Northern Kalahari: Savuti and Kudiakam Pan. Curr. Anthropol. 28(4), 567-569.

------, 1989. Rock shelter archaeology at Tsodilo and the implications for Khoisan prehistory. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Anthropological Association, Washington, D.C.

------, 1990. The Depression site: a Stone Age sequence in the northwest Kalahari Desert, Botswana. National Geographic Research 6, 329-338.

Robbins, L.H., et al., 1996. Paleoenvironment and archaeology of Drotsky‟s Cave: western Kalahari Desert, Botswana. J. Archaeol. Sci. 23(1), 7-22.

Robbins, L.H., Murphy, M.L., 1998. The Early and Middle Stone Age. In: Lane, P., Reid, A., Segobye, A. (Eds.), Ditswa Mmung: The Archaeology of Botswana. Pula Press & the Botswana Society, Gaborone, Botswana, pp. 50-64.

Robbins, L.H., Murphy, M.L., Campbell, A.C., 2010. Windows into the past: excavating Stone Age shelters. In: Campbell, A.C., Robbins, L., Taylor, M. (Eds.), Tsodilo Hills: Copper Bracelet of the Kalahari. Michigan State University Press, Michigan, pp. 50-63.

123

Robbins, L.H., Murphy, M.L., Campbell, A.C., Brook, G.A., Reid, D.M., Haberyan, K.A., 1998. Test excavations and reconnaissance palaeoenvironmental work at Toteng, Botswana. S. Afr. Archaeol. Bull. 53(168), 125-132.

Row about the Bushmen; Botswana. 2006, Feb. 18. The Economist.

Sadr, K., Plug, I., 2001. Faunal remains in the transition from hunting to herding in southeastern Botswana. S. Afr. Archaeol. Bull. 56(173/174), 76-82.

------, 2002. Encapsulated Bushmen in the Archaeology of Thamaga. In: Kent, Susan (Ed.), Ethnicity, hunter-gatherers, and the “other”: association or assimilation in Africa. Smithsonian Institution, pp.28-47.

Sampson, C.G., 1974. Stone Age Archaeology of Southern Africa. Academic Press, New York.

Stahl, A.B., 2009. The archaeology of African history. The International Journal of African Historical Studies 42(2), 241.

Taylor, J.J., 2007. Celebrating San victory too soon: reflections on the outcome of the Central Kalahari Game Reserve case. Anthropology Today 23(5), 3-5.

Taylor, M., 2010. The politics of cohabitation: social history of Tsodilo. In: Campbell, A.C., Robbins, L., Taylor, M. (Eds.), Tsodilo Hills: Copper Bracelet of the Kalahari. Michigan State University Press, Michigan, pp. 116-125.

Van Houten, T.M.M., 1992. The faunal bones from Toromoja I and Gwi Pan West: a case study and critical review of interpretive methods. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.

Vrabel, D.M., 1981. A microwear study of experimental microlithic flakes and Late Stone Age crescents from the Northwest Kalahari, Botswana. M.A. Thesis, The George Washington University.

Wadley, L., 2000a. The early Holocene layers of Rose Cottage Cave, eastern free state: technology, spatial patterns and environment. S. Afr. Archaeol. Bull. 55(171), 18- 31.

------, 2000b. The Wilton and pre-ceramic post-classic Wilton industries at Rose Cottage Cave and their context in the south African sequence. S. Afr. Archaeol. Bull. 55(172), 90-106.

------, 2005. A typological study of the final middle stone age stone tools from Sibudu cave, Kwazulu-natal. S. Afr. Archaeol. Bull. 60(182), 51-63.

124

Walker, N., 1998. The Late Stone Age. In: Lane, P., Reid, A., Segobye, A. (Eds.), Ditswa Mmung: The Archaeology of Botswana. Pula Press & the Botswana Society, Gaborone, Botswana, pp. 65-80.

Werbner, R., 2002. Introduction: challenging minorities, difference and tribal citizenship in Botswana. Journal of Southern African Studies 28(4), 671-684.

Yellen, J.E., 1984. The integration of herding in prehistoric hunting and gathering economies. In: Hall, M., Avery, G., Avery, D.M., Wilson, M.L., Humphreys A.J.B. (Eds.), Frontiers: Southern African Archaeology Today. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford, pp. 53-64.

Yellen, J.E., Brooks, A.S., Stuckenrath, R., Welbourne, R., 1987. A terminal Pleistocene assemblage from Drotsky‟s Cave, western Ngamiland, Botswana. Botswana Notes and Records 19, 1-6.

Yellen, J.E., Brooks, A.S., 1989. The Late Stone Age archaeology of the !Kangwa and /Xai/Xai valleys, Ngamiland. Botswana Notes and Reports 20, 5-27, 37-9.

125