Jordaan Archaelogical 2016

An archaeological investigation into the social structure of a stone-walled
site in the North West Province, South Africa
A dissertation submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Magister Artium
By Jacqueline Jordaan
Supervisors
Dr Ceri Ashley & Dr Alexander Antonites
Department of Anthropology and Archaeology, University of Pretoria
July 2016
© University of Pretoria
Abstract
This master’s study concerns a Tswana stone-walled site in the North West Province. Within
this province, the Zeerust-Rustenburg-Pilanesberg region has been of particular interest to
Tswana settlement studies. In this region, the Tswana built stone-walled settlements from the
mid 17th to the 19th century CE; altering their settlement style from dispersed to aggregated
during this time. The aggregated settlements reflect a centralisation of socio-political authority
in the region. However, prior research has focussed predominantly on these aggregated
settlements, with little research conducted on small-scaled sites. To further understand the
communities inhabiting this region during this time we need to look at varying scaled sites. A
more nuanced view of regional interaction, group association, and identity is formed from this
perspective.
This research utilises historical, ethnographic, and archaeological data to interpret a small
scaled site, termed Lebenya. The historical data presents a possible identity of the past
community who inhabited the site, the Phiring. However, the archaeological data could not
conclusively link the site to this past group. Nonetheless, the archaeological data presents new
spatial and excavated data for the region, specifically expanding the range of documented small-
scaled sites.
Keywords: Tswana, stone-walled site, Swartruggens, Phiring, Buispoort, historical archaeology,

late farming communities, Motšokwe, material culture, North West Province.
© 2016 by Jacqueline Jordaan
All rights reserved.
Table of Contents
Table of Contents …………………………………………………………………………………………………………....……i
List of figures………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..v
List of Tables…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………........viii
Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………………………………………………..…….….x
Chapter 1 Introduction................................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1. Overview ........................................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2. Research objectives ...................................................................................................................................... 5
1.3. Dissertation outline ...................................................................................................................................... 6
Chapter 2 Literature Review........................................................................................................................................ 8
2.1. Overview ........................................................................................................................................................... 8
2.2. The study region ............................................................................................................................................ 8
2.2.1. The topography and vegetation..................................................................................................... 9
2.2.2. The Geology and soils ..................................................................................................................... 11
2.2.3. Climate .................................................................................................................................................. 12
2.2.4. Rivers ..................................................................................................................................................... 12
2.3. Groups historically found in the ZPR region ................................................................................... 13
2.3.1. The Tswana cluster .......................................................................................................................... 14
2.3.2. The Tswana groups in the region .............................................................................................. 16
2.3.3. Groups in the Swartruggens area .............................................................................................. 18
2.3.4. The Phiring at Nooitgedacht ........................................................................................................ 20
2.3.5. Finding Motšokwe ............................................................................................................................ 21
2.4. Settlement and ceramic classification of stone wall sites ......................................................... 23
2.4.1. Stone wall site typologies for the region................................................................................. 23
2.4.2. Ceramic typologies for the region.............................................................................................. 32
2.4.3. Classification associations and issues ...................................................................................... 40
2.5. Direction of following chapter .............................................................................................................. 40
Chapter 3 Theoretical Framework ......................................................................................................................... 42
3.1. Overview ........................................................................................................................................................ 42
3.2. Historical archaeology ............................................................................................................................. 42
3.3. Analogy and Southern African Archaeology ................................................................................... 44
3.4. The application of the Central Cattle Pattern ................................................................................. 46
3.4.1. The critique of the Central Cattle Pattern............................................................................... 49
3.5. The Tswana worldview and structure .............................................................................................. 52
3.5.1. Accounting for misfortune ............................................................................................................ 52
3.5.2. The socio-political order of a Tswana settlement ............................................................... 53
3.5.3. The organisation of a Tswana settlement .............................................................................. 56
3.6. Discussion ..................................................................................................................................................... 63
Chapter 4 Method .......................................................................................................................................................... 64
4.1. Overview ........................................................................................................................................................ 64
4.2. Aerial and satellite survey ...................................................................................................................... 64
4.3. Archaeological Survey of farm .............................................................................................................. 69
4.4. Survey for mapping of site...................................................................................................................... 70
4.5. The mapping of the site ........................................................................................................................... 71
4.6. Excavation ..................................................................................................................................................... 73
4.7. Method of Analysis .................................................................................................................................... 76
4.7.1. Faunal material.................................................................................................................................. 76
4.7.2. Ceramic Material ............................................................................................................................... 84
4.7.3. Other material .................................................................................................................................... 90
4.7.4. Flotation and soil samples ............................................................................................................ 90
4.7.5. Carbon samples ................................................................................................................................. 91
4.8. Photographs and illustrations .............................................................................................................. 92
4.9. Curation and Storage ................................................................................................................................ 92
ii
4.10. Discussion ................................................................................................................................................. 93
Chapter 5 Spatial Data ................................................................................................................................................. 94
5.1. Overview ........................................................................................................................................................ 94
5.2. Survey and mapping results .................................................................................................................. 94
5.2.1. Features of section A ....................................................................................................................... 99
5.2.2. Section A1 & A2 ............................................................................................................................... 100
5.2.3. Section A3 .......................................................................................................................................... 103
5.2.4. Section B ............................................................................................................................................. 104
5.2.5. Section C ............................................................................................................................................. 108
5.2.6. A comparison of enclosures throughout the site .............................................................. 109
5.3. Settlement features ................................................................................................................................. 111
5.3.1. Features linked to rank and status .......................................................................................... 111
5.3.2. Comparison of settlement features ......................................................................................... 113
5.3.3. Classifying the site.......................................................................................................................... 115
5.4. Discussion ................................................................................................................................................... 119
Chapter 6 Excavation Data....................................................................................................................................... 120
6.1. Overview ...................................................................................................................................................... 120
6.2. The Excavation .......................................................................................................................................... 120
6.3. Profiles and stratigraphy ...................................................................................................................... 122
6.3.1. Unit 1 ................................................................................................................................................... 122
6.3.2. Unit 2 ................................................................................................................................................... 124
6.3.3. Unit 3 ................................................................................................................................................... 128
6.3.4. Unit 4 ................................................................................................................................................... 132
6.3.5. Discussion on Units........................................................................................................................ 135
6.4. Excavated material .................................................................................................................................. 136
6.5. Faunal Material ......................................................................................................................................... 136
6.5.1. Species representation ................................................................................................................. 136
6.5.2. Skeletal Part representation ...................................................................................................... 139
6.5.3. Taphonomy ....................................................................................................................................... 141
iii
6.5.4. Modified shell and bone ............................................................................................................... 143
6.5.5. Discussion of faunal material .................................................................................................... 145
6.6. Ceramics....................................................................................................................................................... 151
6.6.1. Diagnostic ceramics ....................................................................................................................... 153
6.7. Other material ........................................................................................................................................... 164
6.7.1. Beads.................................................................................................................................................... 164
6.7.2. Metal .................................................................................................................................................... 166
6.7.3. Ceramic objects ............................................................................................................................... 167
6.7.4. Discussion of other material ...................................................................................................... 168
6.8. Discussion of excavation results ........................................................................................................ 168
Chapter 7 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................. 170
7.1. Overview ...................................................................................................................................................... 170
7.2. The Archaeological data ........................................................................................................................ 170
7.3. A site perspective ..................................................................................................................................... 172
7.4. A regional perspective ........................................................................................................................... 172
7.5. Future research ......................................................................................................................................... 174
References………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...176
Appendix A- Forms…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….191
Appendix B- QR codes and Hyperlinks………………………………………………………………………………..193
iv
List of Figures
Figure 1.1 Map of South Africa with research region highlighted ............................................................... 2
Figure 1.2 Map of the research region with documented mega-sites as well as current towns .... 2
Figure 1.3 Southern African Bantu Language groups, after Lestrade (1937:374-5)............................ 4
Figure 2.1 Ecological regions of the ZPR…....……………………………………………………………………………3
Figure 2.2 The vegetation units in the ZPR region .......................................................................................... 10
Figure 2.3 Soil types in the region, after SANBI BGIS LUDS map (2007) ............................................... 11
Figure 2.4 Rivers in the region, after SANBI BGIS LUDS map (2007) ...................................................... 13
Figure 2.5 Map of known groups in the ZPR region in the 18th and 19th century CE, after Hall et
al. (2008: Plate 1) .......................................................................................................................................................... 17
Figure 2.6 The location of various groups in the area .................................................................................... 20
Figure 2.7 Aerial image from 1957 (courtesy of the NGI) red squares are stone wall sites in a
5km range ......................................................................................................................................................................... 22
Figure 2.8 The facies of the Moloko and Blackburn branches (after Huffman 2007:118) ............. 33
Figure 2.9 The attributes of the Thabeng, Buispoort and Uitkomst facies ............................................ 34
Figure 2.10 Ntsuanatsatsi ceramics from Huffman (2007:168) ................................................................ 35
Figure 2.11 Madikwe ceramics from CB14 (house 3) from Huffman 2006:57 .................................... 36
Figure 2.12 Olifantspoort ceramics from Huffman (2007:192) ................................................................. 37
Figure 2.13 Buispoort ceramics from Huffman (2007:204)......................................................................... 37
Figure 2.14 Uitkomst ceramics from Huffman (2007:172) .......................................................................... 38
Figure 3.1 Organisational structure of the Central Cattle Pattern (from Huffman 2007:25) ........ 48
Figure 3.2 Molokwane settlement divided into three zones, the zones in relation to the stream
‘selonsriver’. Zone B and Zone C are respectively located upstream and downstream of the river,
with Zone A in the centre (after Pistorius 1992:5).......................................................................................... 55
Figure 3.3 General ground plan of a Tswana stone-walled settlement................................................... 57
Figure 3.4 Reconstructed elevation and section of a Tswana dwelling with a front veranda and
internal compartment closed by a sliding door (from Maggs 1993:34)................................................. 59
Figure 3.5 Features and structures related to food preparation and storage, (after Pistorius
1992:68) ............................................................................................................................................................................ 60
Figure 4.1 GE image of Molokwane from 2004 ................................................................................................. 65
Figure 4.2 GE image of Molokwane from 2011 ................................................................................................. 65
Figure 4.3 is an aerial view of the main settlement unit at Marothodi (Boeyens 2011:20) ........... 66
Figure 4.4 Close-up aerial view of Molokwane SWS taken from a helicopter survey (Jordaan
2012) .................................................................................................................................................................................. 66
Figure 4.5 Aerial image of Lebenya from 1957, vegetation obscures the SWS (courtesy of NGI) 68
Figure 4.6 GE image of Lebenya dated to 2013, dense vegetation covers the SWS ........................... 68
Figure 4.7 Contour map of survey area ................................................................................................................ 69
Figure 4.8 Division of site into sections ............................................................................................................... 71
Figure 4.9 Vessel portions ......................................................................................................................................... 86
Figure 4.10 Vessel forms ............................................................................................................................................ 87
Figure 4.11 Rim types .................................................................................................................................................. 89
Figure 5.1 The clusters of walling divided into sections ............................................................................... 95
Figure 5.2 The location of streams found around the settlement ............................................................ 96
Figure 5.3 Sliding door fragment ............................................................................................................................ 97
Figure 5.4 Lower grind stone ................................................................................................................................... 97
Figure 5.5 Map of the site ........................................................................................................................................... 98
Figure 5.6 Features of section A .............................................................................................................................. 99
Figure 5.7 Enclosed space, panoramic view looking south of section A2 ............................................ 101
Figure 5.8 The prominent walling located in section A1, also possibly an entrance ...................... 102
Figure 5.9 Image of quarry area, note the depth of the quarry (middle bottom area of image).103
Figure 5.10 Small circular features section A3, attached to circular enclosure wall....................... 104
Figure 5.11 Features of section B.......................................................................................................................... 105
Figure 5.12 Small circular feature section B .................................................................................................... 106
Figure 5.13 Panoramic view of livestock enclosure section B .................................................................. 107
Figure 5.14 Features of section C .......................................................................................................................... 109
Figure 5.15 Map with size classes of central enclosures ............................................................................. 110
Figure 5.18 Group III sites alongside Lebenya (after Loubser 1985, Mason 1968, Taylor 1979)
............................................................................................................................................................................................. 118
Figure 6.1 Location of excavation units, units highlighted by colour, purple is unit 1, blue is unit
2, green is unit 3, and red is unit 4. ...................................................................................................................... 121
Figure 6.2 Surface layer (unit 1)............................................................................................................................ 123
Figure 6.3 Surface layer (unit 2)............................................................................................................................ 125
Figure 6.4 Base of unit 2 ........................................................................................................................................... 126
Figure 6.5 Southern profile image (unit 2) ....................................................................................................... 126
Figure 6.6 Area highlighted is the surface of layer 4 (unit 3).................................................................... 129
Figure 6.7 Area highlighted is the surface of layer 5 (unit 3).................................................................... 129
Figure 6.8 Plan of layer 4 and layer 5 in unit 3 ............................................................................................... 130
vi
Figure 6.9 Plan of NE quadrant showing details of layer 5 (surface), the dark dotted line, is line
of charcoal deposit, and the marked boxes are provienced points. ....................................................... 130
Figure 6.10 Southern profile image (unit 3) .................................................................................................... 131
Figure 6.11 Enclosed midden deposit, note soil is filled to the brim at the west end of the
enclosure. ........................................................................................................................................................................ 132
Figure 6.12 Suface of layer 2 (unit 4) .................................................................................................................. 133
Figure 6.13 Base of unit 4......................................................................................................................................... 133
Figure 6.14 Southern profile image (unit 4) .................................................................................................... 134
Figure 6.15 Western profile image (unit 4) ...................................................................................................... 134
Figure 6.16 The frequency of taphonomic features across the units (numbers across the
horizontal axis are a percentage of taphonomic feature per unit) ......................................................... 142
Figure 6.17 Perforated rodent mandible from unit 3 ................................................................................... 144
Figure 6.18 Modified bone from collection....................................................................................................... 144
Figure 6.19 Modified bone from Loubser (1985:83). ................................................................................... 145
Figure 6.20 Ochre stained interior of a Tortoise carapace ......................................................................... 145
Figure 6.21 Chopped (at both ends) FWC pincer ........................................................................................... 146
Figure 6.22 Cowrie shell fragment from Unit 2 .............................................................................................. 149
Figure 6.23 Frequency of vessel types in collection ..................................................................................... 155
Figure 6.24 Frequency of vessel types in each unit....................................................................................... 155
Figure 6.25 Ceramic forms in collection ............................................................................................................ 156
Figure 6.26 A lid and lug fragment, part of the collection .......................................................................... 157
Figure 6.27 Frequency of rim types at site ....................................................................................................... 157
Figure 6.28 Frequency of rim types per unit ................................................................................................... 158
Figure 6.29 Frequency of rim type with vessel type per unit ................................................................... 159
Figure 6.30 Frequency of varying rim diameter ranges at the site ....................................................... 159
Figure 6.31 Frequency of rim extent ................................................................................................................... 160
Figure 6.32 Illustration of decorated ceramics in collection ..................................................................... 162
Figure 6.33 Collection of modified ceramics, abraded along the top edge of the ceramic ............ 163
Figure 6.34 Modified ceramics from Buffelshoek, from Loubser (1985:83) ...................................... 164
Figure 6.35 Beads made from bone in collection ........................................................................................... 165
Figure 6.36 Clay bead (the image has been manipulated to include the interior view of
specimen) ....................................................................................................................................................................... 166
Figure 6.37 Hoe-shaped metal piece ................................................................................................................... 166
Figure 6.38 The varying types of ceramic objects identified in the collection................................... 167
vii
List of Tables
Table 2.1 Groups historically located in the surrounding area (from Breutz 1953) ......................... 19
Table 2.2 Mason's classes for stone-walled sites in the Magaliesberg-Johannesburg region (after
Mason 1986: 335-343) ................................................................................................................................................ 24
Table 2.4 Huffman's stone wall site types north of the Vaal (2007:38) ................................................. 29
Table 2.5 Sadr & Rodier's typology for stone-walled settlements ............................................................ 31
Table 2.6 Huffman's ceramic classification terminology (after 2007:117)........................................... 32
Table 4.1 Bovid size classes....................................................................................................................................... 79
Table 6.1 Meta-data for excavation units .......................................................................................................... 122
Table 6.2 Southern profile image (unit 1) ......................................................................................................... 124
Table 6.3 Volume of soil removed per layer (Unit 1) ................................................................................... 124
Table 6.4 Attributes of each layer (Unit 1)........................................................................................................ 124
Table 6.5 Volume of soil removed per layer (unit 2) .................................................................................... 127
Table 6.6 Attributes of each layer (unit 2) ........................................................................................................ 127
Table 6.8 Attributes of each layer (unit 3) ........................................................................................................ 131
Table 6.9 Volume of soil removed per layer (unit 4) .................................................................................... 134
Table 6.10 Attributes of each layer (unit 4) ..................................................................................................... 135
Table 6.11 Complete faunal count ........................................................................................................................ 136
Table 6.12 Diagnostic and non-diagnostic faunal counts ........................................................................... 137
Table 6.13 Species list, numbers represent NISP count with MNI count in brackets ..................... 138
Table 6.14 representation of different sized bovid skeletal parts at the site ..................................... 139
Table 6.15 Bovid skeletal part per unit .............................................................................................................. 141
Table 6.16 Taphonomy count for each unit ...................................................................................................... 141
Table 6.17 Historically documented use of specific animals for raiment and ornament items.. 148
Table 6.18 Historically documented use of specific animals for charms and medicine................. 150
Table 6.19 Total number and weight of sherds collected per unit ......................................................... 152
Table 6.20 Total count of non-diagnostic and diagnostic ceramics ....................................................... 152
Table 6.21 Percentage and number of sherds displaying various diagnostic features .................. 153
Table 6.23 Number of rim types per unit .......................................................................................................... 158
Table 6.26 Number of vessel types falling within the different rim diameter classes.................... 160
Table 6.27 Number of vessels for different rim extent classes................................................................. 160
Table 6.28 Number and percentage of decorated sherds per unit ......................................................... 161
Table 6.29 List of decorated ceramics in collection ...................................................................................... 161
viii
Table 6.30 Bead type and distribution at site .................................................................................................. 165
Table 6.31 List of ceramic objects in collection .............................................................................................. 167
Table 7.1 List of attributes from each excavation unit................................................................................. 171
ix
Acknowledgements
There are so many to thank and acknowledge! I have to thank various funders, who supported
my degree in some form, such as the National Research Foundation, the Archaeological Society
of South Africa, and the Paleontological Scientific Trust. The Archaeological Society of South
Africa through the Kent Bequest awarded funds to assist with fieldwork and printing costs. The
Paleontological Scientific Trust, who provided funds to attend a conference to share some of the
results of this research.
The research was conducted on a private farm, the owners of which, Jan and Serina Coetzee
brought the site to the attention of the archaeology department. They graciously provided us
transport to site and allowed us to stay in their tented camp, which provided a rather luxurious
setting for our fieldwork. They have been completely supportive and enthusiastic about the
research on the site and have been understanding and considerate of the research process.
I would like to thank my supervisors Dr Ceri Ashley and Dr Alexander Antonites, each
contributed to this final product in various ways. I appreciate the patience, enthusiasm, advice,
time, and effort shared on behalf of this project and my personal development as an
archaeologist. Your passion for archaeology and you’re sharing of this around a fire, or a table at
Oom Gert, creates a rare sense of community between the department students and their
supervisors, and I’m sure to miss this wherever I go.
I have had many people who contributed to my development as an archaeologist. Prof Innocent
Pikirayi, Dr Sven Ouzman, Johan Nel, and Sian Tiley-Nel are people who cultivated my initial
interest in archaeology. Prof. Pikirayi instigated an interest in ‘historical archaeology’, and
assisted in me attaining grants during my degree. Sven pushed the boundaries, in thought and
writing, throughout my undergraduate studies. Johan always made space for an eager student to
get into the field and these opportunities sealed my fate in archaeology. Sian was an early role
model; she openly shares her knowledge and continues to promote opportunities for young
archaeologists to gain experience. Karin Scott and Dr. Annie Antonites spared time to share and
instruct on their passion.
A group of Archaeology students (Rose, Sam, Gerrick, Annemarie, Sumeri, Cathy, Nic, Evin,
Christian, and Gerhard) conducted the fieldwork; I appreciate all your efforts and the shared
laughter and positive attitude over tiring conditions. To all the people who helped me analyse
the faunal material (Sumeri, Annemarie, Benjamin, Karin, and Evin), thank you! A special thanks
to my fellow conspirator and lab buddy, Ms. Evin Grody, we have had some hilarious times
together. I would not have been able to make such an excellent map of Lebenya without the
assistance of Gerhard Jordaan and Christian Louw, who survived prickly-pear, bush, whisky, and
sun lashings.
I need to thank my Family, both sides and siblings, who supported this ‘archaeological quest’.
I’m grateful to Christiaan Jordaan who joined us at site and observed (on a camp chair under the
shade) our work. Both Stefni and Christiaan Jordaan have been supportive and helpful
throughout this process. To Ma and Pa Jordaan, you have always been supportive in various
ways. More so, you have always reassured Gerhard and me when we have faltered or doubted
our course, your enthusiasm, love, and support is immeasurable. To Tio Jose, I cannot express
how grateful I am for the opportunity you gave me to further my studies. My dad supported me
throughout my studies, and was someone I could rely on. My mother provided love and support,
and a place to write and think. Oom Gideon shared his time, experience, and vehicle in the
pursuit of this degree. My brother visited the site and sat through a four-hour discussion, now
that is true love! Lastly, I want to thank my partner, Gerhard Jordaan; from Bivack to now, I can’t
imagine any of it without you.
xi
Chapter 1 Introduction
1.1. Overview
The last 500 years in southern African has been a formative period, a time of great internal
economic and political invention, as well as experimentation (Swanepoel et al. 2008: vi). This is
apparent in the archaeological and historical record of the Tswana1 in the southern African
interior.
The term ‘Tswana’ is a relatively recent term. It emerges in the early 19th century CE, when
colonists moving into the South African interior encounter a group of people who share a
common language, termed Tswana (Parsons 2008:41). The term does not only reflect a
linguistic boundary, but also a cultural one. It is a term used to discuss a group of people who
share certain cultural and linguistic boundaries not only presently, but to some degree within
the past. The Tswana are presently located in Botswana and South Africa (Morton 2013:15).
Past written records depicting the location, people, and beliefs of the Tswana exist- such as
those kept by early explorers and missionaries into the interior, as well as ethnographers,
anthropologists and other collectors of oral records (see Breutz 1953; Campbell 1822; &
Schapera 1953). However, the Tswana over this period also left archaeological traces, the most
apparent being a landscape littered by stone wall settlements.
In South Africa archaeological research has linked these stone-walled settlements to various
Tswana groups (Anderson 2009; Boeyens 2000, 2003; Maggs 1993; Mason 1986; Pistorius
1992), with continued developments in how these settlements are analysed and classified (e.g.
Fredriksen 2007; Hall 1998a & b; Lane 2000; Reid et al. 1997; Sadr & Rodier 2012). An area of
principal concern is the Zeerust-Pilanesberg-Rustenburg region, as highlighted in Figure 1.1.
Located in this region are mega-sites, densely clustered aggregated stone-walled sites, with
1 Names of languages and groups are used in their root form only, without prefixes, e.g. Sotho not SeSotho.
These root forms are to be used in naming the individual member of a group, the people, the language,
and as adjective, e.g. a Sotho, the Sotho, Sotho, a Sotho chief (as suggested by the Inter-University
Committee for African Studies in Lestrade 1937:373).
some of these sites ranging up to 3km in length (see Pistorius 1992:3). Figure 1.2 shows the
distribution of aggregated settlements in the ZPR region.
Figure 1.1 Map of South Africa with research region highlighted
Figure 1.2 Map of the research region with documented mega-sites as well as current towns
These mega-sites track the development of Tswana political centralisation in the region till the
late 18th century CE (Hall 2012:307). These mega-sites were towns containing large populations
of Tswana groups. These towns, such as Molokwane and Boitsemagano, were placed in prime
positions with access to premium agricultural land (Hall 2012:308).
The rise of the Tswana population, and subsequently towns, in the region has been suggested as
a consequence of increasing intra-regional strife, caused by interaction with expanding colonial
mercantile interests (Manson 1995; Parsons 1995). However, as stated by Hall (2012:309) this
suggestion ‘provides a basic causality’ emphasising external factors, which does not address
prior intra-regional cultural dynamics in the region. In order to understand this further, the
term Tswana needs to be deconstructed. Deconstructing the homogeneity of the term ‘Tswana’
allows for a perspective which highlights the complex historical layering of identities in the
region. A historical layering of identity which reflects the varying cultural inheritances,
continuations, alterations, and interactions experienced and enacted by groups negotiating their
Tswana identity within the region (Hall 2012:301).
See Figure 1.32 for a list of southern African Bantu3 Language groups. These divisions denote
differences in language and social organisation (Van Warmelo 1962:57). The agro-pastoralists
found in the South African interior, largely fall into the Nguni or Sotho language groups. The
Nguni cluster of groups is predominantly distributed below the high plateau of the interior,
stretching over a belt between the Drakensberg escarpment and the sea, from Swaziland to
KwaZulu-Natal and far down into the Cape Province (Van Warmelo 1962:45). The groups
designated to this cluster are the Xhosa, the Swazi, the Ndebele, and the Zulu. The Sotho cluster
is divided into the Southern Sotho, the Eastern Sotho, and the Tswana (aka the Western Sotho)
(Van Warmelo 1962:57). Sotho-speakers live on the central plateau, to the north and west of
the main Nguni groups (Kuper 1975:68).
The Nguni and Sotho share the same underlying conceptual structure, despite their language
and social organisation differences (Kuper 1980:16 & 21). This shared underlying structure is
what Kuper (1982) describes simplistically as patrilineal societies who exchange cattle for
wives. From this underlying structure Huffman (1986c) derived the Central Cattle Pattern
2 This figure represents a limited (and orderly) fragment of a multi-level list of group identity and
membership. In reality the boundaries between groups are not so clear, this is discussed further in
chapter two and three.
3 The term is linguistic in origin, and demarks agro-pastoralists lying south of the Limpopo River
(Hammond-Tooke 2004:71).
(CCP), an archaeological model which links the settlement organisation and features of sites to
southern African agro-pastoralists worldview (to be discussed further in chapter three).
Figure 1.3 Southern African Bantu Language groups, after Lestrade (1937:374-5)
The Nguni and Sotho-Tswana are predominantly associated with different regions in the South
African interior and coast (as mentioned above); however, this belies the fact that there has
been movement and interaction over this landscape between the various groups. This is the
scenario in the ZPR region (discussed further in chapter two). This complex layering of
identities in the region questions the traditional Sotho/Nguni group divide (Hamilton & Hall
2012:289).
In this region dominated by people of a Tswana identity, there are groups which can be linked
historically to Nguni-speakers with features of these former identities still materially expressed
in the 19th century CE (Hall 2012:301). These marked variances in cultural backgrounds,
expressed materially, have been used to elucidate socio-political and economic intra-regional
relations as shown at the site of Marothodi (Hall 2007:175 & 2012:318). Therefore, further
research at the site scale is necessary to expose these identities, and connected intra-regional
relations, at a time of political change and assimilation.
In order to address questions regarding intra-regional cultural dynamics researchers need to

look at other settlements, such as those found in the surrounding region of the mega-sites.
These sites are generally of a smaller scale. Some were inhabited prior to the development of
mega-sites, while others were contemporaneous. Small-scaled sites in the region have received
minimal attention in previous archaeological research agendas. From a site specific scale it is
possible to investigate how the inhabitants of the site chose to materially express their identity,
as well as exploring any possible relations between the inhabitants of the site and other groups
in the region.
The following research at a small-scaled site in the North West province of South Africa suggests
some answers to these questions.
1.2. Research objectives
This research focuses on the societal structure of a past community inhabiting a small-scaled
site, termed Lebenya. The societal structure is investigated through spatial layout, excavated
data, and historical (textual) evidence. Besides a site specific view, this research also explores
Lebenya’s connection to a wider socio-political context, i.e. its relation to mega-sites in the
region, and the manner of these relations, to generate an intra-regional perspective.
The first objective concerns the site specific scale, which focuses on the spatial pattern of
Lebenya in conjunction with the excavated evidence, text, and historical sources. The main
research question, followed by subsidiary questions, is:
 What does the spatial layout and excavated data tell us about the societal dynamics at
Lebenya? Specifically:
o Does the spatial layout conform to other settlement layouts in the region, and
what does this conformity/divergence signify in terms of social and political
organisation and affiliation?
o Using selected test-excavation to ground-truth the spatial data, what can the
evidence of material culture/archaeological debris tell us about domestic and
economic activities within the site?
The second objective is on an intra-regional scale. This approach focuses on Lebenya’s
connection to the wider landscape of mega-sites in order to identify its place in the broader
socio-political context. The main research question, followed by subsidiary questions, is:
 How does Lebenya fit into the wider socio-political context and how does it compare to
other sites in the area?
o How does the spatial layout and archaeological evidence of Lebenya compare
with the models developed from mega-sites? Are the same activities/structures
in place in both? What is the significance of similarity/difference?
o Using comparison of excavated and survey data with published research, can
Lebenya be linked to a specific Tswana lineage and/or mega-site? What can this
unique perspective, an investigation of a small site’s relations to a larger
network of mega-sites, provide to a discussion on the history of the area?
To surmise, the research objectives and questions for this research are focused on two scales of
approach, site specific and intra-regional. These questions are addressed through the use of
spatial analysis, archaeological, and historical evidence. This research attempts to identify the
past people who occupied the site and their societal structure, and the group’s relation to the
wider socio-political context .
1.3. Dissertation outline
The dissertation contains seven chapters (including the introduction). Chapter 2 reviews
pertinent literature to this study and provides geo-environmental data regarding the study
region. Furthermore, I discuss the known historical distribution of various Tswana groups
within the region and their association to sites in the region. Chapter 3 is a discussion of the
theoretical premises underlying this study. It begins broadly with a discussion on the field of
historical archaeology, its application in an African context, and its methodological strengths
and weaknesses. This is then further applied to the South African context and the study of late
farming communities. Chapter 4 recounts the analytical and methodological procedures
adopted for this study. Details regarding aerial imagery, map creation and map illustration are
explained as well as analytical procedures for each artefact category. Chapters 5 and 6 present
the results of the study. Chapter 5 explores the spatial attributes of the study and presents the
results of such analysis. Chapter 6 focuses on the results from the material analysis of the
excavated artefacts from Lebenya. Chapter 7 unites the results from chapters 5 and 6. This is
synthesized into a discussion on site identity, group distribution, and regional interaction. This
chapter concludes with future research directions.
Chapter 2 Literature Review
2.1. Overview
The Magaliesberg region in the early 19th century CE as described by Robert Moffat (1829 in
Wallis 1945:8):
The country through which we now passed was along a range of hills running nearly
east-south-east, while the country to the north and east became more plain,
beautifully studded with small chains of mountains and conical hills, along the bases
of which lay the ruins of innumerable towns, some of amazing extent. The plains and
valleys, of the richest soil to a great depth, had once waved with native millet and
been covered with pumpkins, water melons, kidney beans and sweet reed, all of
which are cultivated through the interior. The ruined towns exhibited signs of
immense labour and perseverance, every fence being composed of stones, averaging
five or six feet, raised apparently without either mortar, lime, or hammer.
The region is an ecologically rich and diverse habitat. The resources found within the region
supported the growth of large populations, as shown by the number and size of aggregated
settlements in the region. The first section of this chapter presents the geo-environmental
information for the research area with specific references to the topography, rivers, climate,
geology, soils, vegetation, and wildlife located within the study region. The second section of
this chapter addresses the history and the archaeology of the Tswana in the region.
2.2. The study region
The area of study is the Zeerust-Pilanesberg-Rustenburg (ZPR) region, an area encapsulating

the Groot Marico River to the west, the Magaliesberg range to the southeast, and the Pilanesberg
volcanic complex to the north (see Figure 1.2). The research site, Lebenya, is located outside of
the town Swartruggens. Figure 1.2 depicts the distribution of documented mega-sites within the
region as well as the location of the research site.
The research region compromises of two biomes, the savannah and grassland biome The strip
of land, interfacing the savannah biome to the south and the grassland biome to the north,
provides a patchwork of areas with high ecological diversity. The ecological diversity of the area
supported agriculture, herding, hunting, mining, and trading activities (Hall et al. 2008). In the
following section I discuss the various aspects of this environment which contributed to the
continued habitation, over the last 500 years to present, of the region.
2.2.1. The topography and vegetation
Figure 2.1 Ecological regions of the ZPR
The region exhibits variation in the topography, this is due to the transitional nature of the
landscape from the grasslands of the highveld (high inland plateau, which is >1500m above sea
level) to the south, and the savannah of the lowveld (low inland plateau, which is <1200m above
sea level) to the north (Cowling, Richardson, & Pierce 2004:225). To the north of the research
region the landscape can be characterised as bushveld, while to the south the landscape
becomes more dominated by grass lands. Running parallel between these two zones is the
bankenveld4 ecological region, which consists of ridges and valleys between 1200m and 1500m
above sea level (Kruger 2010:11). The location of settlements within this strip of land between
the bushveld and the grasslands, as shown in Figure 2.1, provides year round grazing for
4The bankenveld in this region is a composite of the following vegetation units; the Gold reef mountain
bushveld, the Gauteng shale mountain bushveld and the Andesite mountain bushveld; Rand Highveld
Grassland; and Carletonville Dolomite Grassland (Mucina & Rutherford 2006:466-7).
livestock (Kruger 2010:5). The grasslands would have provided pastures for summer and
spring grazing, while the sweet grasses of the bankenveld would have provided nutritious
winter grazing.
The research site is located on a ridge at an elevation of 1380-1390m above sea level. The
elevation of the ridge rises along the southwestern part. The location of the settlement on the
ridge top allows for an extensive view of the surrounding landscape. The vegetation
surrounding the site5 is characterised as the Dwarsberg-Swartruggens Mountain bushveld, as
shown in Figure 2.2.
Figure 2.2 The vegetation units in the ZPR region
5 Past human settlements do affect the vegetation within and bordering the site, this is discussed further
in the methodology chapter.
10
2.2.2. The Geology and soils
Figure 2.3 Soil types in the region, after SANBI BGIS LUDS map (2007)
The underlying geology of the region is that of the Transvaal supergroup, a deposit including
dolomites and banded iron formations (Mucina & Rutherford 2006:443). The deposition of the
Transvaal sequence continued for several hundred million years, amounting to a total thickness
of over 20km (Mucina & Rutherford 2006:443). Around 2 060 mya the bushveld igneous
complex intruded the Transvaal supergroup (Mucina & Rutherford 2006:443). The bushveld
igneous complex is host to the greater part of the world’s platinum group metal, vanadium, and
chromium resources6 (Mucina & Rutherford 2006:443). Due to this geology there is a mix of
soil types in the region, mainly swelling clay soils and freely drained structureless soils (see
Figure 2.3). The freely drained structureless soils, locally known as well-drained red loams, lack
a strong texture contrast with a high base status (classification according to World Reference
Base [WRB] in Mucina & Rutherford 2006:445), and are found across northwest to south east of
6 Due to the rich resources to be mined in this region, there are mines located within the study region. The
closest mine is a diamond mine, it is located on the adjacent farm to the settlement. Mining projects while
critical for the development of South African industry and the economy, can negatively impact heritage
sites in various ways, with the destruction of un-documented heritage the worst possible outcome.
11
the ZPR region. The swelling clay soils, locally known as black turf soil, occur in patches
northeast of the red soil. There is also an area of lithosols soil to the south west. This mix of soils
was particularly important for subsistence agriculture as risk could be spread over a variety of
soils in anticipation of drought or too much rainfall (Hall et al. 2008:73).
2.2.3. Climate
The climate is that of a summer rainfall region, with very dry winters and occasional frost in low
lying areas (Mucina & Rutherford 2006). Temperatures generally range from 35.2˚C in summer
to -0.4˚C in winter, but varying somewhat within the different vegetation units (Mucina &
Rutherford 2006). The mean annual precipitation ranges between 550mm and 650mm, but also
varying somewhat within the different vegetation units (Mucina & Rutherford 2006). These
conditions suit the cultivation of sorghum and millet, which were the primary cereals of
cultivation prior to the introduction of maize in the region7 (Huffman 1996).
2.2.4. Rivers
The Marico River stretches from the west to the north of the ZPR region. The Klein and Groot
Marico rivers, tributaries of the Marico River, occur in the western area of the ZPR region. The
Elands River stretches from northeast to south of the ZPR region (RHP 2005:14). Other
tributaries of the Elands River, the Selons and Hex River, are located in the eastern section of the
region (RHP 2005:14). Located near the research site is the Elands River to the east, and closer
still, the Tholwane River to the west. Figure 2.4 depicts the rivers found in the region. Access to
water through rivers and streams was vital for livestock keeping and human settlement in a
region.
7 Another consideration is the introduction of maize into the region. Maize requires higher rainfall than
sorghum or millet crops (Hall 2007:174), and therefore a drought would have had a devastating effect on
populations which relied upon this cereal. However there is not resolute evidence for the introduction of
maize into the region prior to Mzilikazi’s Ndebele incursion into the region. See Boeyens (2003); Hall et
al. (2008:74), & Huffman (1996 & 2006) in regards to the debate surrounding the introduction of maize
into the region.
12
Figure 2.4 Rivers in the region, after SANBI BGIS LUDS map (2007)
2.3. Groups historically found in the ZPR region
The historical evidence for groups in the region is based on collected oral traditions, recorded
observations by European missionaries, and explorers into the interior. Recorded oral
traditions, in the case of the Sotho-Tswana, go back to the 14th century CE at least, although the
earlier records are not more than lists of successive rulers (Boeyens & Hall 2009:462). Later
accounts by Europeans venturing into the interior predominantly date from the 19th century CE
onwards (Morton 2008:1). From these different observations of the past, a picture of daily life
as well as group composition and structure is available. Vital to any study on the Tswana is the
work of I. Schapera, a social anthropologist researching the Tswana from 1929 to the 1940s CE
(Morton 2013:17). Another important source is the work of state ethnologist P.L. Breutz (1953),
who recorded Tswana oral traditions in SA, providing valuable ethnographic and historical
information. The work of M. Legassick (20108), who recorded Sotho-Tswana histories prior to
the 19th century CE, and L. Ngcongco (1979), who synthesised various works on the Tswana, are
also incorporated into the following discussion.
8 The 2010 edition is a published version of Legassick’s (1969) doctoral thesis.
13
The written traditions, concerning the origins of the Tswana in southern Africa, suggest the
Tswana9 migrated into the region in a succession of waves (Breutz 1955; Ellenberger and
Macgregor 1905; Schapera 1964; Stow 1905; in Ngcongco 1979:24). The theory asserts that the
Tswana migrated south from East Africa in three series of migrations (Ngcongco 1979:24). This
‘wave theory’ however is contested (Ehret 1973; Legassick 1969; Parsons 1973; Phillipson
1969; Vansina 1966 in Ngcongco 1979:24). Rather, it is more realistic to consider the Tswana as
migrating into the region in “small-scale scattered movements” moving slowly and gradually in
various directions over a wide area (Ngcongco 1979:25). The Tswana groups migrating into the
sub-Limpopo region are believed to have interacted with other groups, those of the Nguni
cluster, which share similar worldviews and social organisation traits (such as polygamy and
patrilineal traditions). The growth of the Tswana population most likely occurred through the
absorption of other groups in the sub-Limpopo region (Ngcongco 1979:26). This process is
similar to that advocated by Hall (2012) in regards to a complex ‘layering’ of identity amongst
the historical Tswana of the ZPR region. This is discussed in further detail throughout the
following sections.
2.3.1. The Tswana cluster
The Tswana are a sub-group of the Sotho cluster, as shown in Figure 1.3; however, the Tswana
also represent a cluster of groups. The Tswana cluster is made up of more than eighty groups 10
(Schapera 1963:159). Due to this sizeable number the Tswana are further divided into sub-
clusters, such as northern or western Tswana cluster. These sub-clusters are defined by
dominant Tswana lineages. Lineages are ‘ruling dynasties or branches that trace their
patrilineal descent to a real or an imagined common ancestor’ (Hall et al. 2008:57). Lineages
were not socio-political actors11, but rather units used to define chiefly genealogy and history
(Hall et al. 2008:57). Within the region, Legassick (1969) identified four dominant lineages,
these are: the Hurutshe, Kgatla, Rolong, and Fokeng. Ngcongco (1979: 28) extends the lineages,
identified by Legassick (1969), to demarcate the main branches of each lineage; therefore, the
dominant lineages are the Kwena-Hurutshe, Kgatla-Pedi, Rolong-Tlhaping, and Fokeng-Dighoya.
9 Perhaps the term proto-Tswana is more accurate for a description of this group, as the Tswana is a
recent (European) ascription denoting this cluster (Parsons 2008:41). However for simplicity, the term
Tswana will be continued to be used in this context.
10 Each group headed by their own chief (chiefdom)
11 Socio-political actors were in the form of instrumental groupings
14
The following section briefly accounts for the branches of each lineage and their association to
other groups over time.
The Hurutshe-Kwena lineage is termed the western Tswana cluster (Huffman 2007: 433). The
Hurutshe and Kwena traditions both claim descent from Masilo and shared the same ruling line
prior to the late 15th to early 16th century CE (Legassick 2010:20). The earliest settlement
attributed to this cluster is Rathatheng, near the confluence of the Odi and Madikwe Rivers, and
Mabjanamatswana, near the modern town of Brits (Legassick 2010:20). There are conflicting
accounts for this split; however, the consequences of which were the wide dispersal of Kwena
settlements, over the highveld up to the limits of the Kalahari on the west, and as far as the
Orange River in the south (Legassick 2010:20).
This wide dispersal of the Kwena is believed to have occurred through three migrations of
Kwena clusters (Legassick 2010:20). According to Legassick one Kwena-chiefdom migrated to
the Brits district, another crossed the Vaal to a place called Ntsuanatsatsi (in the Free State), and
the last migration, led by the Hurutshe, moved to the headwaters of the Marico River (2010:20).
The Kwena that crossed the Vaal to Ntsuanatsatsi, legitimized their occupation south of the
river by intermarriage with the local Fokeng habitants (Legassick 2010:22). It is believed that
this led to the Tswana-isation of the Fokeng. The Fokeng are believed to be of Nguni origin
(Boeyens & Hall 2009: 469; Huffman 2007: 436; Mitchell & Whitelaw 2005: 227). This is
suggested by oral history and archaeological (predominantly ceramic) evidence (to be
discussed further in the ceramic traditions section of this chapter). The Kwena-Fokeng migrated
from the area around the 17th century CE, with some returning north of the Vaal, and others
dispersing further south of the Vaal (Legassick 2010:20). In the 18th century CE the Kwena
moved west from the Pretoria and Rustenburg districts across the Marico district into present-
day Botswana (Legassick 2010:20).
The Rolong lineage is termed the south-western Tswana cluster (Huffman 2007: 433). The
Rolong were among the earliest Tswana to establish themselves in South Africa, earlier than the
Hurutshe-Kwena (Ngcongco 1979: 31). The name Rolong is after their first ruler, named
‘Morolong’, who ruled the group in the late 13th century CE (Ngcongco 1979: 31). The Rolong
driven from the Mosega area by the Hurutshe in the 16th century CE moved southwards, settling
between the Molopo and Orange Rivers (Legassick 2010:20). A group of the Rolong, during a
period of famine, was compelled to eat fish (a taboo food in Tswana society) and became known
as the Tlhaping (fish eaters) (Ngcongco 1979: 31). Around the mid 18th to 19th century CE, the
Rolong group disintegrated (Legassick 2010:32).
15
The Kgatla are believed to be descendants of the Hurutshe cluster; however, the records place
the origins of the Kgatla in the central highveld, near present day Pretoria and Rustenburg, an
area located west of the Hurutshe (Legassick 2010:20). During the 16th and 17th century CE, the
Kgatla dispersed over the area north of the Vaal and eastwards from the central highveld
towards the Drakensberg (Legassick 2010:20). In the 18th century CE a segment of the Kgatla
moved eastward from the Pretoria district to the Lulu Mountains, where they formed the Pedi
state (Legassick 2010:20). The Kgatla lineage is designated to the western Tswana cluster12
though this designation is not conclusive (Huffman 2007: 433 & 436). The Pedi fall within the
Northern Tswana cluster (Huffman 2007: 436).
Ngcongco (1979: 28) refers to the Fokeng-Dighoya. Dighoya, also known as Dihoja or Digôja or
Lihoya, is a group identity which is based on the name of a successful ruler, Sehoja, a popular
ruler in the 18TH century CE (Maggs 1976b:327). However, the term has become ambiguous
(Breutz 1953:217 & Maggs 1976b:327). It has been stated that the Dighoya are descended from
the Rolong (Breutz 1953:217). However, it may also refer to the Kubung or the Taung (Maggs
1976b:327). The Kubung consider themselves offshoots of the Rolong (Maggs 1976b:327), and
according to Breutz (1953:217) the informants for the Kubung and the Phiring assert that they
together formed the Dighoya. The following section discusses specific groups found in the ZPR
region, with a focus on known groups surrounding the Swartruggens region.
2.3.2. The Tswana groups in the region
Groups mentioned in the oral records within the region during the 18th and 19th century CE, are
the: Fokeng, Hurutshe, Kgafela Kgatla, Kwena, Tlhako, Tlokwa, and Po (depicted in Figure 2.5).
The Hurutshe settled in the Marico region from the 16th century CE and established
Kaditshwene in the late 18th century CE (Boeyens 2000). The Kwena in the 18th century CE had
various factions settled across a wide landscape (Legassick 2010: 20). In the ZPR region during
the 18th and 19th century CE, the Kwena established the aggregated settlements of
Boitsemagano and Molokwane (see Figure 1.2). Boitsemagano and Molokwane were occupied
by different branches of the Kwena, respectively the Ramanamela and the Mmatau (Pistorius
1992:44). The Kgatla can be connected to the aggregated settlement named Buispoort (after
which the ceramic facies is named), situated northwest from Zeerust (Boeyens 2003:63 & 70).
12Further research in the region has placed doubt on this designation, specifically in regards to recent
ceramic studies, strengthened by the suggested Kgatla-Tlokwa connection, which creates doubt over the
Tswana origin of the Kgatla (Rosenstein 2008: 50).
16
In 18th and early 19th century CE the Kgatla Kgafela settled in the Pilanesberg region (Morton
2008:15). The Tlokwa, Tlhako, and Po, are part of the Fokeng cluster; therefore, they do not
have a clear origin (Hall et al. 2008:68; Huffman 2007:437). The archaeological and historical
evidence suggests a Nguni origin (Hall et al. 2008:66). The Tlokwa are linked to various
settlements found in the Pilanesberg and Rustenburg region, such as Mankwe, Pilwe,
Kolontwaneng, and Marothodi (Hall et al. 2008:66). The Tlhako are not linked to any
archaeology in the region; however, they do move into the region around the 18th century CE
and are found to the west of the Tlokwa in the Pilanesberg region (Breutz 1953:176-177; Hall et
al 2008:68). The Fokeng settled at their capital, Phokeng, in the Magaliesberg region (Morton
2013:21). They were settled at this capital for decades prior to the Pedi invasion in the late 19 th
century CE, and returned shortly after the invasion; they have remained in this capital ever
since (2013:21). The Po group is briefly mentioned to be east of the Fokeng in the Magaliesberg
area around the 18th century CE (Hall et al. 2008:72).
Figure 2.5 Map of known groups in the ZPR region in the 18th and 19th century CE, after Hall et al. (2008: Plate
1)
In the early 19th century CE a series of incursions ultimately ended Tswana political
centralisation in the region. This period known as the difaqane (the scattering of people) is
characterised by the displacement or fleeing of a majority of Tswana groups from the ZPR
17
region. A time characterised by colonial expansion and labour needs, as well trade and resource
competition, causing conflict in, and migration from, the region (Croucamp & Roberts 2011:2).
The protagonists of this period start with the Pedi incursions in the early 1820s CE followed by
Sebetwane’s Kololo, Mzilikazi’s Ndebele, and Potgieter’s Voortrekkers (Morton 2008:3). In the
1840s CE the Boer settlers made the area their principal base for further expansion into the
interior (Morton 2008:3). The region was subsequently incorporated into the colonial realm,
and later become a part of the South African State.
The following section uses the historical data to investigate groups located in the surrounding
Swartruggens area. From this selection the possible inhabitants of the research site can be
identified.
2.3.3. Groups in the Swartruggens area
The Swartruggens area falls into the Rustenburg and Pilanesberg districts, according to Breutz’s
(1953) classification, and he records 25 groups (including branches of a larger group) within
this area. The main groups recorded in the area, in alphabetical order, are the: Fokeng, Hlubi,
Hurutshe, Kgatla, Kwena, Matebele, Phalane, Phiring, Pô, Rokologadi, Taung, Tlôkwa, Tlhako,
and Tlhalerwa.
The location of the site in the Swartruggens region narrows the possible identity of the
inhabitants of the settlement. The only direct reference13 to this area in the oral records is of the
Taung (specifically the Bataung-ba-Mobana) (Hall et al. 2008:62). According to this information
the date of the group in the region is possibly 1630-1730 CE, with the capital Rakgotletse, at
farm Doornkom 896 located SE of Swartruggens, while the chief is unknown (Hall et al.
2008:62; Breutz 1953:160). Although the location is not correct, it is possible that there are
other Taung settlements in the surrounding area. Breutz states that the Taung, due to famine
and drought, moved to the east of the most northerly part of the Magaliesberg range, but later
relocated to Rustenburg14 and are still located in the region (1953:160-161). Breutz mentions
that due to the group’s relatively small size the Rustenburg Taung merged (through marriage)
with the Fokeng and Kwena (1953:161). However, based on extant records, another group may
also be connected with the stone wall structures found at Lebenya; this is the Kwena,
13 The oral records detailing Sotho-Tswana groups in the Pilanesberg/Magaliesberg region was tabulated
by Hall et al. (2008), including details, if known, regarding the Chief, Date, Capital, Farm/Place.
14 Another branch of the Taung is also found in the Pilanesberg region, and is related to the Rustenburg
group (Breutz 1953:161).
18
specifically the Modimosana Kwena. As previously mentioned, the Modimosana Kwena are
linked to large stone wall sites (mega-sites) in the Rustenburg region, these sites are
Molokwane and Boitsemagano (Pistorius 1992).
In order to further narrow the list, I searched for groups who were located around the
Tholwane River at some stage, as shown in Figure 2.4, a stream located adjacent to the site. The
Tholwane stream (spelt Thulwane on some maps, and Toelanie in Breutz 1953:499) occurs
west of the settlement. Lebenya belongs to the parent farm Tolaniesfontein, and it is likely this
name refers to the river. Various groups were known to be in the surrounding area of the
Tholwane River, but only groups within the south eastern segment of the river were considered.
This combined with a search for groups found near Swartruggens narrowed the possibilities to
a list of groups, displayed in Table 2.1.
Table 2.1 Groups historically located in the surrounding area (from Breutz 1953)
TIME FRAME GROUP FARM NAME OF SETTLEMENT

Prior to16TH century Hurutshe In Swartruggens around No specific name mentioned
CE Tholwane river
Prior to 1816/17 CE Lete Between farms Turflaagte Lotlhakane
and Silwerkrans
Prior to 1780 & Phiring Nooitgedacht Motšokwe
between 1860-1870
CE
Early 19TH century CE Tlokwa Grootfontein Kolontwane
The location of each of the following groups listed in the table, except for the Hurutshe who are
not linked to a specific farm in the region, are displayed in Figure 2.6. The closest group
recorded in the vicinity of the settlement are the Phiring.
Due to the recorded proximity of the Phiring to the site they are prime candidates for further
investigation. The possibility of the Phiring being the past inhabitants of the site shall be
discussed in the following section.
19
Figure 2.6 The location of various groups in the area
2.3.4. The Phiring at Nooitgedacht
The records state that the Phiring settled at Nooitgedacht sometime in the 17TH century CE, and
established a capital, called Motšokwe (Breutz 1953:216). They lived at Motšokwe till 1780-
1800 CE; from then on they moved places several times (moving from the Marico area to the
area around Potchefstroom) (Breutz 1953:216). They trekked back to Motšokwe around 1860-
1870 CE, but it seems they did not re-inhabit the settlement, because in 1870 CE the Phiring
bought the farm Rietfontein, in the name of the Hermannsburg Mission (Breutz 1953:216).
According to the records, the Phiring had seven chiefs who lived and died at Motšokwe, the first
chief being Phiri I (Breutz 1953:217-18). The tradition goes that under the rule of Phiri I, the
people suffered a serious famine, when on the brink of starvation, they found a buck that had
been killed by a hyeana, and it is believed to pay tribute to this act, they changed their totem
from Tholo (kudu) to Phiri (Hyaena) (Breutz 1953:218). The Phiring are said to be offshoots of
20
the Hurutshe, but this appears to be true only in the sense that the majority of the Tswana
originally broke off from the Hurutshe (Breutz 1953:217). As previously mentioned, the Phiring
are said to be closely related to the Kubung, and are believed to form part of the Dighoya
(Breutz 1953:217).
2.3.5. Finding Motšokwe
The extent of the Phiring settlement could have stretched further than Nooitgedacht, and
possibly the majority of the settlement could have been located on the adjacent farms. At
Marothodi, the oral records only mentioned the farm Bultfontein, when in actuality Marothodi
was spread over three farms, Bultfontein, Diamant, and Vlakfontein (Boeyens & Hall 2009:464).
Further, the core of Marothodi was located on the farm Vlakfontein which was not mentioned in
the oral records (Boeyens & Hall 2009:464). This is however not unusual, as shown by similar
circumstances surrounding the location of Kaditshwene. In the list of farms associated with the
Hurutshe capital, Breutz only mentions the farm Bloemfontein, even though the central area of
the settlement is bisected by a boundary fence to the farm Kleinfontein (in Boeyens & Hall
2009:466). There are several reasons for this scenario occurring, ranging from political
sensitivities at the time to white owned farms, to informants using a farm as a landmark in
locating the general settlement location. Therefore it can be misleading to view a site in
isolation from the greater landscape of settlements. On the neighbouring farms of Lebenya, from
the aerial and satellite imagery, a collection of other stone-walled sites can be identified. The
stone-walled structures range from single small homesteads, to a collection of homesteads, as
shown in Figure 2.7. The majority of stone wall structures are found on the farm just north of
Lebenya, called Eensaamheid, as shown in Figure 2.6.
The Phiring capital Motsokwe, according to Breutz (1953:216), is located on Nooitgedacht.

Currently, Nooitgedacht is the ground of a diamond operation. This underground fissure mine,
located on Nooitgedacht, has been operating since 1933 (PetraDiamonds 2015: Helam). No
heritage report exists for the farm. This is likely due to the time depth of the operations,
predating current heritage legislation which requires a heritage assessment prior to the
initiation of mining activity (National Heritage resources Act, Act 25 of 1999). From the
historical aerial images and GE imagery stone wall sites in the northwestern corner of
Nooitgedacht can be seen (these are not depicted in the Figure 2.7). These sites are however not
as large as the ones found on Lebenya or Eensaamheid, and are quite a distance from the main
stone wall structure on Eensaamheid (around 3.5kms) and Lebenya (more than 5kms).
21
Eensaamheid sites
Nooitgedacht
Mining
activity in the
vicinity
Lebenya site
Figure 2.7 Aerial image from 1957 (courtesy of the NGI) red squares are stone wall sites in a 5km range
The stone wall cluster found on the farm Eensaamheid is 1.85km north of the stone-walled site
on Lebenya, as shown in Figure 2.6. An Archaeological Impact Assessment (AIA) was conducted
on the farm, at the land owner’s request, and confirms the presence of stone walling on the farm
Eensaamheid (Van Niekerk et al. 2002). These stone wall structures on Eensaamheid are not
more than 2km north of Lebenya. The AIA linked the stone walling to the Sotho-Tswana, with
the Hurutshe identified as the last occupants of the area prior to the occupation of white
farmers in the late 19th century CE. However, as detailed by the previous section, it seems
unlikely that the stone-walled settlements on Eensaamheid, and that of Lebenya, were
constructed by the Hurutshe, since they were located in the region prior to 16TH century CE, and
the stone walling is of a construction style adapted post mid 17th century CE (Breutz 1953).
Therefore, it is likely that the settlements located on Eensaamheid, Lebenya, and Nooitgedacht
are related. Following a similar situation in regards to the oral locations of Marothodi and
22
Kaditshwene, it is possible that the core of the Phiring settlement was not located on
Nooitgedacht, but rather on the adjacent farms Lebenya and Eensaamheid.
In order to substantiate this premise, the historical and archaeological evidence for the region
needs to be investigated. The archaeology of the site will be discussed in chapters five and six,
but the archaeology of the region will be discussed in the following section.
2.4. Settlement and ceramic classification of stone wall sites
Today the ruins of countless stone-walled settlements litter the region, inviting questions about
the past inhabitants of these settlements. Archaeologists have addressed these questions
through the classification of settlements and ceramics. The following section presents a
discussion on settlement typologies in the region, followed by an appraisal of ceramic types
found in the region. The research shows that the combination of settlement and ceramic type
can be used to suggest the group identity (on various levels) of the inhabitants of a settlement
2.4.1. Stone wall site typologies for the region
The use of stone in the construction of a settlement has been reasoned along pragmatic as well
as symbolic terms; the pragmatic argument being the lack of trees in the highveld, and the
symbolic refers to the ability of walling to demarcate spaces of ownership (Boeyens 2003:70).
Walling, particularly stone for its permanence, can symbolise a person or group’s claim to a
land, even more so, in times of population movement (Boeyens 2003:70). The highly visible
nature of stone-walled sites allows for a typology of these settlements. A range of typologies
have been generated from aerial photography of these settlements (Seddon 1968; Maggs
1976a&b; Taylor 1979; Mason 1968 & 1986; and Huffman 1986a). While a majority of these
typologies do not fall within the research region (Maggs 1976; Taylor 1979; and Sadr & Rodier
2012), they have been applied to sites sharing similar, if not identical, characteristics. Much of
this research is built upon previous work in the region, as shown in Sadr & Rodier (2012). The
typology created by Sadr & Rodier (2012) continues the initial typology created by Taylor
(1979), but incorporates research by Mason (1976), Maggs (1976), and Huffman (1986) into the
overall typology. The comprehensive nature of Sadr & Rodier’s (2012) typology makes it
suitable for application in the ZPR region (this is done in chapter five). However, before I can
23
apply this typology to the ZPR region I will discuss the main stone wall site classifications that
contributed to our understanding Tswana sites in and around the highveld region.
2.4.1.1. Mason’s classification of stone-walled sites
Mason (1968) identified stone-walled sites from 1950s aerial photographs of the Magaliesberg
Valley, which he classified into different classes. Seddon (1968) extended the survey area from
Magaliesberg to the Botswana border; he counted visible sites, with variability in settlement
style linked to chronological development. However, Mason later withdrew his 1968
classifications following further research on the region settlements, and presented an eleven
classed settlement classification instead see Table 2.2 (Mason 1986:335). This classification
reflected a general chronological development of Sotho-Tswana settlement style, with simple
settlement layouts associated to an earlier time frame and more complex settlement layouts
associated to a later time frame (Mason 1986:348).
Table 2.2 Mason's classes for stone-walled sites in the Magaliesberg-Johannesburg region (after Mason 1986:
335-343)
Class Characteristics Example

1 Isolated enclosure with an even or roughly Bruma 29/81
circular boundary, with a few simple
enclosures within the boundary. Settlement
is visible on the edge of and apparently
beneath later settlements.
2 Settlements are often large, with a boundary Waterval 11/65

wall formed by adjacent roughly circular
enclosures separated by open stretches of
curved wall.
3 An elliptical boundary wall interspersed with Koster sites

circular stone enclosures. Mason believes
these are the cattle stations of class 6
settlements.
4 A roughly circular boundary wall Doornspruit

immediately adjacent to an interior zone of
smaller circular structures, with each circular
structure related to an embayment and often
connected to the boundary wall.
5 Sites have a roughly elliptical boundary wall Klipriviersberg 5/65

with short straight sections of walling
24
projecting at right angles along the interior of
the boundary wall.
6 Usually identified as mega-sites. Settlements Olifantspoort 20/71

have a continuous boundary wall consisting
of embayments. Some sites have parallel
walled driveways from the interior to the
exterior of the settlement, these are livestock
drives.
7 Sites are characterised by separate boundary Platberg 30/71

embayments that do not connect, with
interior circular enclosures.
8 Sites have a smooth elliptical boundary wall Leeuwkop

enclosing an interior of symmetrically placed
circular enclosures.
9 Sites also classified as mega-sites. Large sites *Kaditshwene 13/66

without a single enclosing boundary wall.
Mason suggests that these sites are an
adaption of class 6 sites for larger
populations.
10 Only one such site, it is characterised by the Olifantspoort 2/72

use of small pebbles in circular patterns,
these anchored low clay walls which were
built on either side of the pebble layout.
11 Sites located in caves. Sites were likely used Uitkomst 5/67

for refuge or industrial purposes.
2.4.1.2. Re-interpretation of Mason’s class 3 and Doornspruit sites
The association of Mason’s class 3 and Doornspruit sites to the Sotho-Tswana has been
questioned by more recent research (Huffman 2007, Pistorius 1997). It is suggested that class 3
sites are not the cattle station of class 6 sites, but are rather a progression of Doornspruit
settlements, and therefore are associated with Nguni-speakers (see Kruger 2010). This was
noticed largely because of Pistorius’s (1997) work which linked Doornspruit settlements near
Rustenburg with the 19th century Khumalo (the Matablele under Mzilikazi’s leadership).
Pistorius argued that these settlements echoed the layout of Zulu military centres such as
25
Mgungundlovu (see Parkington and Cronin 1979). Huffman argued that the Nguni association
for Doornspruit sites is likely, and that the these sites express the ‘Ngunisation’ of incorporated
Sotho-Tswana woman into Mzilikazi’s settlements (Huffman 2007:453). This would date
Doornspruit settlements in the ZPR region to the Mfecane period (late 1820 to 1830s CE), the
time when Mzilikzi’s Khumalo crossed the Vaal river (Kruger 2010:6).
Architecturally, this progression from class 3 sites to Doornspruit is pronounced by the addition
of back scallops (embayments) that are connected to the primary enclosures. This feature is
defined by the Molokwane walling type characteristic of Sotho-Tswana speakers in the region.
Therefore, this architectural spatial feature does further substantiate the idea that Doornspruit
sites represent the ‘Ngunisation’ of Sotho-Tswana practices through the interaction with and
incorporation of local people. Class 3 sites and Doornspruit sites occur to the North East of
Lebenya, suggesting a complex layered landscape of people and relations in the region,
Furthermore, these sites are likely to be contemporaneous or indeed post-date, the site at
Lebenya.
2.4.1.3. Maggs’s classification of stone-walled sites
While Mason was working north of the Vaal, another researcher, Tim Maggs (1976a & b), was
recording and classifying stone-walled sites south of the Vaal in the Free State (termed southern
highveld). Maggs (1976a & b) approached the archaeology from a historical perspective; he
used Sotho oral traditions and history to link different site types to historical identities. Maggs
employed aerial photography to classify stone-walled sites from the Vaal to the Orange River;
this method was later extended to just north of the Vaal, parts of Griqualand West, southern
Transvaal, and the upper Tugela Basin of Natal (1976a:26). Four main types were established
from this aerial survey: Types N, V, Z, and R, further detailed in Table 2.3 Maggs’s typology for
stone-walled settlement (Maggs 1976a:28-44). Maggs’s Type N site is named after the site
Ntsuanatsatsi, and is linked to Huffman’s (2007) ceramic facies, to be discussed in further detail
in the ceramics section of this chapter. Maggs Type V and Z sites highlight the difference
between Tswana and Sotho settlements respectively. Maggs highlights the difference between
these two groups in settlement characteristics and pottery production (1976b:318). The major
difference in settlement style is that Type V sites used stone extensively in their building, as
seen by their corbelled dwelling structures; while Type Z sites used stone for boundaries, but
retained their cone-on-cylinder house structure (Maggs 1976b:319). Ceramics made by the
Sotho were made according to the ring technique or by moulding from the lump; whereas the
Tswana build their pottery from the widest diameter up to the mouth, with roughly flattened
26
pieces of clay, completing the base after the upper section has dried slightly (Lawton 1976:130
& 150 in Maggs 1976b:318). His research established a time depth for stone-walled settlements
in the interior; he also demonstrated the first expansion of farmers south of the Vaal, and
provided a platform for further studies north of the Vaal.
Table 2.3 Maggs’s typology for stone-walled settlement
Type N Type V Type Z Type R

Group Early fokeng, Cannot be Kubung17 The work of
association Kwena, and associated to one bushman
possibly the Kgatla group16, but rather pastoralists
cluster15 attributed to the
Sotho collective
Distribution Eastern region of Eastern region of Northwest region Southwest of the

southern highveld, southern highveld, of southern Riet River
concentrated in the spreading North, highveld
area along the Vaal East and Southwest
River and Klip of type N
River settlement area
Period From the 14th to Replaces type N From the 16th /17th Not relevant to this
15th century CE settlements before to 19th century CE discussion
the 17th century CE
2.4.1.4. Taylor’s classification of stone-walled sites
Further work on the classification of stone-walled settlements, or stone-walled structures

(SWS)--- as not all stone wall sites are settlements, continued with Taylor’s (1979) study of SWS
in the Vredefort dome area. Maggs had noted the occurrence of SWS in the area, but did not
investigate it further in his research (Maggs 1976a:44). Taylor selected the Vredefort dome
area for further research as it lay between two regions of previously researched SWS
concentrations; to the south was where Maggs (1976a & b) concentrated his research while to
the north was where Mason (1986) had worked on Sotho-Tswana settlements. It was thought
that research in this region might clarify the relationship between the SWS of the North and
15 Legassick (1969:114) suggests the Fokeng were co-residents with the Kwena and Kgatla.
16 The area to the south and west is associated with the Taung, while the north and east settlements are
attributed to the Sotho collective (Maggs 1976b:316-317).
24 Type Z sites are associated with the Kubung, a break-away branch of the Rolong, who did cross the Vaal
from the North before the 1820s (Maggs 1976b:317).
27
those of the South (Taylor 1979:1). Taylor (1979) continued the use of aerial photography to
identify and classify SWS; the data collected from this investigation led to the creation of
Taylor’s typology for SWS in the region. The typology is divided into three groups. Group I was
dated to the 16th century CE, while Group II and Group III date within the range of the mid 17th
century CE to the early 19th century CE, and appear to be contemporaneous (Taylor 1979). The
SWS Groups were linked to Maggs’s type sites: Group I to Maggs’s Type N, Group II to Maggs’s
Type Z, while Group III is not as clear. Group III sites were tentatively regarded as a later phase
of Group I sites with some site features reflecting an incorporation of Group II site
characteristics (Taylor 1979:107). This research established a sequence of archaeological
entities, which represent different communities and their interaction within a region over a 300
year period. Taylor (1979:107) concluded that: Group I sites were associated with Sotho-
speaking communities, Group II sites with Tswana speaking communities, and Group III sites as
the product of Sotho communities interacting with Tswana communities. Taylor focused on the
creation of morphological types, from which he suggested that varying group identity could be
linked to differences in settlement style. This allowed for a typology which could be applied on
SWS throughout the region which displayed similar morphological attributes.
2.4.1.5. Huffman’s classification of stone-walled sites
Another typology commonly referred to in a discussion on SWS is Huffman’s (2007) settlement

type: see Table 2.4 for types relevant to this discussion. It combines ceramic style with
settlement style in a discussion of group movement, contact, and assimilation. Huffman
(2007:38) refers two types of walling north of the Vaal River, the Klipriviersberg type and the
Molokwane type. Huffman’s (2007) typology will be further discussed in the ceramic
classification section.
A quick note on the correlation between ceramic and settlement style, at Marothodi the walling
style is that of the Molokwane type, but Uitkomst styled pottery is found throughout the site
(Hall 2012:312). Therefore, disjuncture does occur from the expected classes, and shall be
discussed further in the following chapters.
28
Table 2.4 Huffman's stone wall site types north of the Vaal (2007:38)
Klipriviersberg Molokwane
Characteristic Defined by an outer wall, Defined by a scalloped outer

sometimes including scallops wall, with sheep and goat
(arcs in the wall), with small enclosures kept between the
stock enclosures, with straight central cattle enclosures and
walls separating households in the residential zone.
the residential zone of the
settlement.
Dwelling structures Beehive houses are common at Daga houses are common at
this type of settlement, with this type of settlement, with
some huts exhibiting sliding sliding doors and verandas
doors. occurring at times.
Date range 18th and 19th centuries CE. The late 18th and early 19th
century CE.
Group association to type sites Built by people of the Fokeng Built by people of the western
cluster. Sotho-Tswana cluster.
Ceramic association to type sites Uitkomst ceramics Buispoort ceramics
Type site
2.4.1.6. Sadr & Rodier’s classification of stone-walled sites
Sadr & Rodier (2012), who incorporated Taylor’s typology for the Vredefort dome area, studied
SWS in the Suikerbosrand Nature Reserve (the Suikerbosrand Nature Reserve is a 100 km
northeast of the Vredefort dome area). Sadr & Rodier (2012) expanded Taylor’s typology from
three Groups to four. The main defining characteristics of the typology are the shape of the
boundary walls, and, to some extent, the organisation of internal enclosures (Hunt & Sadr
29
2014:1). The details for each grouping (except Group IV which requires further research) are
given in Table 2.5.
Through a detailed GIS study of mapped sites in the Suikerbosrand nature reserve a more
functional perspective of settlement change was developed (Sadr & Rodier 2012). Group I
settlements were geographically located in areas of poor agricultural yield, but of high grazing
value, suggesting that these communities were more herding based (Sadr & Rodier 2012:1039).
Group II and III settlements were placed in more agricultural promising areas, with Group II
settlements clustered within a 5km radius of high potential arable soils (Sadr & Rodier
2012:1041). Group III sites are intermediate between Group I and II sites in many aspects.
Group III sites show an increase in settlement size and rank from Group I. Group III site
features, see Table 2.5, suggest that this society was more agriculturally based with increased
livestock numbers; therefore, pointing to a more politically and economically stratified society
(Sadr & Rodier 2012:1041). According to Sadr & Rodier (2012:1041), Group II sites are the last
phase of occupation, where areas of high agricultural yield become populated by large groups of
people inhabiting densely aggregated settlements--- referred to as mega-sites in the ZPR region
(Sadr & Rodier 2012:1036). The size of the sites, their ranking, and the numerous middens
associated with the sites, all indicate the depth of economic and political stratification in the
region (Sadr & Rodier 2012:1041). Though there were less large livestock enclosures and more
inner enclosures of different sizes in Group II sites, Sadr & Rodier (2012:1041) argue that this
supports the proposition that these communities were becoming economically and politically
stratified. They suggest this could be viewed as the beginning of privatisation, whereby
members of the community show a greater interest in the creation of private flocks (Sadr &
Rodier 2012:1041). Illustrating this process of privatisation is the splitting of communal herds
(or heavier reliance on small livestock) as shown by the increased number of smaller
enclosures, as well as the gaps in the walls to the central enclosures which opens up a
previously restricted space(Sadr & Rodier 2012:1041). Due to the lack of chronological
precision, with Radio-carbon dates as only a relative measurement, it is not certain if Group II
and III sites are contemporary. Taylor (1939) argues that the differences between the Groups
are reflective of cultural variation. However, Sadr & Rodier (2012:1039) argue that rather than
varying contemporary groups, the Groups reflect variation over time within a group, whereby
Group III sites are chronologically intermediate between Group I18 and II sites.
18The origin and identity of the group who constructed Group I sites is further debated. Huffman
(2007:431) believes the group associated with these sites were Nguni-speaking Fokeng, while Sadr
(2012) suggests that the constructors of Group I SWS may represent a hybrid society comprising Khoisan
herder-hunters and Bantu speaking agro-pastoralists.
30
Taylor’s (1979) typology, expanded upon by Sadr & Rodier (2012) is versatile in its application,
due to the focus on morphological attributes it can be applied in various regions. Sadr & Rodier
(2012:1040) initiate such comparison by grouping SWS (already dated by radio-carbon finds)
outside of the SKBR into Taylor’s Groupings. Therefore, this classification system has value
outside of the Vredefort area and SKBR, and could be applied in the ZPR region, where
settlements share a similar trend of developing from small dispersed homesteads to aggregated
settlements (Sadr & Rodier 2012:1039). In the following section I discuss the role of ceramic
styles in the classification of groups in the ZPR region.
Table 2.5 Sadr & Rodier's typology for stone-walled settlements
Group I Group II Group III

Identifying Outer elliptical wall The outer walling is a A confusion of inner
characteristics of enclosing a group of discontinuous series of c- enclosures within a
SWS smaller inner enclosures shaped walls facing continuous perimeter
inwards towards a wall marked by varying
central group of lengths of curved and
enclosures sometimes broadly
scalloped walls
Further Outer walls are often Usually found in dense The inner enclosures
description nearly circular or oval, aggregations, referred to often touch the perimeter
sometimes irregular, and as towns and mega-sites wall, unlike in group II
with small primary in the ZPR region where the inner
circles attached enclosures are mostly
located centrally
Similar to Type N structures, Type Z structures, Mason’s class 2 and 5

Mason’s class 1 Mason’s class 6,7 and 9 sites, and Huffman’s
sites, Huffman’s ‘Klipriviersberg’ type
‘Molokwane’ type
Other No presence of ash The presence of ash Rarely are ash middens
distinguishing middens middens in and around seen in the area of these
features these structures structures
Cluster Relatively dispersed Densely clustered Intermediate to GI and GII

type clustering
Distribution in Less than half of SWS are Three quarters of SWS Three quarters of SWS
relation to arable within 5km of arable are within 5km of arable are within 5km of arable
land lands lands lands
Period Oldest, date from the 15th Dated to the 17th to 19th Dated to the 17th to 19th
to 17th centuries CE century CE century CE
31
2.4.2. Ceramic typologies for the region
One of the ways ceramics have been utilised in archaeological studies is in the creation of
culture-history sequences, establishing a framework for agropastoral studies in Southern Africa
(Huffman 2007). This culture-historical sequence traces the movement of streams of African
agro-pastoralists into and across southern Africa (Huffman 2007:122). This sequence was
largely established by Huffman (1980) through his multi-dimensional stylistic analysis of
ceramics in the region. The variables are based on stylistic attributes, where a tri-dimensional
combination of profile, layout, and motif(s) defines different categories of ceramic types
(termed ceramic units) (Huffman 1989:157). This stylistic analysis identified ceramic units
which are commonly equated with groups of people. In the following section I discuss the
ceramic units which are relevant to this study. The discussion on ceramic units in the region
requires knowledge of Huffman’s (2007) terminology, see Table 2.6.
Table 2.6 Huffman's ceramic classification terminology (after 2007:117)
Tradition A series of related ceramic units

Branch One of multiple sequences within a tradition
Sub-branch One of multiple sequences within a branch
Phase Time segments of a tradition
Facies Ceramic unit
Huffman (2007) established a migration sequence based on ceramic and linguistic evidence,
where ceramic traditions illustrate the migration of agro-pastoral groups into southern Africa.
The Urewe tradition marks the first stream of agro-pastoralists into eastern and southern
Africa, with this group moving down the eastern coast into Mozambique, coastal KwaZulu-Natal,
and Mpumalanga (Huffman 1989). The Kalundu tradition marks the second stream of agro-
pastoralists into the region, which moved south of the Limpopo River, replacing the first stream
of agro-pastoralists in the region (Huffman 1989). The Urewe tradition has four branches,
Kwale, Nkope, Blackburn, and Moloko (Huffman 2007:118). These branches reflect different
sequences; the Kwale and Nkope branches date from the 4th to the 14th century CE, and the
Moloko and Blackburn branches date from the 12th to the 19th century CE (Huffman 2007:118).
The facies of the later branches, Moloko and Blackburn, are relevant to the region of study, see
Figure 2.8; therefore, necessitating further discussion.
32
Figure 2.8 The facies of the Moloko and Blackburn branches (after Huffman 2007:118)
2.4.2.1. The Moloko and Blackburn Branches
These branches of the Urewe tradition are associated with the Sotho-Tswana and Nguni
speaking people; it is suggested that both groups moved south into the region from the 11th to
the 14th century CE (Huffman 2007:443). The Moloko branch, associated with the Sotho-
Tswana, consists of three phases: the first phase is dated from the 14th to 16th century CE, the
second phase is dated from the 16th to 18th century CE, and the last phase is dated from the 18th
to 19th century CE (Huffman 2007:433 & 436). The first phase is represented by the Icon facies,
sites with this pottery are limited to the Limpopo river. The second phase is a collection of three
separate facies: Letisbogo in Botswana, Madikwe in the North West Province and Botswana, and
Olifantspoort in the Magaliesberg (Huffman 2007:431). The third phase is characterised by the
development of the Buispoort facies from Madikwe, and the Thabeng facies from Olifantspoort
(Huffman 2007:433). The earlier Moloko phase (1 and 2) are distinguished from the later
Moloko phase, due to changes in ceramic and settlement style (Boeyens 2000; Hall 1998;
Huffman 2007; Fredriksen 2012). Therefore, the Moloko sequence is divided into early
(before18th century CE) and late (after 18th century CE), with the earlier ceramic assemblages
displaying high stylistic variability compared to that of the later Moloko ceramic assemblages
(Hall 1998).
The Blackburn branch previously consisted of three phases, but now consists of five phases,
subsequent to the inclusion of the Ntsuanatsatsi sequence, see Figure 2.8 (Huffman 2007:443).
The first phase is from the 11th to 16th century CE and is associated with the Blackburn ceramics.
The second phase is from the 14th to the 18th century CE and is associated with the Moor Park
ceramics. The third phase is from the 15th to the 18th century CE and is associated with the
Ntsuanatsatsi ceramics. The fourth phase is from the 17th to 19th century CE and is associated
33
with the Rooiberg, Uitkomst, and Waterberg ceramics. The fifth phase is from the 18th to 19th
century CE and is associated with the Makgwareng, Nqabeni, and Umgazana ceramics.
The Blackburn branch, associated with Nguni-speakers, occurs along the north and south coasts
of KwaZulu-Natal. However, the Ntsuanatsatsi ceramics occur in the Free State. This implies
that the Fokeng cluster were the first Nguni speakers to move out of KwaZulu-Natal (Huffman
2007:444). This would corroborate Maggs’s (1976a & b) work which suggests that the Fokeng
were the constructors and inhabitants of Type N walling in the Northern Free State. This further
verifies the oral records, which describe Kwena movement south of the Vaal into areas already
occupied by the Fokeng, such as the Ntuanatsatsi site (Hall et al. 2008:63). It is also suggested
that the Fokeng introduced stonewalling to the western and southwestern Sotho-Tswana
groups when they subsequently migrated north of the Vaal (Huffman 2007:431 & 433).
The above discussion on the Fokeng and the re-categorisation of the Ntuanatsatsi facies is
significant to this study of the ZPR region, because Uitkomst, a ceramic unit found in the ZPR
region, is the product of a blend of characteristics found in Ntsuanatsatsi and Olifantspoort
ceramics, as shown in Figure 2.9 (Huffman 2007:431). According to Huffman, this blend of
characteristics reflects intensive cultural interaction between the ceramic manufactures of
these facies (Huffman 2007:431). Furthermore, this has led to an on-going discussion as to the
relationship between Sotho-Tswana and other Tswana groups of a possible Nguni origin in the
region, a discussion informed by oral evidence and material culture studies.
Figure 2.9 The attributes of the Thabeng, Buispoort and Uitkomst facies
2.4.2.2. Facies occurring in the ZPR region
The facies located in and around the ZPR region are Ntsuanatsatsi, Madikwe, Olifantspoort,
Buispoort, and Uitkomst (Huffman 2007). The Ntsuanatsatsi, Madikwe, and Olifantspoort facies
34
occur earlierthan the Buispoort and Uitkomst facies. In the following section I provide a brief
account of each facies.
2.4.2.3. Ntsuanatsatsi ceramics
Ntsuanatsatsi ceramics commonly occur around the Vaal River and spreading northwest to the
eye of the Mario River (Huffman 2007:167). The Ntsuanatsatsi ceramics date from the mid 15th
to mid 17th century CE, and are found at Maggs’s Type N sites and Taylor’s Group I sites
(Huffman 2007:167). The ceramic style is characterised by broad band stamping in the neck,
and stamped arcades on the shoulder and appliqué of vessels (Huffman 2007:169).
Figure 2.10 Ntsuanatsatsi ceramics from Huffman (2007:168)
2.4.2.4. Madikwe ceramics
Madikwe ceramics commonly occur in the region between the Waterberg in the northeast and
the Marico river to the southwest (Huffman 2007:199). The date range is from the early 16th to
early 18th century CE, and are found at Modipe Hill 94.2 and Rietfontein 2 (Huffman 2007:199).
The ceramic style is characterised by multiple bands of cord impressions, incisions, stabs, and
35
punctates separated by colour (Huffman 2007:201). As Huffman (2002:21) states, the presence
of Madikwe pottery often points to the presence of Kwena people in the area.
Figure 2.11 Madikwe ceramics from CB14 (house 3) from Huffman 2006:57
2.4.2.5. Olifantspoort ceramics
This facies is bounded by the Crocodile River to the south, the Vaal River to the north, and the
eye of the Marico River to the west (Huffman 2007:191). The date range for this facies is from
the early 16th to the early 18th century CE, and is found at Roberts Farm 28/71 (Huffman
2007:191). The ceramic style is characterised by multiple bands of fine stamping or narrow
incision separated by colour (Huffman 2007:193).
36
Figure 2.12 Olifantspoort ceramics from Huffman (2007:192)
2.4.2.6. Buispoort ceramics
Buispoort ceramics are distributed from the east of Pretoria to the west of the Marico River
(Huffman 2007:203). Buispoort dates from the 18th to the mid 19th century CE, and is found at
Taylor’s Group II sites and Huffman’s Molokwane type sites (Huffman 2007:203). The ceramic
style is characterised by rim nicked and incised decoration on the vessel (Huffman 2007:205).
Figure 2.13 Buispoort ceramics from Huffman (2007:204)
37
2.4.2.7. Uitkomst ceramics
This facies occurs throughout the ZPR region (Huffman 2007:171). Uitkomst dates from the 17th
to the 19th century CE, and is found at Huffman’s Klipriviersberg type sites and Taylor’s Group
III (Huffman 2007:171). The ceramic style is characterised by stamped arcades, appliqué, blocks
of parallel incisions, stamping, and cord impressions on the vessel (Huffman 2007:173).
Figure 2.14 Uitkomst ceramics from Huffman (2007:172)
2.4.2.8. Uitkomst and Buispoort ceramics
The Uitkomst and Buispoort facies share a similar distribution area and date range, but each
facies as proposed by Huffman (2007) is associated with a different cluster of people, the
Fokeng cluster and the western Sotho-Tswana respectively. This will be further discussed in the
following section, from which it is apparent that the distinction is not as clear as Huffman
(2007) presents it to be.
Marothodi is a site associated with the Tlokwa. The Tlokwa are thought to be of Nguni origins.
Ceramics found at Marothodi suggest a subtle distinction can be made between sites of the
38
Fokeng cluster and those of the western Tswana cluster (Hall et al. 2008:67). The stylistic
attributes of the ceramics from this site are predominantly of the comb-stamping type, a
characteristic of Uitkomst ceramics, while rim notching, a characteristic of Buispoort ceramics, is
rare (Hall et al. 2008:67). These Uitkomst-like ceramics differ markedly from the Buispoort
ceramics found at the contemporary Kwena settlement, Molokwane, about 40km south of
Marothodi. Furthermore, beyond stylistic attributes, Rosenstein’s (2008) technological study of
the ceramics in the ZPR region identified a further distinction between Buipooort and Uitkomst-
like ceramics in the region. This study established that graphitic and lustrous mineral
inclusions, specifically muscovite mica, were a consistent attribute of Buispoort ceramics, and
was a technological as well as possibly a stylistic addition to the ware (Rosenstein 2008).
Technological attributes associated with the formation of pottery is the result of a primary
learning process; therefore, the manner in which a pot is formed is reflective of socialisation,
and embedded with aspects of social identity (Gosselain 2000:193). The inclusion of muscovite
mica as a temper in Buispoort styled pottery, while not an attribute of Uitkomst styled ceramics,
is therefore reflective of different cultural practices in the formation of pottery. Whereas, this
attribute was absent in the Marothodi ceramics, as well as the ceramics from the Kgafela Kgatla
sites (another Tswana group possibly associated with the Fokeng cluster) (Rosenstein 2008:
50).
However, while a discussion on Nguni origin and Tswana assimilation in the region is intriguing,
the ceramic evidence is not conclusive. At Kaditshwene, from an excavation in the main court
midden, a large number of Uitkomst-like ceramics were retrieved; this style of ceramic was also
recorded in sketches made by John Campbell (1822) when he visited the town in 1820 CE (Hall
et al. 2008:64). Furthermore, graphitic and lustrous mineral inclusions were identified in the
temper of this comb stamped ware (Hall et al. 2008:67). Therefore, the possible Uitkomst
association with a core western Tswana group, the Hurutshe, and the similar technological
attributes shared between this ware and Buispoort ware, indicates that more research is needed
(Hall et al. 2008:64).
Perhaps the difference in style and technology between the ceramics of the western Tswana and
those of the Tlokwa and the Kgatla Kgafela is more a regional distinction. Both the Tlokwa of
Marothodi and the Kgatla Kgafela are located to the north of the ZPR region, around the
Pilanesberg area. Furthermore, what if this distinction is not just regional but due to intra-
regional relations and craft specialisation? The Tlokwa, of Marothodi, and the Kgafela Kgatla,
besides being neighbours in the Pilanesberg region, both seem to share an interest in copper.
The Tlokwa at Marothodi worked copper possibly for intra-regional trade (as suggested by the
scale of their copper and iron production [Hall 2007:175]), while tin-bronze earrings recovered
39
from an excavation at Marothodi suggest long-distance trade links, including with the Rooiberg
tin mines (Boeyens & Hall 2009:477). The Kgafela Kgatla, according to oral sources, had links
with the Rooiberg copper mines (Boeyens & Hall 2009:477). These two groups also held joint
initiation schools, suggesting a close relationship (Boeyens & Hall 2009:477).
Further research on the ceramics found in the region and the past communities manufacturing
these ceramics is vital, because variance between ceramic units might not solely reflect
difference in group identity but also relationships of trade, craft manufacture, and trade
specialisation.
2.4.3. Classification associations and issues
Archaeologists use walling and ceramic classification in order to distinguish pattern types that
then can be attributed to a time and space context. However, these etic classifications
sometimes mask the complexity of the past or remain poorly grounded in a space and time
context, as the preceding discussion on Buispoort and Uitkomst ceramics attests to. At times, the
interaction between people of varying backgrounds can be masked by such classifications, such
as at Marothodi, where the recognition of difference within a pattern allowed us to better
understand identity negotiation at a time when resources and protection based on certain
alliances was to a distinct advantage. However, a reconsideration of these classifications in
combination with historic and ethnographic data can lead to the identification of processes of
identity change, such as the re-interpreted Doornspruit settlements. Due to these
considerations and that previous research in the region has not focused on sites of this scale, it
seems probable that Lebenya will not fall easily into the established classifications.
2.5. Direction of following chapter
Environmental and socio-political conditions shaped the Tswana experience in the ZPR region.
As discussed earlier in this chapter, the environment, able to support growing populations, was
a factor in the development of mega-sites in the region. The socio-political climate of
assimilation, led to the re-negotiation of various group identities, creating a ‘homogenous’
Tswana collective. However, the past layers of these identities are hinted at by the
archaeological and oral records. The oral record has provided a possible identity for the
community who inhabited the settlement, the Phiring, but only the archaeological evidence can
corroborate this identification. This will be discussed in the following data chapters. Settlement
40
style and layout and material culture can reveal intricacies about group identity, settlement
function, intra-regional dynamics, and craft specialisation..
However, before we can investigate the archaeology of the site itself, I will discuss the
interpretive framework. The ethnographic record allows for an understanding of the worldview
of past groups, and allows for a more detailed analysis of a site. The following chapter presents a
critical account of how ethnographic sources are used in the archaeology of this region. The
chapter will also present a view of the worldview of the Tswana, and how settlement space and
usage is attached to societal beliefs and practices.
41
Chapter 3 Theoretical Framework
3.1. Overview
The ‘past does not exist…

[w]hat does exist are interpretations of the past constructed in the present’
(Reid & Lane 2004:1).
The following chapter presents a brief account on historical archaeology. Historical archaeology
uses written and oral records to holistically interpret the archaeological record. An important
resource used in the interpreting of the archaeological record is ethnographic sources.
Ethnographic sources are used to describe the worldview of the historical Tswana. The
worldview of the Tswana will be discussed in this chapter, with a particular focus on settlement
space and usage. This chapter concludes with a review of how other researchers have
interpreted Tswana settlements in the ZPR region.
3.2. Historical archaeology
The use of the term historical archaeology in this work is deliberate; it emphasizes a connection
between the past and the present. Though the settlement found at Lebenya could be better
classified as a late farming community or as an Iron Age site, I choose to discuss it in terms of a
historical archaeological site. The above terms distance the site from its historical relevance,
and its possible roots in local memory. While historical archaeology associates the site with a
local history, a memory, or oral tradition, it also bridges the distinguishing of sites as ‘pre’ or
‘post’ colonial and/or as ‘pre-history’ or ‘history’.
The term historical archaeology originates in the United States, and is characterised by long-
held debates over the definition of the field (see Deetz 1991; Little 1992; Orser 1996). It is
defined as the studies of societies for whom there are written texts available (Little 1992). Or as
defined by Deetz (1991), as the study of societies affected and or involved with European
expansionism in the fifteenth century onwards. Or as defined by Orser (1996 & 2004), as a
period delimited by the emergence of modernity and literacy.
42
Historical archaeology is characterised by the combining of archaeology with written sources
However, this combination can also lead to the creation of diverse histories. Dissonance
between these sources, meaning the disparities between the accounts and the consideration of
the contextual setting at the time of the generation of the account, provide information on the
key issues and debates within the society (Reid & Lane 2004:10). For example, Hall (1997)
contrasts the probate inventory of a late 18th century CE house on Barrack Street with the
excavated contents of a well in a neighbouring house. The artefact list for both correlate,
although the probate inventory generally lacks women possessions. Hall (1997) identifies this
absence as a sign of gender inequality; whereby the male record is overt and the female record
is concealed, where men dominate the public sphere, while women are confined to the private
sphere of the household. Dissonance between one source and another should be expected and is
an important tool for the examination of the past.
A focus on literate records could present a restricted view of the past depending on the region.
It could encompass thousands of years, as in the Nile Valley, but a few hundred years, in other
parts of the continent, regions defined as ‘pre-literate’ until relatively recently (Behrens &
Swanepoel 2008:24). Such a definition relegates the majority of Africa’s past as non-historical
(see Schmidt 2006; Schmidt & Walz 2007). European texts, beyond North Africa and parts of the
East African littoral, only appear from the 16th century CE onwards, and mainly are in regards to
coastal locations (Reid & Lane 2004:7). For example, a rich source for historical archaeological
investigation in southern Africa has been the Cape region. Records from the 16th century CE
onwards detail European exploration and later settlement in this region. Whereas, European
texts regarding the African interior only really occur from the 19th century CE onwards (Reid &
Lane 2004:7). For instance, Rev. John Campbell (a director of the London missionary society)
visited Kaditshwene (a capital of the Hurutshe) in 1820 CE, and estimated the population of this
interior capital to be from 16 000 to 20 000 people (1822:277; MSB77 [iii]:18 cited in Boeyens
2000:1). Around the same time, Cape Town- the centre of colonial settlement in South Africa-
was inhabited by 18 668 people(Thompson 1827[ii]:255 cited in Boeyens 2000:1). This
example shows that the contemporaneous Colonial settlement on the coast and the African
settlement in the interior were comparable in population size. Furthermore, this example also
contradicts the popular belief that the interior was a vacant landscape prior to European
expansion. An idea perpetuated by the pre-literate vs. literate divide. The complexity of societies
in the interior, prior to colonial expansion into the region, needs to be recognised. This can be
done through a holistic historical archaeology framework, one that incorporates ‘non-literate’
sources of history.
43
Historical sources, in the African context, should include European texts, as well as alternative
sources of information. One alternative source is that of oral records, a source (such as court or
group traditions or cluster histories) which is derived from African populations and which is not
geographically restricted (Reid & Lane 2004:7). This can be further illustrated by the example of
Kaditshwene. Mason (1986:837) claimed to have discovered the ruins of Kaditshwene at the
farm Vergenoegd 279 JP relying heavily on the European historical records of the site in his
justification of the site as Kaditshwene. However, the oral records were at odds with Mason’s
proposed Kaditshwene. Oral traditions of the Hurutshe were collected by Breutz in the 1950s
from which Kaditshwene and its farm location were stated. The oral records suggest
Kaditshwene was located around Bloemfontein 63 JP, differing from Mason’s supposed location
for Kaditshwene. This inconsistency was rectified by further research conducted by Boeyens
(2000), who established the farms Bloemfontein 63 JP and Kleinfontein as the location of
Kaditshwene. Boeyens research was characterised by an archaeological investigation supported
by an array of sources, namely oral traditions and documentary evidence, which led to the
identification and verification of Kaditshwene.
Historical archaeology, and other archaeological frameworks in Southern African Archaeology,

have at one time or another relied upon ethnographic records (such as the interpretation of
Stone Age sites through Hunter-Gatherer studies, see Brooks and Yellen 1987:66) to understand
the archaeological record. The use of ethnographic sources in archaeological contexts infers
certain reasoning. This reasoning is based on analogical inference, and will be discussed further
in the following section.
3.3. Analogy and Southern African Archaeology
Analogical reasoning is a form of inference that suggests if something is like another in some
respects it is likely to be similar in others (David & Kramer 2001:1). Analogical reasoning
involves ‘the selective transportation of information from source to subject’ (Wylie 1985:93). An
appropriate example of such analogical reasoning is stated by Lane (1994/5:51). An
archaeological object commonly found at late farming community sites is a small circular pile of
stones. These have been interpreted as foundations for granaries based on their similar
appearance to stone bases of grain-bins observed among the ethnographic material of the
Sotho-Tswana and Shona speakers. This example is illustrative of formal analogy or the direct
historical approach (Fewster 2006:63). However, there are flaws to this reasoning. It can be
illustrated by, once again, using the granary example mentioned by Lane (1994:51). The small
44
circular pile of stones (the archaeological object described in the previous example as a grain-
bin foundation) could serve a different function; it could be a burial marker or drying rack
instead (Lane 1994/5:51). This is particularly apparent when considering the variation in size,
components, and appearance of these small circular piles of stones, which suggests that all these
piles of stone might not have had the same function (Lane 1994/5:51). Therefore there could be
no formal, law-like certainty that the small circular pile of stones was a grain bin foundation.
Therefore, Wylie (1985:101) recognized it was essential to establish the principles of relevance
or association between the subject and the source of analogy. This is acted upon by Hodder
(1986), who seeks to establish natural or cultural associations between source and subject. This
suggests that an analogy might be strengthened by incorporating other additional relevant
information, beside morphological similarities between the source and subject. For instance, to
return to the grain bin foundation example, incorporating additional information such as
environmental and technological considerations for storing grain as well as other physical
traces related to grain storage in the archaeological record, would establish natural or cultural
associations between the source and the subject (Lane 1994/5:51).
The critiques of analogical reasoning brought about by the post processual movement had little
effect on African, compared with Euro-American, archaeological research (Lane 1994/5:53).
This is likely due to the belief that there is cultural continuity between the present and recent
past communities and those of the more distant past (Lane 1994/5:53). This has encouraged a
reliance on the ethnographic record, where the direct historical approach is used to substantiate
archaeological interpretations (Lane 1994/5:53). An example is Pistorius’s (1992) study of
Molokwane. Pistorius (1992) used ethnographic accounts of late 19th to mid 20th century CE
Sotho-Tswana communities to deduce the social and political dynamics of a late farming
community. Molokwane was historically known and linked to the local Kwena communities,
suggesting cultural continuity between the source and the subject (Pistorius 1992). Another
example of a direct historical approach is the study of an 18th century CE stone-walled site
Nqabeni by Hall & Maggs (1979). The site Nqabeni is located in Kwa-Zulu Natal, and is a type
site (termed Type B) for a number of stone-walled settlements sharing similar architectural
features in the region (Hall & Maggs 1979). The settlements in the region predominantly
conform to the Zulu settlement model, as described in later 19th and earlier 20th century CE
ethnographies (Hall & Maggs 1979:172). As stated by Hall & Maggs (1979:174), a number of the
settlement features at Nqabeni were atypical, meaning they did not fit within the normal
understanding of a typical Zulu settlement. Nonetheless, they still chose to interpret the site
using the Zulu ethnographic model. The reason being that the use of ethnographic evidence in
interpreting the function of Late Iron Age settlements ‘is generally admissible where the date of
45
occupation is sufficiently close to the present day to make the probability of some degree of
continuity high' (Hall & Maggs 1979: 172). It was noted that similar settlement features were
found within a stone wall settlement type in the Free State a 150km away (Hall & Maggs 1979:
175). This was Maggs’s (1979) type V settlement, a type associated with Sotho speakers (as
discussed in chapter two). They concluded that the site while resembling settlement features of
Maggs’s type V, was a chance resemblance, and rather the site displays a number of cultural
features which indicate a relationship with Nguni-speaking peoples (Hall & Maggs 1979: 175).
However this approach was later reconsidered by Hall (1984). Hall (1984) re-evaluated his
direct usage of a Zulu homestead analogy on the site Nqabeni. The design (the placement of
entrances and enclosures) and the distribution (a clustered rather than dispersed settlement
style) of Type B settlements vary from the typical Zulu settlement (Hall 1984). Hall argues that
this is evidence of cultural discontinuity between Type B settlement style and the Zulu
ethnographic model, and that there is no basis for this interpretive analogy (Hall 1984:78). Hall
(1984) recognised that cultural continuity cannot be assumed, in which groups were dynamic
actors across time and space. Therefore, even in situations where historical and cultural
continuities between the ethnographic source and archaeological object are prevalent it does
not mean that such analogies are suitable (Lane 1994/5:54).Nonetheless, this cautionary tale on
analogical reasoning in southern African studies of the recent past has not deterred the
application of ethnographic models onto the archaeological record, which is increasingly done
in an uncritical manner.
The ethnographic record is used in several manners to generate an understanding of the past; in
the following section I will discuss and critique the use of ethnography in the creation of
archaeological models, and its role in identifying group identity. In studies concerning agro-
pastoral communities of South Africa, a prevalent model used to understand space usage and its
related social meaning within these communities is the central cattle pattern.
3.4. The application of the Central Cattle Pattern
Ethnographers, specifically Schapera (1935:1938), in the description of the Tswana

demonstrated that the organisation of a village was based on ideas of social order.
The organisation of a village was based on the creation of wards; each ward was a political unit
as well as a cluster of homesteads. A homestead contained the households of individual family
groups. The ward would have a headman; his homestead would be the most senior in the ward.
46
Within the homestead all families would place their households around the main household
according to kinship closeness and affiliation to the headman. The headman presided over the
ward and was accountable to the chief. In the centre of the ward was the Kgotla, a meeting place
used as a political forum and as a court. Within each ward was a cattle enclosure, where cattle
were kept for various purposes beyond dietary consumption (Schapera 1953:34-48).
Cattle were a medium of exchange; they were used for social transactions, such as fines or as
bridewealth for marriage, and to maintain good relations with the ancestor spirits (Schapera &
Goodwin 1962:137). Cattle are significant in the worldview of southern African agro-
pastoralists, they are utilized in ceremonials having to do with the “great events in the life of the
human being, birth, marriage, puberty, and death, and their care is the privilege of their owner,
who often knows each member of his herds by name”19 (Herskovits 1930:70 in Kuper 1982:10).
The layout of the village and its different constituents were therefore based on societal
principles of order. Pursuing this further, Kuper (1980; 1982) a social anthropologist,
formulated a model to account for core similarities in social structure, marriage practices,
kinship terminology, and settlement layout found within southern African agro-pastoral
communities. The key attribute of this model is the organisation of the settlement space, which
Kuper (1982) suggests is determined by a set of values regarding the symbolic value of cattle,
the relative status of men versus women, and the spiritual significance of ancestors. These are
the structuring principles which govern the organisation of the settlement space in southern
African agro-pastoral communities. Even though settlements may vary between different
southern African agro-pastoral communities, their settlement organisation is still governed by
the same set of principles according to Kuper (1982).
Drawing upon Kuper’s structural model on the symbolic dimensions of southern African agro-
pastoral homesteads, Huffman (1982) applied the model to an archaeological context.
Huffman’s model was termed the Central Cattle Pattern (CCP), after the common feature of
centrally placed cattle enclosures at archaeological agro-pastoralist sites in southern Africa. The
CCP is concerned with the symbolic dimensions of organised spaces within a settlement. The
settlement organisation is identified by an outer arc of households arranged around a central
zone dominated by enclosures, specifically those for cattle (see Figure 3.1) (Huffman
1986a:289). The CCP is characterised by the following settlement features (Kuper 1980, 1982;
Huffman 1982; Lane 1994/5):
19The use of the term ‘his herds’ is indicative of the gendered division of cattle ownership in southern
Bantu-speaking communities, whereby cattle keeping and ownership is mainly assigned to the realm of
men (Kuper 1982:11).
47
1. Cattle enclosures are located centrally within a settlement
2. The cattle enclosures contain the burials of elite males and the communal grain storage
facilities
3. The men’s assembly area (kgotla) is located either in the cattle enclosure or near it
4. Households are arranged in an arc around the central cattle enclosures
5. The household(s) of the headman (or senior resident) is usually situated opposite the
entrance to the cattle enclosure
6. Other households are arranged right and left of the senior household, according to
seniority
7. Individual households are divided internally into right and left sections, which are ,
usually, divided along gender lines
8. Within the household there is also a front/back, secular/sacred dichotomy, which is
usually orientated at right angles to the male/female, right/left dichotomies
Figure 3.1 Organisational structure of the Central Cattle Pattern (from Huffman 2007:25)
Huffman argued that if such settlement features were identified at southern African
archaeological sites, and ‘if the structural relationship between language, culture and spatial
organisation is valid, it follows that archaeological evidence for the central cattle pattern is
sufficient to demonstrate the existence of cattle-based bridewealth in the past’ (Huffman
1993:220). Therefore, the role and symbolic nature of cattle in these societies defines their
worldview, as it is from this base that socio-political, gender, economic, and other societal
48
beliefs stem. The allocation of space within a settlement becomes a gendered, hierarchal system
through the application of the CCP.
3.4.1. The critique of the Central Cattle Pattern
The CCP is a model that has been used in the understanding of farming communities in southern
Africa (Pistorius 1992; Huffman 1993; Whitelaw 1994). It has been applied to sites falling
within the early farming period, from the 4th to the 6th century CE site Broederstroom (Huffman
1993), to sites falling in the late farming period, such as the 17th to 18th century CE site
Molokwane (Pistorius 1992). Its application to sites falling within the early farming period has
undergone severe criticism (see Badenhorst 2009 for further discussion). Applying the CCP
model to sites over the last two thousand years is problematic, as Lane (1994:56) states, the
logical extension of applying the CCP model to such an extent would suggest:
[T]he first Bantu-speaking, agricultural communities to settle in southern Africa

possessed a settlement system and ideology that were sufficiently robust to survive
approximately five-hundred years of population growth, settlement change,
territorial expansion and migration and a further fifteen-hundred years of
settlement consolidation and economic transformations up to the modern era.
As Lane’s statement exemplifies, such a static past seems unlikely and misleading. It insinuates
that African society is innately conservative and unable to change without some form of
external stimulus (Lane 1994/5:56). Hall (1986) uses Giddens’ structuration theory to further
discount the ahistorical nature of the model. He does so by charting the manner in which power
was signified in the local archaeological record challenging the idea of cattle as the central
symbol of power in all farming communities (Hall 1986:86). Therefore, the CCP model is
inadequate in explaining change within farming communities. Denbow’s (1986) research
exemplifies this further; he identified aspects of interaction between agro-pastoralists and
foragers, whereby interaction has led to changes, changes which can only be witnessed in the
archaeological record at a micro-scale. The CCP model is unsuitable for such a scale of
investigation, as it treats farming communities as a closed system, avoiding or counter-acting
discussions on interactions (Denbow 1986: 3; Lane 1994/5:57).
This critique is sustained for the recent past, the act of colonialism and the variation it was likely
to have caused in the structure of farming communities is not accounted for in such a model as
the CCP (Stahl 1993). Hall (1998b) uses material culture and spatial analysis at Mabotse, a
Tswana site of the late 19th century CE, to illustrate subtle change in gender relations as a result
49
of European trade expansion into the interior. At Mabotse, a mix of European and indigenous
ceramics were collected from surface material and excavations; while the introduction of
European wares into the traditional ceramic assemblage could be seen as a functional or
technological adaption, Hall (1998b) argues that it is rather a reflection of changing gender
relations over time at Mabotse. This is expressed through the intrusion of men, associated with
the domain of barter and exchange, into the female domain, ceramic production (Hall
1998b:217). Hall argues (1998b:217) that men were introducing and supplanting European
wares over traditional ceramic wares. At the scale which the CCP functions only a superficial
view of gender relations at the site would be witnessed, while Hall’s focus on the materiality of
the past reflected a history of dynamic gender relations (1998b). However, this account, while
articulating gender dynamics, insinuates a passive female role. This is likely due to the nature of
past southern African ethnography, a body of data deserving further reflection.
The CCP model is founded upon ethnography. Critical consideration of this body of data is
necessary, as the manner and context of its collection is likely to reveal certain biases and
underlying motives. Early ethnographies on southern Africa communities were predominantly
accounts from male community elders collected by male ethnographers (see Schapera 1935;
Van Warmelo 1935; Willoughby 1905). This led to a male centred account of the roles, values,
and beliefs practised within the community, where the societal structure is defined by one
segment of the community. While many communities might articulate their ideals through
masculine interest, absolute forms of patrilineal communities only generally exist as ideals
(Dederen 2010:27). In reality, male and female organising principles co-exist as competing
forces (Dederen 2010:27). However, these views were accepted, leading anthropologists to
state certain interpretations of the community customs as collectively agreed upon within the
community. In many instances, actions of state anthropologists were then further utilised in
situational politics, their work was used to establish ‘customary law’ by which courts
determined legal precedent (Schmidt 1992:106-10 cited in Lane 1994/5:58). Through these
actions women and the youth became actors in a ‘customary tale’, the script of which, created by
male community elders and endorsed by foreign male interests. Therefore, the previous
autonomy of women, whether acted upon or by its mere belief, was now lost by the
implementation of customary law into the legal system. Ethnographic sources should be read
critically and applied in an appropriate manner. An archaeologist is partly responsible for the
reproduction of the past, but this must be done with an awareness of the present, as ideas
pertaining to the past can influence the present.
Following the focus on ethnographic data, the conclusions drawn from ethnographic studies of
particular communities should not be oversimplified, or applied generally without further
50
consideration. While a particular community that is part of a larger common group may exhibit
certain characteristics, this does not necessarily signify that these characteristics are exhibited
by the larger common group. This can be demonstrated by the differences highlighted by
Morton (2013) between the Kalahari Tswana and the Transvaal 20 Tswana (mentioned
previously in chapter two). What may seem like an insignificant difference, the varying
geography across which a group occurs, led Morton to the conclusion that varying attributes in
settlement style reflected the different environments in which people settled, which impacted
the settlement style, and sustainability, as well as the socio-political organisation of the group.
Furthermore, the Kalahari Tswana surveyed ethnographically by Schapera in the 1930s
commonly built their settlements at quite a distance from agricultural lands and cattle grazing
areas, necessitating the establishment of distant cattle posts. This differs significantly from the
CCP pattern, but also from the records and archaeological data of the Transvaal Tswana in the
mid 18th century CE who were recorded as keeping cattle inside the settlement, and placing the
settlement near their agricultural lands. However, due to the reliance on Schapera’s work in
regard to the understanding of the Tswana has led to the belief that his work is applicable to all
Tswana groups. Schapera studied a few, long-established, large, neighbouring, mostly of
common descent, Tswana communities, mainly the Kgatla of Mochudi (Morton 2013:17). Due to
the comprehensive nature of his work, many researchers apply his study on other Tswana
groups; this is problematic, as a range of differences and complexities exist within the Tswana
collective. As shown by Morton (2013), an awareness of the source and it specific reference to a
context needs to be verified in order to develop a relevant understanding of the past.
Lastly, by viewing structure and agency as part of a process, it allows for the debunking or
deconstructing of over-arching structuralist paradigms such as the CCP model. This is
demonstrated by Fewster’s (2006) enthnoarchaeological study of [the] Basimane ward in
Serowe, Botswana. Fewster demonstrates that while there is continuity in settlement
architecture at Basimane, it should not be interpreted as the persistence of cultural forms as
described in the CCP (Fewster 2006:61). Within the Basimane ward there are no human burials
in the central kraal, while the male defined space surrounding the Kgotla had become open to
women since independence in 1966, these are both defining aspects of the CCP (Fewster
2006:83). Rather the persistence of elements from the CCP to post-colonial settlement is a
testimony to the interplay between structure and human agency, to the capacity of people to re-
negotiate the rules (past and present, social and architectural) in the situation of their present
lives (Fewster 2006:61). As stated by Fewster (2006:85):
20 The boundaries of which are described in chapter two.
51
[H]uman beings have always had the capacity routinely to re-negotiate the structural
rules to make sense of the lives they live. Thus the persistence of physical form
cannot be simply equated with the persistence of cultural form.
This perspective allows for the recognition of cultural continuances but also recognises the
subversive, and/or outright modification of aspects of practice. This stance needs to be
incorporated in archaeological interpretations, in order to characterise the flaw of over-arching
models and to present a space for the discussion of dissonance within such models.
The above critique of the CCP model reflects the current reflective approach to ethnographically
derived data. The previous section presented a general overview on how farming community
sites have been interpreted in southern Africa, in the following section the focus is on the
ethnography of the Tswana. This discussion will include an account of the Tswana worldview
and its relation to settlement and space usage.
3.5. The Tswana worldview and structure
As mentioned in this and the previous chapter, southern African agro-pastoralists share a
similar worldview and social organisation, such as polygamy and patrilineal traditions. While
social organisation between Tswana and Nguni speakers varies, Tswana-speakers prefer
endogamous town settlements, rather than the dispersed exogamous settlements of Nguni-
speakers (Sansom 1974 in Fredriksen 2012:55). Archaeological research (see Huffman 1986;
Hall 1995) shows that the Tswana preference for aggregated settlements might only be a recent
development (Fredriksen 2012:55). At the household level, a household consists of a nuclear or
polygynous family, and may include other kin (such as divorced or widowed women) (Kuper
1975:71). Succession and inheritance is from father to son, and property usually belongs to men
and their sons (Kuper 1975:71). A polygnist’s first wife is normally the senior wife, and her
eldest son is generally the heir (Kuper 1975:80-1). Similarities are also expressed in the
accounting of misfortune.
3.5.1. Accounting for misfortune
In the worldview of southern African agro-pastoralists there are two forces which account for
misfortune, the causal agents and the impersonal causation (Hammond-Tooke 1981). The
52
causal agents are thought of as conscious intelligences, in the form of witches and ancestors
(Hammond-Tooke 1981:140). However, they also believe in impersonal causation. These are
‘impersonal forces or states of being which can affect them in an automatic, almost mechanical,
way, causing ritual pollution’ (Hammond-Tooke 1981:140). Though both forces are present in
the worldview of the southern African agro-pastoralists, it is thought that pollution beliefs are
more fully developed in the Sotho cluster (Hammond-Tooke 1981:140-1)21. In the following
section I will discuss pollution beliefs and how they affect social interaction and organisation.
3.5.1.1. Pollution beliefs
Pollution is found where ‘matter is out of place’ (Douglas 1966 in Hammond-Tooke: 127) or
when an individual is in a liminal position (Hammond-Tooke: 127). Pollution beliefs are
understood through a heat and cold concept. The term go fiša means ‘to be hot’, it describes
someone suffering from a fever, as well as a symbolic malady (a tired and extremely irritable
individual) (Hammond-Tooke 1981:113). It is believed that ritual pollution can contaminate an
individual, through no action of their own, and often the danger is greater for others than that of
the polluted person (Hammond-Tooke 1981:113). For instance, in the death of a relative
(especially a child) the mourners are affected by go fiša (Hammond-Tooke 1981:113). Other
scenarios which cause ‘heat’ are: inauspicious sexual acts,, during young boys initiation,
handling a corpse, returning from a journey (this is explained as being a contagion arising from
contact with strangers and the friction caused by travelling), and when a chief dies (Hammond-
Tooke 1981:113- 116). In order to prevent or treat this ‘heat’ an individual must be purified,
this is in the form of water (including saliva) and ash (soot) (Hammond-Tooke 1981:117). To
protect or cleanse oneself one must either have contact with ash, or combine the ash with water
(Hammond-Tooke 1981:118).
3.5.2. The socio-political order of a Tswana settlement
21One argument for this development of impersonal causation over causal agents is due to the closer
agnatic relationships expected in settlements of the Sotho cluster, where overt accusations of witchcraft
become unacceptably disruptive (Hammond-Tooke 1981: 126 & 141). Therefore a preference for
impersonal causations is in the interest of harmonious community life within a settlement (Hammond-
Tooke 1981: 126 & 141).
53
The Tswana settle in what is termed a village (motse), though aggregated versions of this
settlement are termed towns (and archaeologically termed mega-sites). The village is largely an
independent entity socially, economically, and, to a lesser degree, politically (Molema
1963:114). The village is led by the chief (kgôsi), if there are multiple villages under the control
of a chief, each village will be led by a representative of the chief, termed a headman (Molema
1963:114). The placement of the chief’s homestead, or headman, if the chief does not reside in
the village, is in the central division of the settlement, which is not accidental, as it is the first
area to be established (Pistorius 1994:49). The ground plan and layout of a settlement is based
on a conceptual model emphasising symbols of status, rank, and ideas of precedence (Hardie
1981:43). This is emphasised by McKenzie (1871:367) who states, in the laying out of a town:
[T]he first thing is to ascertain where the chief’s courtyard with the public cattle pen
is to be placed… as soon as the chief’s position is ascertained, one says: “My place is
always next to the chief on this side”; another adds: “And mine is always next on that
side” and so on till the whole town is laid out.
Location or position is thus used as a marker of socio-political groupings (Kuper 1982:152).

Willoughby (1928:67-8 cited in Kuper 1982:152) expands upon Tswana notions of positions:
‘Godimo’ means ‘above’, ‘high’ … but godimo has other meanings. Godimo [is a]
convertible term for ‘west’ ... denoting the quarter from which their streams flow…
the houses of a chief’s sons are located according to their standing in the family, that
of the heir being on his father’s right hand, west of the chief’s dwelling and
consequently described by this word godimo, though it may not be on higher
land…To sum up in a sentence, the meaning of this very wide term, godimo, may be
‘overhead’, or ‘higher up’, or ‘west’, or ‘on the right-hand of the chief’ – this last being
a synonym for ‘superior status’.
The description of a location, in the form of cardinal directions and or elevation, could also refer
to a group’s status and rank within the settlement. At the scale of a large settlement, there are
different divisions within the settlement; each division contained a number of wards,
comprising a number of family units (Boeyens 2003:71). The threefold divide within a
settlement, namely the centre (fa gare), upper (ntlha ya godimo), and lower (nthla ya tlase), was
said to be derived from the position of each section of the settlement in relation to the river,
along which settlements were commonly built, godimo meaning ‘up stream’ and tlase meaning
‘down stream’ (Schapera 1953:47).
Accordingly, the central division was occupied by the kgosi, meaning chief, including: his wives
and children, foreign persons which had been absorbed into the cluster through marriage with
the chief’s sons, and the servants of the chief (Pistorius 1994:49). This homestead was termed
54
the kgosing, the chief’s section (Kuper 1980:17). The inhabitants of the other two divisions
consisted of persons not especially bound to the chief, this included: royals (dikgosana),
commoners (badintlha, batlhanka), and immigrants (bafaladi, baagedi) (Boeyens 2003:71). This
threefold division--- of nobles, commoners, and immigrants (Schapera 1953:36)--- was
identified by Pistorius (1992, 1994) at Molokwane (depicted in Figure 3.2), suggested at
Kaditshwene (Boeyens 2000), and recognized at Marothodi by Anderson (2009).
Figure 3.2 Molokwane settlement divided into three zones, the zones in relation to the stream ‘selonsriver’.
Zone B and Zone C are respectively located upstream and downstream of the river, with Zone A in the centre
(after Pistorius 1992:5).
Within a homestead, the placement of wives and other dependants follows rules of status and
rank. All the huts belonging to the same individual are enclosed within a low walled courtyard
(lapa), which is a demarcated area surrounding the hut(s) (Pistorius 1992:75). Each married
women is entitled to their own hut(s), and each wife is entitled to her own courtyard (Hoernlė
1962:91; Schapera & Goodwin 1962:160). When the homestead is built, the head of the
household will be placed somewhat centrally, with his wives and dependants housed on either
side of his courtyard (Pistorius 1992:65). In general the first wife married is the senior or great
wife, and is accorded a prominent position in the household (Hoernlė 1962:91).
At Molokwane22, Pistorius (1992:65) found that the dwelling(s) of the senior wife (wives) and
sons are placed to the right of the main dwelling of the chief (or household head), while the
junior wife (wives) and sons are placed to the left of the main dwelling. The married sons of the
chief establish their own homestead either east or west of the chief’s homestead, depending on
their rank and status (Pistorius 1996:150). The death of the chief would require a new
homestead to be built in order to accommodate the household of the new chief, and in order to
22At Molokwane, the positions of right and left were determined from the main courtyard (FRHSM01)
looking towards the east of the homestead (Pistorius 1996: 150)
55
not displace the previous chief’s household. This is shown at Marothodi where a primary and
secondary kgosing were identified, not more than 120m from each other, with the secondary
kgosing located east of the primary kgosing (Anderson23 2009:Chapter IV, Macro settlement
structure, para.11).
Consequently the key attribute governing the spatial configuration of a settlement is the status
and ranking of households (Pistorius 1994:49), whereby a person’s location is determined by
their status and rank, as well as their association to those of a high status or rank. Accordingly,
this attribute holds true for the varying socio-geographic scales: be it on the large scale, such as
each ward knowing its position in relation to other wards in a settlement; or on a smaller scale,
each household knowing its position in relation to other households; or on a micro scale of each
member of the household knowing their position in relation to other members of the household
(Pistorius 1994:49). Therefore, the spatial arrangement of a settlement is a blueprint of an
individual’s, as well as a family’s, socio-political importance within a settlement across varying
scales.
3.5.3. The organisation of a Tswana settlement
A village consists of a cluster of homesteads (kgotlana) each occupied by a collection or single

household group (Hoernlė 1962:91). A household typically consists of a man with his wife or
wives and dependent children, as well as any other relatives or unrelated individuals who may
be dependent on the man (Hoernlė 1962:69 & 70). Households are aligned together to form a
ward (kgôrô), a number of families united under the leadership of a headman (Hoernlė 1962:88
& Schapera 1953:46). A ward may constitute a whole settlement, or more generally is part of a
settlement, meaning more than one ward within a settlement (Hoernlė 1962:89). However, a
ward is a social and administrative unit, distinct from other wards in the settlement (Hoernlė
1962:89). The central features of a ward are the cattle kraal and the adjoining court (kgotla),
where judicial matters and other economic and political concerns are heard by the headman
(kgosana), who is assisted in this task by other important family heads (Hoernlė 1962:89).
A village does not only consist of the settlement, but may also include agricultural fields and
cattle posts which may be distributed over a large part of the landscape (Maggs 1976a: 277).
The agricultural fields can be near or far from the village, but when they are further than a day’s
23Anderson 2009, this source has no page numbers and therefore I cite, in this order: chapter, subtitle and
paragraph number.
56
walk, a homestead, where the families will reside during the agricultural season, is built near
the fields (Schapera & Goodwin 1962:134). Cattle may therefore be kept at cattle posts which
are some distance from the village, depending on the available grazing areas (Schapera &
Goodwin 1962:139). However, as stated by Morton (2013:22), this is unlikely for the Tswana
settlements located in the ZPR region, as their settlements were usually located within short
walking distance of grazing areas, crop fields, and water.
3.5.3.1. The different areas within a settlement
The main feature of a late Tswana settlement is the use of stone walling for the demarcation of
space (a feature discussed further in the archaeology of the Tswana section). The walling is
constructed by the erection of two rows of stacked stones, parallel to each other, with inner
rubble filling the gap between the two rows (Walton 1958:135). This feature generally outlines
the different areas within a settlement, these are: the boundary area, central area, and the
intervening area between both spaces, as depicted in Figure 3.3. The boundaries are somewhat
flexible, with some overlap between the different areas. In the following section I will discuss
the main attributes of each area.
Figure 3.3 General ground plan of a Tswana stone-walled settlement
57
3.5.3.2. Boundary area
The boundary area is the area positioned just within the boundary wall of the settlement. In
some cases the boundary wall is scalloped creating bays, which are often utilised as dwelling
areas (Pistorius 1992:19). Within the dwelling area a hut or number of huts will be constructed.
There are two types of huts, those which are dwelling quarters, and those which are used for
storage (water, food, and beer) and perhaps for the preparation of food (Pistorius 1995:54). The
dwelling huts are primarily used as bedrooms, with most activities conducted outdoors
(Schapera & Goodwin 1962:144). The style of dwelling hut which is commonly associated with
the Tswana is the cone-on-cylinder hut which often has a veranda, as well as lobe-shaped
courtyards in front, or behind, or both (Maggs 1993:32). The floor of the hut is made of beaten
earth, and is regularly smoothed over with cattle dung and mud (Schapera & Goodwin
1962:145). Another aspect of the hut is the entrance, which at times featured a sliding door
situated, most commonly, on the veranda to secure the entryway to the inner compartment of
the hut (Maggs 1993:32), as depicted in Figure 3.4. Sliding doors are a documented feature,
found at sites such as: Olifantspoort (Mason 1974:214), Molokwane (Pistorius 1992:30), the z-
type settlements of the Free State (Maggs 1976a:241), and the group II sites of Vredefort dome
(Taylor 1979:105). The sliding door was most commonly wooden, and slid between clay panels
built on long flat pieces of stone slabs (Pistorius 1992:30). These slabs, from the continual
abrasive action of sliding a wooden frame along a stone base, show characteristic longitudal
groove marks, and this is distinctive enough that this feature alone indicates the presence of a
sliding door (Maggs 1993:33). When the occupants of the home perish, the hut is pulled or
burnt down, and when a household-head dies the whole homestead is destroyed and relocated
(Schapera & Goodwin 1962:145).
58
Figure 3.4 Reconstructed elevation and section of a Tswana dwelling with a front veranda and internal
compartment closed by a sliding door (from Maggs 1993:34)
The household area is also a family activity area, whereby the evening meal is eaten together as
a household (Lestrade 1962:126). The meal would be eaten within age and sex delimited
groups, each group eating from a common meat or relish based-dish and individual porridge
bowls (Lestrade 1962:126). The space shared by members of a household is physically divided
from the space shared by members of another household. Courtyard walls of close relatives are
connected, while households will have a space between their walls and the walls of their non-
related neighbour (Hoernlė 1962:91). The family dwells together in one part of the village, their
houses clustered together forming a distinct division from other households (Molema
1963:115).
3.5.3.3. Intervening area
The intervening area is the space for the movement and circulation of people and livestock
(Maggs 1976a:24). Features and structures related to food preparation and storage, if not
located in the boundary area, could also be located in the intervening area, as seen at
Molokwane (Pistorius 1992:26). These features are depicted in Figure 3.5. These granary
structures are unlikely to preserve over time; however, the bases of these structures are
commonly found in archaeological settings. The base of the grain basket structure is identified
59
as a roughly circular or randomly stacked pile of stones around a meter in diameter (Pistorius
1992:22). The base of the clay container structure is identified as a circular platform around a
metre in diameter, paved with flat slabs of stones (Pistorius 1992:20). Certain types of grains
are threshed with heavy wooden flails on a specially-prepared floor of hard earth (Shapera &
Goodwin 1962:136). The threshing floor can at times be identified in archaeological contexts,
characterised by upright standing stones embedded in a circular pattern (Pistorius 1992:18 &
27).
Figure 3.5 Features and structures related to food preparation and storage, (after Pistorius 1992:68)
3.5.3.4. Central area
The central area usually contains a cluster of circular stone-walled enclosures, these central
enclosures are commonly utilised for the enclosing of livestock, but may also be enclosures
associated with the Kgotla (Maggs 1976b:320).
The livestock enclosures range in size, with smaller enclosures likely housing smaller livestock
or young livestock. The livestock commonly kept were cattle, goats, sheep, and fowls (Schapera
60
& Goodwin 1962:140). Cattle are utilised as a food source, but are also kept for their hides (even
their horns are made into containers), and their dung which is used both as a fuel for fires and
as plaster for walls and floors (Schapera & Goodwin 1962:137). Cattle are also a medium of
exchange, necessary for the acquiring of a wife, the payment of court fines, and the maintaining
of good relations with the ancestor spirits (Schapera & Goodwin 1962:137). Sheep and goats
fulfil a similar role to cattle, they can be utilised for food, for their hides, and as a medium of
exchange (Schapera 1978:119; Schapera & Goodwin 1962:140). However, goats do not arouse
the same emotion as cattle (Schapera & Goodwin 1962:140).
Adjoining the central livestock enclosures are the court, council and male gathering area(s)
(kgotla) (Pistorius 1995:59). I use the term kgotla as an encompassing term for a male only
gathering area, which includes an area where a court or council could have been held. Within
the Kgotla, there could be private chambers, ‘summer houses’, and a ceremonial cattle enclosure
(each utilised for different purposes); however, this space could only be accessed by men of the
settlement, and even within this space, certain areas were further restricted by rank or status.
Pistorius (1996:159) further divides the term kgotla into two spheres, the private and the
public. A secluded enclosure, termed a private chamber, was a space where private judicial
affairs could be discussed, while a court was a space for the gathering of men be it for informal
discussion or the hearing of plaintiffs and witnesses (Pistorius 1996:159).
Within a settlement there could be more than one kgotla, as each ward is likely to have a kgotla
area (Hoernlė 1962:89). Campbell (1822a:90), after visiting the Tlhaping (a Tswana group) and
viewing three different kgotla, noted that the men spend much of their time there together at
work or in conversation. Such work as hide working, wood carving, and wire-work occur in the
court area, and this is also the area in which visitors are welcomed and entertained (Lestrade
1962:123). The men also eat their morning/midday meal in the kgotla area, while the women
and children eat in the household courtyards (Lestrade 1962:122).
Each kgotla area Campbell visited had a ‘summer house’, generally located in the eastern corner
(1822a:90). A ‘summer house’ was usually built between the chief’s family huts and the interior
cattle enclosures according to Mason (1986:377). A ‘summer house’ was a hut most probably
used for beer drinking by men (Mason 1986:377). Mason (1986) excavated several clusters of
‘summer houses’ at Olifantspoort 20/71, providing further details on these structures. These
huts had several poles along the inner circumference of the structure, with a central pole two to
three metres in length that supported a conical roof and provided shade for the men sitting
inside (Mason 1986:386). Outside, the ‘summer houses’ had rectangular boulder paved yards,
stretching two meters by three meters from the entrance, these paved yards likely supported
61
beer pots (Mason 1986:386). Clusters of beer drinking huts were found at Olifantspoort 20/71,
and from the excavations it seems likely that these huts were built to accommodate people from
the nearby residential huts. There were also social conventions regarding access to these beer-
drinking huts, with access to huts restricted to members of a household or other people of a
similar status (Mason 1986:421).
3.5.3.5. Middens
Middens, the area of refuse, are situated in different places within a settlement. There are two
main types of middens, domestic and court middens. Court middens are primarily identified by
their proximity to the kgotla, this midden would receive the debris of activities within this area
(Boeyens & Plug 2011:7). As stated by Masiangoako (1939:6-7 cited in Boeyens & Plug 2011:7)
“the refuse of the kgotla is emptied outside the kgotla in front of and next to the gateway at its
side”. A domestic midden can be small or large, depending on whether it is a communal
domestic midden (the deposit is contributed to by several households), or a household’s
domestic midden. The smaller domestic middens are usually located behind courtyard walls,
while the larger domestic middens are located in front of the household unit in the intervening
space between households and the central enclosures (Boeyens & Plug 2011:7). There could
also be middens located at the entrances to the settlement, such as those found at Molokwane
(Pistorius 1992:18). The location of a midden deposit at the entrances of a settlement keeps
with the Tswana custom of heat and cool concepts. Cattle are directed across a midden as they
enter a settlement in order to be conceptually cooled or cleansed of the heat they may have
become polluted with during their sojourn out of the settlement (Hammond-Tooke 1981:145).
This practice may also have been beneficial to the health of the cattle, as reported by local
farmers, as the midden deposit is placed in an area where the cattle cross so that fine ash would
stick to the legs and body of the cattle reducing the infestation of ticks and other pests (Huffman
1986b:296). The location of these middens is different from Olifantspoort 20/71, where the
majority of middens (termed ash heaps by Mason) are located in the interior of the settlement
(placed in similar areas to the large domestic middens) (Mason 1986:358-366). Another site
with different midden features is Marothodi. At Marothodi the court midden deposit was
enclosed by a stone wall which kept the deposit within the walled area (Anderson 2009:
Chapter VI, The court midden, para.1).
62
3.6. Discussion
Models and types, such as settlement typologies or the central cattle pattern, while expressive of
cultural characteristics can mask the nuances of cultural practice. Historical archaeology
attempts to prevent such a picture, through the use of a range of sources. The critical usage of
sources needs to be practised; an overreliance on one source over another, or the complete
disregard of one for another, needs to be checked in order to not perpetuate a partial account of
the past. The availability of a wide array of sources allows for a nuanced version of the past, an
opportunity to view the past from different perspectives. The points raised in this chapter apply
to the generation of archaeological knowledge. As archaeologists we need to be aware of our
role in the reconstruction of the past, as active contributors of the present. This chapter has
presented a theoretical discussion on the generation of knowledge. The following chapter
details the analytical and methodological approaches applied in this project.
63
Chapter 4 Method
4.1. Overview
“Have a plan’,
a carefully thought-out scheme,
and execute it in orderly fashion”
(Sir M. Wheeler 1956:80).
This chapter provides a data plan on the various methods used in the data collection process.
Within this chapter I discuss the field work procedures and the process entailed in the site map
creation, followed by a discussion on the laboratory analysis of material retrieved from the field.
Lastly, the catalogue system, illustration and photographic records, curation, and storage details
for the collection are expanded upon.
4.2. Aerial and satellite survey
Stone-walled settlements (SWS) can be identified from aerial and satellite imagery, as they are
visually distinctive on the landscape. In the 1960s and 1970s CE through the examination of
aerial photography, researchers realised that the Magaliesberg valley and the hills of Gauteng
contained a high density of Tswana settlements (Hall 2007:168). Aerial photographs were used
to plot the distribution of SWS over these vast areas (Mason 1968). More recently, satellite
imagery such as provided by Google Earth (GE) is used, instead of or in conjunction with aerial
imagery, for such tasks. GE has a historical imagery toggle, which allows the user to view the
earliest satellite image for that area, and to view the same area in different seasons and at
different times of the day (Hunt & Sadr 2014:1). Figure 4.1 and Figure 4.2 are images of
Molokwane (courtesy of GE) they are captured from the same location, but are from different
time periods (the historical imagery toggle in action). The vegetation is less dense and the
walling more apparent in the 2011 satellite image (Figure 4.2), than it is in the 2004 satellite
image (Figure 4.1). Both satellite and aerial imagery provide a glimpse of the past landscape;
however, the value of the imagery depends on the pixel quality of the image (the ability to zoom
in without obscuring the SWS) and the density of vegetation in the landscape. Figure 4.3 and
64
Figure 4.4 depict SWS which can distinctly be seen from an aerial view, due to the open space
and minimal clustering of vegetation around the SWS.
Figure 4.1 GE image of Molokwane from 2004
Figure 4.2 GE image of Molokwane from 2011
65
Figure 4.3 is an aerial view of the main settlement unit at Marothodi (Boeyens 2011:20)
Figure 4.4 Close-up aerial view of Molokwane SWS taken from a helicopter survey (Jordaan 2012)
66
These images show the difference in value between satellite and aerial imagery depending on
the time the image was taken and the condition of the landscape. A good quality image with
areas clear of vegetation (such as Figure 4.2 and Figure 4.3) not only allows for the
identification of stone walling, but can also be used for the mapping of the site. Pretorius (1992)
and Anderson (2009) used aerial images to create a map of Molokwane and Marothodi, mega-
sites found in the Magaliesberg/Pilanesberg region (as discussed in chapter two). In order to
assess the suitability of the aerial imagery available for Lebenya a request was sent to the Chief
Directorate of National Geo-Spatial Information (NGI) office in Cape Town for the images of the
region.
Lebenya falls within the map set 2526DA in the North West province, the aerial images of the
area date from 1957 to 2010 CE. The images, initially gathered to provide a visual outline of the
settlement, are unsuitable for mapping purposes (see Figure 4.5). They are unsuitable because
either the pixel resolution of the images is poor or vegetation covers the majority of the
settlement preventing a clear/closer look of the spatial layout of the settlement. Therefore the
images are not suitable for mapping purposes. GE imagery also lacks an outline of the
settlement (see Figure 4.6). However the aerial images (specifically those falling in the range of
the 20th century CE) show more clearly, than the GE imagery, other settlements in the
surrounding area of Lebenya. The earlier aerial images show less vegetation cover and better
preserved stone walls than the later aerial images (a trend noted by Tim Maggs, pers. comm.
2014 cited in Hunt & Sadr 2014:1). This could be due to a variety of reasons such as a change in
climatic conditions in the region, or could reflect a change in landscape usage, or simply the
deterioration of the SWS over time. Due to the poor resolution of the aerial images, I could not
rely on remote sensing for the mapping of Lebenya.
67
Figure 4.5 Aerial image of Lebenya from 1957, vegetation obscures the SWS (courtesy of NGI)
Figure 4.6 GE image of Lebenya dated to 2013, dense vegetation covers the SWS
68
4.3. Archaeological Survey of farm
A pedestrian survey comprises the walking over of a given area to locate artefacts and to gain an
idea of the distribution and extent of artefacts in the area (Drewett 1999:44). This step is
significant as it is important to identify the extent of the site. Furthermore, without an
understanding of the parameters of the settlement the size and layout of the settlement cannot
be inferred. As shown in chapter two, these are fundamental aspects involved in site
classification.
Figure 4.7 Contour map of survey area
A brief initial survey was conducted in 2012, followed by a systematic survey of the farm later
that year. The aim of the survey was to identify and record any archaeological sites within the
farm boundaries, in order to attain a comprehensive understanding of the archaeology on the
farm and to identify the boundaries of the settlement (see Figure 4.7). The survey method was
based on transects, walking a line across the landscape (Drewett 1999:43). The transects are
conducted on a North to South axis, starting from the west side moving to the east side of the
69
farm. The surveyors stand in a line, 10 metres apart from each other, guided by a compass, and
walk a north/south line from one end of the farm boundary to the other. Once the surveyors
reach a boundary they move 10m from where the last individual stood and begin another
transect.
The survey was conducted in winter, as field conditions are more suitable during this time of
year (see chapter two for a full discussion of geo-environmental factors); the vegetation is less
dense in winter but still covers much of the surface. Therefore, areas on the farm with low
surface visibility were still surveyed for possible sites, but with an expectation of finding more
sites in areas with less dense vegetation and high surface visibility. The survey method was
suitable for the area to be covered, as the landscape of the farm (excluding the site area) is
unvarying and the farm is only 262 hectares (2.62 square kilometres), with the stone walling
covering roughly an area of 5.67 hectares (0.0567 square kilometres). Throughout the survey a
record was kept, specifically a photo log and site record. If an archaeological site was identified,
it was photographed, and recorded. The recording of sites included coordinates, and a
description of the site and environment.
4.4. Survey for mapping of site
Three clusters of walling were identified, they are termed cluster A, B, and C. The clusters are
separated by a few meters of open space; a previous landowner used this open space between
the clusters (the exterior of the clusters) to create roads through the settlement. However, in the
southern cluster of stone walling (cluster A) a road was made that cuts through the interior of
the cluster. This road created a division between the different parts of this cluster; therefore,
cluster A was further divided into section A1, A2, and A3 (as shown in Figure 4.8). The reason I
chose to use the roads as dividing areas in cluster A is because there is evidence that the road
follows an open space previously occurring within the settlement. It seems there were few walls
enclosing this open space as shown by the debris still attached to the walls nearest to the road.
Therefore, it allows for the division of a large space based on the past partition of space (as
shown by the use of open spaces) within the settlement.
70
C
A3
A2
A1
Figure 4.8 Division of site into sections
The site was surveyed cluster by cluster, starting with cluster C. The individual bays and
enclosures within each cluster were systematically surveyed for surface material, features and
soil changes. These were recorded and mapped by GPS, as well as noted on a hand drawn map
of the site. This information was critical for the development of an excavation strategy, but was
also essential for the interpretation of the spatial layout and function of certain spaces within
the settlement.
4.5. The mapping of the site
71
In order to have a visual understanding of the spatial layout of the settlement a map of the
settlement was created.
There was a wide range of instruments available for surveying and mapping purposes, whereby
precision of measurement, sophistication of design, ease of use, or financial cost were the
guiding factors (Howard 2007:15). Electronic equipment provides speed, and higher accuracy
for less field time, and as the site is positioned 1km away from the base camp (where there is
access to electrical power points for the charging of equipment) this was a viable option. The
main factors guiding the choice of mapping equipment for this project were ease of use, field
appropriateness, continuity, and financial cost. The precision of the measurement while
important was a lesser factor due to the nature of the features mapped. These features, stone
walls, are fixed visible constructs in the landscape, with the map mainly serving for orientation
purposes. A GPS (Global Positioning Satellite) device fills the above criteria. A GPS provides
relatively accurate results, is user friendly, is light and field appropriate, and requires a
minimum number of surveyors and days required for mapping purposes (reducing the overall
financial costs of the project). A Garmin eTrex 10 GPS was the instrument of choice, as stated by
Howard (2007:82):
We must seek to produce accurate surveys, but what matters most is the relative
accuracy with which the shapes, sizes and relationships of archaeological features
are expressed, and this accuracy can be achieved even using simple equipment.
The exterior walling of the settlement was mapped first; markers (red tape flags on pegs) were
placed on mapped exterior walls, in order to prevent repetition. The interior walls were then
mapped, using a different colour marker (blue tape). The markers were placed on the wall or on
any vegetation overhanging the wall. This served to differentiate exterior from interior, as well
as marking where the mapping process ended each day (in combination with photographic and
written records). The GPS data was collected through waypoint feature of the GPS, rather than
the tracking feature, due to the vegetation in and around the walls. The individual mapping the
walls often needs to navigate round the vegetation; therefore, the use of the tracking feature
would of created an inaccurate record. The individual mapping the walling would follow the
wall, taking as many waypoints as possible, while noting the wall construction and its relation to
the next wall to be mapped. The last wall mapped for the day, would be the first wall to be re-
mapped the following day in order to create a known reference point. This was important as it
allowed for some backtracking by creating daily a known reference point that connected the
previously recorded satellite readings to the new readings for the day. All the above methods
72
were consistently done throughout the mapping process. This secured the accuracy of the data
recordings, which was significant for the map creating process.
Once the waypoints were collected they were uploaded to a desktop for the creation of a map.
Data gathered from the GPS mapping of the site was sufficient for the creation of a basic map
using Geographic Information Software (GIS). GIS comprises of “computer systems whose main
purpose is to store, manipulate, analyse and present information about geographic space”
(Wheatley & Gillings 2002:8). The data was loaded onto GIS from which a basic map was
created. The basic map was exported to Inkscape (an open source vectors program) for
illustration purposes. With this program I was able to adjust and add features to the map
illustration, without sacrificing the accuracy of the image. Throughout the map creation process,
all features were substantiated and verified by detailed notes and another map of the site
(sketched personally by the researcher). This allowed for the creation of a map with greater
detail and accuracy.
4.6. Excavation
After surveying the settlement and the creation of a map, the excavation plan was formulated. A
permit for excavation was obtained from SAHRA (South African Heritage Resources Agency),
with the excavation commencing in July 2013. Surface features, such as material culture
concentrations and soil changes, indicating various behavioural contexts, were areas considered
for excavation. The excavation potential was limited by time and resources; therefore, the
objective of the excavation was to excavate areas of high material culture potential. Material
culture allows for a broader understanding of identity and socio-political relations, as discussed
in chapter 2. This is shown by Rosenstein (2008) and Anderson (2009), where material culture
provided insight into the socio-political dynamics and groupings beyond the site level.
Considering the excavation objective, ashy soil deposits with a concentration of surface material
were potential areas for excavation, as these deposits represent potential midden areas. From
these types of deposits a selection of coring samples were taken, in order to acquire an
understanding of the extent and depth of the deposit. Core samples are taken at the edges of any
ashy deposit, so as not to disturb the stratigraphy of possible excavation areas. All core samples
were mapped and recorded, and all material culture obtained from the samples were bagged,
labelled, and taken back to the laboratory for curation and storage.
73
Layers are the result of natural processes of erosion and deposition (Pyddoke 1961 cited in
Drewett 1999:107). Interacting within the natural processes is human activity (Drewett
1999:107). Human activities cut/ alter/ interact with soil deposits creating a new context.
Differences in the soil deposit colour, texture, consistency, and coarse components are essential
for the interpretation of a layer and any behavioural context (Drewett 1999:107). Layers were
excavated according to ‘natural layers’, whereby changes in soil texture and colour, as well as a
change in the density of material culture guided the creation and closing of layers. In order to
keep track of the different layers, a layer logbook was created. Each new layer was signed in and
out; a layer could only be signed out once all the procedures and paperwork for that layer were
completed. The meta-data associated with the layer was recorded on a layer record sheet. The
recording sheet was as detailed as possible, as excavation is destruction and a detailed record
provides a permanent testimony of the nature of the excavated deposits (Murray, Roskams &
Spence 1994). Details included on the record sheet: a bucket count (to record the volume of soil
in each layer), a munsell colour reading (for wet and dry soil), a choice of soil texture (varying
ranges of sand to loam to clay), soil inclusions and disturbances, as well as a description and
observation space. Also recorded on the layer sheet was the depth readings of each corner and
centre of the unit, and the point provenience readings of special finds, such as carbon clusters.
This was done with a line and sprit level that remains secured to the datum point, which was
rolled out for depth measurements within the unit. The record sheet (see appendix) is modelled
after a recording sheet used by Dr. A. Antonites.
Once the above recordings were taken for the layer, the excavator collected a flotation and soil
sample from the centre of the layer. The flotation sample was taken from the centre, going into
the layer, filling half a bucket for a flotation sample; this equals a 10 litre sample for each layer.
All the material that was contained in the soil was collected with the soil and bagged for
flotation. The flotation sample was double bagged, with a label placed inside and outside of each
bag. Flotation allows for the recovery of small material, such as beads, carbonized seeds, and
charcoal (Drewett 1999:101-102). Small material is at times lost through the sieving process
due to the mesh size and coarseness of the sieving action; however, through the flotation
process a sample of what would have been lost through the sieving process is retrieved.
Following the flotation sample a soil sample was taken. Soil samples can be used for future
analysis, such as for pollen or chemical studies (Drewett 1999:103-104). A metal mug was used
to collect the sample, and was cleaned prior to every collection of a soil sample to avoid
contamination from the previously collected sample. Lastly soil from the centre of the layer was
collected to identify the soil colour by using a munsell colour chart (the soil colour was
identified when wet and dry). A characterisation of sediment texture was then conducted, by
74
squeezing and working a small, wetted sample of the sediment (Banning 2002:236). The
categories are, as categorised by Banning (2002:236-237):
Sand- sand has larger particle sizes, and the lack of finer material to hold it together
makes it very loose, especially when it is dry, so that it is impossible to squeeze it into
a ball.
Silt- silt has a smaller particle size than sand, so that individual grains are not visible
except under magnification. Although it can be somewhat gritty, it feels much
smoother or silkier than sand when rubbed between your fingers.
Clay- clay has an extremely small particle size. Its main characteristic is that it is
sticky and plastic when wet, but dries into hard lumps that have shrinkage cracks
running through them.
Sandy loam- This is sandy sediment that contains enough clay and silt to make it hold
together, rather than falling apart.
Loam- consisting of roughly 40% sand, 40% silt, and 20% clay, loam is only a little
gritty, and is more plastic than sandy loam.
Silty loam- this is a mixture of at least 50% silt and sand, and 12 to 25% clay that
feels somewhat silky and forms clods when dried out. The clods break into soft,
floury powder.
Clay Loam- with roughly equal parts sand and clay, clay loam is a fine-grained
material that is plastic and cohesive when wet, but makes hard clods when dry.
The soil colour and texture are used to compare and differentiate between different layers and
excavation units, as well as providing interpretative information on the behavioural context of
the layer or excavation unit. The above procedures were applied consistently throughout the
excavation process as quantitative comparison among samples holds more validity when the
samples are similar in context, recovery method, and sample size (Reitz and Wing 2008:157).
Following the above collection of samples, excavation then began. A layer was closed once a
change in soil texture and/or colour was identified and/or if there was a change in the density
of material culture. Once a layer was closed, the recording sheet was completed and a plan of
the surface soil and material (if there is anything to note) was done. Then the process would
repeat itself for the next layer, starting with the elevation readings, etc. This process continued
until sterile soil was reached, and all records, photographic, illustrative and written were
completed. Once all work and records were completed, the unit was back-filled.
The number of buckets, containing the excavated soil, for each layer was marked off prior to the
sieving for material culture; this was done to keep a track of the volume of soil excavated per
layer/unit. A sieve station was set-up keeping in mind the following considerations: ease of
access and distance from unit (in order to prevent dust from settling in the unit and to reduce
75
backfilling time), and photography (so that the sieve station is not within the background of the
unit shot) (Drewett 1999:104). Two sieves were used; a sieve with a mesh diameter of 20mm
and another with a finer mesh diameter of 2mm. While smaller material could be lost due to the
mesh size; this bias should be corrected and addressed through the flotation samples which will
provide a sample of the micro material found in each layer. Once the material was sieved, it was
sorted on-site. The material culture was then bagged and labelled. The sorted excavated
material culture was taken to the Archaeology Laboratory on South Campus at University of
Pretoria for analysis and final storage.
4.7. Method of Analysis
All laboratory procedures were undertaken at the Archaeology Laboratory on South Campus at
University of Pretoria. All the material was analysed by me, with advice and instruction sought
from experts in each respective field. Below is a discussion on the various methods applied on
the varying material for analysis.
4.7.1. Faunal material
Prior to the analysis of the faunal remains, sources were consulted in order to establish an idea
of which species were/are24 found in the research area. The sources used for this purpose were
Chittenden (2007), Du Plessis (1969), Rautenbach (1982), Skinner and Chimimba (2005),
Smithers (2002), Stuart & Stuart (1995), and Walker (1996). However, if a species not located in
the region is identified in the faunal collection, it could be due to a number of noteworthy
reasons, such as trade and exchange networks or could signify cultural importance (e.g. Plug
199325). After the list was compiled, the sorting of the faunal remains began.
4.7.1.1. Sorting of Specimens
24 Bearing in mind, that past animal distribution patterns could be somewhat different to what present
sources record (Plug & Badenhorst 2001).
25 Plug (1993) demonstrates this at Abbot’s Cave, a LSA site, where she identified a single specimen of
blue duiker, a species unsuitable to the Karoo environment due to its particular requirements for forest
or dense scrub. The occurrence of this specimen, led Plug (1993) to suggest that this antelope may have
significance to LSA hunter-gatherers.
76
The faunal remains were analysed one layer at a time, unit by unit, to avoid any confusion or
mixing of the material. The initial process begins with the sorting of the material into two
categories: non-identifiable and identifiable. The non-identifiable category denotes faunal
fragments that cannot be identified to species, genus, family, or size class (Plug 2014:10). These
fragments are then further sorted into the following categories: enamel, skull, vertebra, rib,
bone flakes, and miscellaneous skeletal fragments. During the sorting process it is necessary to
take note of any fragments that could be from the same specimen, i.e. pieces that fit together
forming a single specimen, as this would affect the number of identified specimens (NISP) count
(the advantages and disadvantages of this method when used for quantification purposes are
discussed later in this chapter).
A faunal assemblage undergoes various processes before it is collected as an archaeological

sample; these processes are related to human as well as non-human action on the assemblage. It
is vital to consider these processes, prior and after the discard and burial of the specimens,
when analysing the material (Reitz & Wing 2008:117). Therefore, each fragment of each
category was examined for modifications, cut and chop marks, rodent and carnivore gnawing,
traces of burning, and weathering (see below). Lastly, each category and layer of unidentifiable
fragments was weighed (measured in grams). The reason for the categorising, noting of
modifications, and weighing of non-identifiable fragments is manifold. Non-identifiable
fragments, while unable to provide data for a species list, can be used to understand disposal
habits, activity areas, butchery, cooking and preparation methods, and even social organisation
(Reitz & Wing 2008:213).
Each layer was recorded separately on a printed recording sheet. The recording sheet for non-
identifiable and identifiable faunal specimens was adapted from the work of Dr. Annie
Antonites. All meta-data, such as excavation date, as well as unit, section and layer details, was
recorded on the sheet and on a label that was attached to the non-identifiable faunal bag for that
layer.
Identifiable fragments are faunal remains that are possibly identifiable to species, genus, family,
or size class (Plug 2014:10). All specimens were marked with a catalogue number (ex
TOL/LEB/F01) which is linked to the meta-data for the specimen (further description of
catalogue system below). The identifiable fragments were weighed and counted; each fragment
that does not fit with another fragment receives its own faunal number. If there was more than
one faunal fragment from the same specimen, the fragments were given one faunal number,
counted as one specimen, and bagged together. The following characteristics were recorded for
77
each identifiable faunal fragment: the species, genus, family or size class, the skeletal part and
side (left or right), if the specimen was worked, the portion of the fragment, traces of burning,
cut and chop marks, carnivore and rodent gnawing, weathering, and measurements. In the
following section I will describe each of these characteristics further.
4.7.1.2. Analysis of identifiable faunal specimens
The identification of faunal specimens was based on morphological features such as the shape,
density, texture, and curvature of the specimen. The placement and extent of features, such as
vascular grooves and nutrient foramens, also aids in the identification process. The Archaeology
Department at University of Pretoria has a basic comparative faunal collection. This
comparative collection was used for initial identification, mainly that of skeletal part followed
by bovid versus non-bovid classification. The next step verifies or readjusts the initial
identifications. This is done through access to Ditsong National Museum of Natural History’s
(Pretoria) comparative faunal collection. A collection that contains (excepting a few smaller
animals) the majority of fauna found in southern Africa (Badenhorst 2008:1). The majority of
specimens are then identified to species, genus, or family. If they cannot be identified they were
noted as non-identifiable and transferred to the non-identifiable bag for that layer. All
information regarding the transferred specimen (such as weight and NISP) was then added to
the un-identifiable specimens’ data for that layer. Below follows a discussion on the attributes of
faunal analysis, the identification of specimens, and the identification of taphonomic features.
Taphonomy is the study of the “natural and cultural processes that affect bones from the time
the animal is killed to its excavation and analysis by archaeologists” (Antonites 2014:164).
These attributes could reveal consumption, depositional, and social practices of the past
community at Lebenya.
4.7.1.3. Size class
With bovid identification, when species identification cannot be attained, then size class and
domestic versus non-domestic identifications are sought. Bovid size classes are used according
to Brain (1974), Table 4.1 shows the differing bovid size classes, the expected range of mass for
that class and a selection of species found in the different size class (after Antonites 2014:168).
78
Table 4.1 Bovid size classes
Size class Species

Bov I (small bovids) Blue duiker (Philantomba monticola)
0 – 23kg / 0 – 50lbs. Red duiker (Cephalophus natalensis)
Common duiker (Sylvicapra grimmia)
Damara dik-dik (Madoqua damarensis)
Oribi (Ourebia ourebi)
Steenbok (Raphicerus campestris)
Cape grysbok (Raphicerus melanotis)
Sharpe’s grysbok (Raphicerus sharpei)
Klipspringer (Oreotragus oreotragus)
Suni (Neotragus moschatus)
Bov II (medium bovids) Bushbuck (Tragelaphus scriptus)

23 – 84kg / 50 – 185lbs. Bontebok/Blesbok (Damaliscus pygargus)
Southern reedbuck (Redunca arundinum)
Mountain reedbuck (Redunca fulvorufula)
Puku (Kobus vardonii)
Grey rhebok (Pelea capreolus)
Springbok (Antidorcas marsupialis)
Impala (Aepyceros melampus)
Sheep (Ovis aries)
Goat (Capra hircus)
Bov III (large bovids) Greater kudu (Tragelaphus strepsiceros)

84 – 296kg / 185 – 650lbs. Nyala (Tragelaphus angasii)
Sitatunga (Tragelaphus spekii)
Black wildebeest (Connochaetes gnou)
Blue wildebeest (Connochaetes taurinus)
Lichtenstein’s hartebeest (Alcelaphus lichtensteinii)
Red hartebeest (Alcelaphus buselaphus)
Tsessebe (Damaliscus lunatus)
Roan (Hippotragus equinus)
Sable (Hippotragus niger)
Gemsbok (Oryx gazelle)
Waterbuck (Kobus ellipsiprymnus)
Lechwe (Kobus leche)
Cattle (Bos taurus)
Bov IV (very large bovids) Buffalo (Syncerus caffer)

>296kg / >650lbs. Eland (Tragelaphus oryx)
Size classes for carnivores and birds are classified as small, medium, large. Birds are classed as
small (sparrow-sized), medium (chicken-sized), and large (eagle- or stork-sized). Carnivores are
classed as small (mongoose-sized), medium (caracal-sized), and large (Leopard-size). I
identified all teeth according to Hillson (2005).
4.7.1.4. Worked specimens
79
This category refers specifically to faunal specimens which were modified to be a tool,
ornament, or other use. For instance, horn, mollusc shells, and some turtle shells may serve as a
container of sorts (Reitz & Wing 2008:133). Worked faunal specimens could or may have a
polished surface, while the original shape has been modified to some extent. Trampling of the
faunal specimens by livestock or humans, could mimic the characteristics of a worked bone
(Plug 1988:58, Lyman 2008:139). However, marks from trampling are usually randomly placed
superficial scratches (Lyman 2008:139).
4.7.1.5. Diagnostic zones
In describing the portion of the skeletal part I use Dobney and Rielly’s (1988) method of
‘diagnostic zones’. This method is based on the division of intact bones into diagnostic zones,
from which fragments can be attributed. Each zone of a skeletal part is assigned a numerical
code and is defined by a precise anatomical description (Dobney & Rielly 1988:81). This allows
for the accurate record of each fragment which does not rely on “subjective estimation of the
portion of whole bone which is represented in that fragment” (Dobney and Rielly 1988: 80). All
zones present in a fragment were recorded. Incomplete zones were recorded as more, or less,
than half present. This method also allows for the more precise recording of taphonomic
features, such as gnawing or butchery.
4.7.1.6. Burnt specimens
There have been several studies which have considered the effects of natural versus cultural
burning on bones (see Asmussen 2009 for a summary of previous research on varying aspects
of the topic). Burnt bone can be associated with cremations, culinary activities, waste disposal,
fuel use, and as a by-product of naturally occurring fires (Bennett 1999:1).
Burning of a faunal specimen is the result of excessive heat (Lyman 2008:275), due to this
different stages of burning can be identified. Brain (1981:55) compiled three stages in regards
to the burning of faunal specimens, stage 1 (unburnt), stage 2 (carbonized), and stage 3
80
(calcined) 26. The descending order marks a rise in the effect of heat on the bone. These stages
relate to the proximity of the bone to heat and the temperature of the heat source. However,
there are other post-burial variables that can replicate or contribute to such an assemblage, and
surface colour is not suggested as a sole identifier of fire temperature (Bennet 1999:7). Bones
burned in a post-burial setting are characterised by continuous surface colour, negligible
fracturing and warping (Bennet 1999:7). Therefore, a more holistic approach is necessitated. It
is necessary to have an awareness and understanding of the relation between taphonomic
features of a bone. This allows for a better understanding of the natural and cultural processes
contributing to the collection.
4.7.1.7. Butchered specimens
Cut and chop marks were noted for their depth and number, specifically if they were shallow or
deep and whether single or multiple marks occur. It is necessary to differentiate between the
depth and numbers of marks as these reflect different butchering techniques. Shallow, narrow
incised lines on bone fragments were classified as cut marks. They are likely caused during
skinning or when the flesh is removed from the bones before or after cooking (Plug 1988:56).
While a deep, and often broad, non-symmetrical ‘V-shape’ mark was caused by a chop. This
occurs when a carcass was dismembered, or during the chopping of joints to make smaller
portions (Plug 1988:56).
4.7.1.8. Gnawed specimens
Two broad categories of gnawing are noted: rodent and carnivore. Rodent and carnivore
gnawing differ in appearance. Rodents leave characteristic parallel grooves that are closely
spaced and flat bottomed. These marks are often found along the edge of a specimen but can
also occur over the entire surface of the bone (Reitz & Wing 2008:135). Carnivore gnawing
produces furrows and punctures on the bone, but can also leave irregular marks, such as
striations, pits, and ragged/chipped edges (Fisher 1995:36). Rodent and carnivore gnawing are
26Within the faunal collection the colour designation for burnt fragments also contains brown and grey
fragments, which reflect a range between the stages. The colours are abbreviated to BR (Brown), BL
(Black), W (White) and G (Grey). The diagnostic zone within which the burning occurs is also noted with
the colour.
81
recorded separately, with the occurrence of single or multiple marks noted to indicate the
extent of the damage. Rodent and carnivore gnawing could reflect disposal habits because
specimens that were gnawed by non-humans probably were not buried promptly after use
(Reitz & Wing 2008:136). Gnawing also affects faunal numbers and later identification of
specimens (Plug 1988:17).
4.7.1.9. Weathered specimens
Weathering is a process, in which bone is altered by physical and chemical agents while in-situ
either on the surface or within a soil matrix (Behrensmeyer 1978:153). The extent of
weathering increases from light, as seen by slight cracks on the surface, to severe, such as in-situ
specimen flaking apart. The degree of weathering noted on a faunal specimen could provide an
estimate of the relative length of time an assemblage remained exposed prior to burial
(Behrensmeyer 1978:161). The rate however varies depending on the regional, local, and
micro-environmental conditions, as well as the amount of moisture and shade, as and the
degree of fluctuation between temperatures seasonally and diurnally in a region (Behrensmeyer
1978:159). However, a factor affecting the rate and identification of weathering are human
activities such as the burning and boiling of bones, which could alter the bone surfaces,
mimicking weathering (Fisher 1995:32). Nonetheless, a combination of weathering and
gnawing provides information on depositional practices (Orton 2012:324).
4.7.1.10. Pathology, Ageing, Sexing and Measurements
Pathology, as well as the ageing and sexing of the animals are components of faunal analysis not
undertaken in this research project. This is due to the expertise and experience needed for such
analysis. However, juvenile specimens were noted and measurements were taken when
possible. Measurements of specimens were taken according to the standard points of measure
described by Von den Driesch (1976). After identification, all recorded data for the faunal
collection was transferred to an excel table for quantification.
4.7.1.11. NISP and MNI
82
The primary data acquired from the physical examination of each specimen was used to create
secondary data which contributes to an understanding of butchering patterns, disposal habits,
dietary contributions, and procurement strategies (Reitz & Wing, 2008:153). The secondary
data was derived from the primary data collection, and involves specified mathematical
relations between fundamental measurements (Lyman 1994:37). Two of the fundamental forms
of quantification in faunal analysis are NISP (Number of Identified Specimens) and MNI
(Minimum number of Individuals). NISP is an observational unit, whereas MNI is a derived unit.
NISP is the basic number of fragments within a category, while the MNI count considers
attributes of individual variation, such as age and sex (Lyman 1994:38).
There is some debate in regards to which method should be used (see Lyman 2008 for a
synthesis of the debate). There are a number of advantages to the NISP method. Once the data is
represented in a species list the NISP count provides an immediate idea of the relative
frequency of various species. It is also easy to incorporate further data, such as additional NISP
counts (Plug 1988:74). However, the NISP method does not allow for skeletal complexity;
therefore, species with more skeletal elements will be overrepresented while those with fewer
skeletal elements will be underrepresented (Plug 1988:74). For instance an animal with 180
skeletal elements could contribute more bones to a collection than an animal with 80 bones.
Therefore, a NISP from this collection could reflect skeletal complexity over relative frequency
of a species. This is also a problem with regards to the overrepresentation of certain species by
skeletal elements which are identifiable even when fragmented (Plug 1988:74). For example, a
fragmented mollusc shell is more identifiable, compared to fragmented mammal long bone.
Lastly, the NISP method assumes that all specimens are uniformly affected by the varying
causes of fragmentation within a sample. This assumption is incorrect, as the specimens are
disposed of in varying states (for example a cooked bone would deteriorate faster than a non-
cooked bone) and various skeletal elements preserve differently (for example a carapace
fragment would deteriorate at a different rate than a tibia fragment) (Grayson 1984:21).
MNI, as with NISP, can be used to reflect taxonomic abundance (Lyman 2008:41). MNI is a count
of the most commonly occurring kind of skeletal specimen of a taxon in a collection (Lyman
2008:39). For instance, if the most commonly occurring skeletal specimen for Taxon A is a left
tibia, the sum of these parts then equals the MNI for taxon A. The MNI method can also be
further refined by taking age and sex of the animals into consideration (Plug 1988:77). For
instance if the most abundant skeletal part for taxon B are femurs, then five right adult femurs
and one right juvenile femur equals an MNI of six for taxon B. This method reduces the effects of
butchering fragmentation and specimen interdependence in a faunal sample (Plug 1988:77). A
83
MNI count27 is given in the table for species taxa, in order to give an alternative measure of
species frequency.
However, the MNI method while solving some of the problems with the NISP method also has its
own shortcomings (see Lyman 2008). Whenever new data is added to an existing sample, the
MNI count has to be recalculated (Plug 1988:78). MNI counts represent less accurate and more
inconsistent estimates of species abundance than other methods (Gilbert et al. 1981 cited in
Plug 1988:78). The MNI method relies on the way in which faunal material from a site is
divided, and different approaches would alter the minimum numbers (Grayson 1984:29). For
example, MNI will differ depending on whether it was calculated according to excavated layer or
to unit. The smaller the sample and NISP numbers, the more likely the number of individuals
will be exaggerated (Plug 1988:78). Due to these reasons, I primarily used NISP counts for
quantification.
4.7.2. Ceramic Material
Initial sorting of the material was conducted in order to separate the diagnostic items from the
general mass of items. Diagnostic attributes are attributes that are used to identify ceramic
classes and styles. Diagnostic attributes form the basis of a typology. A typology is when vessels
are grouped together on the basis of similar features and a single example is illustrated which
thereby represents all the others (Orton, et al 1993:153). To create types that were standard to
the expected ceramic style occurring at Lebenya background research was conducted on the
ceramic types known to occur in the research region (as discussed in chapter 2). I began the
creation of my typology by an investigation of other typologies for the region. The ceramic
typology was formed by drawing on various sources, mainly Hall’s (1998) typology for late
Moloko ceramics, Huffman’s (2007) typology for late Moloko ceramics, Anderson’s (2009)
ceramic typology for Marothodi, and the Prehistoric Ceramics Research Group (2010) guide to
the study of prehistoric pottery. Lastly, for the appraisal and defining of petrographic
characteristics of late Moloko ceramics the work of Rosenstein (2008) was consulted.
A typology allows for the classification of vessels based on observable morphological traits.
These traits may indicate stylistic, functional, or technological dimensions of a vessel, which
27The variables considered for this count, was age (juvenile or adult), skeletal part and portion
(diagnostic zones and left versus right parts). Sex was not a variable as this was not easily identified in the
sample. The MNI count was worked out per layer.
84
may be interrelated. The stylistic traits of a vessel are not restricted to decorative attributes, but
rather attributes that do not have considerable effects on a vessel’s utilitarian functionality
(Banning 2002:162). The functional traits are those that affect the usefulness of a vessel for
various tasks, such as for containment, transport, distribution, and temperature control
(Banning 2002:161). Technological traits are those which reveal the process of manufacture
and modification of a vessel (Banning 2002:162). These attributes – stylistic, functional and
technological- of a vessel may inform on the chronological, spatial, social, economic, and
ideological aspects of an archaeological investigation (Banning 2002:162).
The items recorded during the ceramic analysis were: number of vessel sherds28, if the vessel
had been modified after production, vessel type, rim type, diameter of rim orifice, and the extent
of the rim sherd, surface treatment and placement, decoration type and placement, and if there
were any attachments to the vessel form, such as a lug.
4.7.2.1. The sorting of the material
The initial step in ceramic analysis was the sorting of the material into diagnostic and non-
diagnostic categories. Non-diagnostic refers to material which the researcher is unable to utilise
in the analysis of key variables within the ceramic collection. The key variables for this project
being rim profile and decoration. If a ceramic sherd was a rim piece or was decorated it was
classified as diagnostic.
The material was sorted into diagnostic and non-diagnostic sherds, and were weighed and
counted separately according to each layer. Exceptions in the sorting process were sherds with
black soot; these were bagged separately and were not cleaned. These ceramic pieces were not
analysed for this master’s project, but might be used in future analysis of organic residue in
ceramic ware.
Each ceramic sherd which did not fit with another ceramic sherd received its own vessel
number. If more than one sherd of a vessel was found, the sherds were bagged together, but
were recorded as one vessel, with the number of sherds per vessel noted.
28Sherds can be fragments of one vessel, or multiple. By noting similar profiles, some sherds can be
refitted to form a part of, or complete, vessel. Therefore, the number of vessel sherds refers to the
observed number of such sherds belonging to one vessel.
85
The non-diagnostic sherds while not used for the identification of significant variables,
contributes to the total count of material, which was significant for quantification purposes. The
non-diagnostic sherds were also surveyed for fragments which have a distinct sparkle, an effect
of the inclusion of Mica in the ceramic (Rosenstein 2008:29). These fragments were tallied per
layer. This was done because the inclusion of Mica is an attribute of a ceramic type found in the
surrounding region (Rosenstein 2008).
Diagnostic ceramic sherds were analysed according to a set of variables. An excel spreadsheet
was used for the recording of variables within the diagnostic-ceramic collection. All significant
or characteristic finds were illustrated and photographed (discussed further later in chapter).
At times it was not possible to classify some or a majority of these variables due to the nature of
the ceramic fragments, such as size and condition of the fragment. If this occurred I did not
record the variables of the vessel due to the uncertainty regarding the accuracy of such data.
4.5.2.1. Vessel Portion
The vessel was divided into different parts (as shown in Figure 4.9), these parts were used to
record the location of surface treatment and decoration. The different parts were given a key,
labelled 1-4 (as listed below). A fragment that can’t be identified to vessel portion was labelled
as 5.
Figure 4.9 Vessel portions
4.7.2.2. Vessel form
86
Figure 4.10 Vessel forms
Two general categories of vessel forms were referred to in the literature (Anderson 2009; Hall
1998a; Huffman 2007), these were jar and bowl. Anderson’s (2009) vessel forms were adopted
for this analysis. The jar and bowl are broad categories, with variation within the categories; the
variation is noted as sub-categories. A jar is a necked vessel, vessel with a restricted orifice, with
its height greater than its maximum diameter (Rice 2005:216). A bowl is a vessel, which may
have a restricted orifice or not (depending if it is a necked vessel), with its height varying from a
87
third of its maximum diameter to equal height and maximum diameter measurements (Rice
2005:216). The sub categories for jars are smooth necked, short necked, and straight necked.
The sub categories for bowls are necked (a restricted vessel) and straight open (an unrestricted
vessel). Figure 4.10 depicts the vessel form and its key (1A-2B).
4.7.2.3. Modification
Modified ceramics are those which have been intentionally altered in order to serve a new
purpose, such as the re-use of ceramic sherds for spindle whorls (Prehistoric Ceramics Research
Group 2010:35). Examples of modified ceramic sherds occur at Buffelshoek (Loubser 1985:82)
and Marothodi (Anderson 2009). Loubser (1985:82) records potsherds (as well as faunal
specimens) with abraded edges and suggests they were used as a skinning tool. This variable, in
connection with other variables, could provide data on activity areas, contributing to the spatial
understanding of the site. These were recorded and noted for illustration.
4.7.2.4. Rim types, diameter of orifice and rim extent
Rim sherds were used to provide information on vessel shape, and yet can be useful for more
than just vessel shape analysis. Rim sherds can also provide information on the size of a vessel
(Rice 1987:222). This can be done “by fitting the curve of a rim sherd to a standard diameter-
measurement template, marked off in centimetre units, [so] one can calculate the diameter
orifice” (Rice 1987:223). The diameter of the rim orifice was done on a 0-40cm rim chart;
however, in cases where N/A (not applicable) was stated it was due to either the ceramic sherd
not being a rim sherd or the rim being uneven, making it difficult to establish the precise
orientation and diameter of the sherd. The extent of the rim is also a variable which affects the
accuracy and identifying of the rim type and orifice, due to this, rim fragments less than 1cm
were not analysed. The rim types ranged from flattened, rounded, and tapered, as depicted in
Figure 4.11.
88
Figure 4.11 Rim types
Rim type and diameter can reflect functional attributes of pottery, as shown in Henrickson &
Mcdonald’s (1983) work. Morphological attributes, such as shape and rim type, were used to
identify functional classes. For instance, long-term dry storage vessels were found to almost all
“have rolled-over or […] everted rims, possibly to facilitate tying a pliable cover over the
opening for protection against insects and dirt” (Henrickson & Mcdonald 1983:632). The rim
diameter differs based on the function, i.e. cooking pots have a rim diameter range of 12.7 to
56cm, with a mean of 24.1 cm (Henrickson & Mcdonald 1983:631).
4.7.2.5. Surface treatment and placement
The kind and location of treatment on the vessel is significant, as it can be used to understand
vessel function as well as intra-site status (Prehistoric Ceramics Research Group 2010:33). The
treatment types are smoothing, burnishing, and slips. Smoothing and burnishing are two
techniques which slightly alter the vessel surface, they involve the rubbing of the vessel surface
with a tool while the vessel is hard or dry, prior to firing (Banning 2002:174). The techniques
differ in that smoothing is done less aggressively and leaves the surface matte, while burnishing
often done on a slip, results in a hard, reflective and less porous surface (Banning 2002:174). A
slip is “a thin layer of fine clay adhering to the surface of a vessel and fired with it” (Banning
2002:175). A slip can vary in colour and may be used for decorative effect. The placement of the
surface treatment is recorded according to vessel portions.
4.7.2.6. Decoration type and placement
The placement of the decoration was recorded according to vessel portions. The late Moloko
ceramic groups show less style complexity than pre 18TH century CE Moloko ceramic groups
(Fredriksen 2007:130). Decoration on the ceramics within the Lebenya collection is expected to
89
be minimal. Decoration, according to Rice (1987:144) is the “embellishment of a vessel beyond
the procedures used in forming the clay mass into the final vessel shape and finishing its overall
surface”. These embellishments are formed by certain techniques; expected decoration
techniques are stamping, incision and possibly punctuation.
Stamping is when a tool (i.e. comb) is used as a die to impress a repeated pattern of identical
motifs (Rice 1987:145). The individual marks from the teeth of the comb range from square-like
to rectangular. The size of the individual tooth mark also varies, as well as the spacing between
the tooth marks.
Incision is when lines are cut into the surface of a vessel with a pointed implement (Rice
1987:146). The width, length and depth of each incision vary. Engraving is a variation of
incision, if the clay is dry or fired and incisions are made this is termed engraving (Balfet et al
cited in Rice 1987:146). Lastly, the term rim notching occurs often in the literature on ceramics
for this region and context (Anderson 2009; Boeyens 2003; Huffman 2007).
Punctation is when a tool is used to punch depressions into wet clay; the tool is usually a
pointed instrument of some kind, such as a hollow reed or even a fingernail (Rice 2005:145).
4.7.2.7. Attachments
Attachments are an added aspect to the ceramic vessel, such as lugs or handles. These aspects
can contribute to a better understanding of the possible function the vessel served, such as the
vessel being a water container (Prehistoric Ceramics Research Group 2010:19). Any
attachments to the ceramic vessel were noted.
4.7.3. Other material
All other material, such as beads, lithics, metal, and unidentified ceramic objects were cleaned,
recorded, and catalogued.
4.7.4. Flotation and soil samples
90
These samples were collected for future use, as they do not form an aspect of this master’s
dissertation due to time and resource constraints. The process of collecting flotation and soil
samples is described in the excavation sector of this chapter. Flotation involves the recovering
of small material, specifically carbonized seeds and charcoal (Drewett 1999:101). This is done
through a flotation unit. Drewett (1999:102) describes the process:
The flotation unit consists of a tank of water with soil held in a 1 mm mesh in the top
of the tank. Water is pumped through the soil, breaking it up and releasing organic
materials like seeds and charcoal. This light fraction flows over the lip of the tank to
be collected in a nest of sieves. The water is then either passed through resettling
tanks for recycling, or discarded if mains water is used.
Items normally lost through sieving, such as beads, seeds, and small mammal faunal material
can be recovered through flotation, or at least a sample for each layer can be recovered. This
corrects the bias created by the use of sieves with larger mesh sizes, providing a more
representative sample. Boeyens (2003:67) highlights the possible implications of mesh size in
the retrieval of small material, specifically beads less than a 1mm in diameter. As he explains a
large number of glass beads were recovered from one site, while from other sites of the same
context there were no glass beads retrieved (Boeyens 2003:67). Therefore, is this an accurate
representation of bead distribution at these different sites or is it a sampling error (such as that
caused by differences in mesh size during the sieving process)? Answers to such questions lie in
flotation samples.
The following level of recovery is the retrieving of material not generally visible to the eye. This
is done through soil samples, with samples analysed under laboratory conditions. This is how
pollen is recovered, whereby it is identified and counted under a microscope (Drewett
1999:102).
4.7.5. Carbon samples
The point-provienced carbon samples which are extracted from the excavation units were
placed in foil bags, with special care taken to prevent contamination of the samples. Only
samples large enough for future radio-carbon dating were collected. Radiocarbon dating does
not fall into the scope of this master’s dissertation, due to financial constraints. The samples
were catalogued and stored.
91
4.8. Photographs and illustrations
All photographic imagery for this research was captured using a Nikon D90 SLR camera,
utilizing appropriate lenses in order to create a sharp image without distortion. All images were
captured in RAW format at the appropriate exposure with an appropriate scale, in order to
maintain as close as possible an accurate replication of the artefacts. All artefact illustrations
were initially sketched, and then digitised on inkscape.
4.9. Curation and Storage
All research was conducted according to ASAPA (Association of South African Professional
Archaeologists), standards and regulations. All necessary permits were acquired through
SAHRA. University of Pretoria are the custodians of archaeological material collected from the
site, until otherwise stated. The collection, termed Tolaniesfontein Archaeological Project, is
stored in the University of Pretoria archaeological collection. The collection was cleaned
(according to the material specifics), catalogued, labelled, and packaged. The collection was
catalogued under Tolaniesfontein Archaeological Project/ Lebenya- abbreviated to TOL/LEB.
The catalogue numbers follow the project and site description, these catalogue numbers refer to
the material (indicated by a C for Ceramic, F for fauna, and B for Beads) with non-diagnostic
material acquiring one catalogue number per excavated layer, while each specimen of
diagnostic material receives its own catalogue number. The catalogue information was written
individually onto the diagnostic material. This was done using a dilution Paraloid B-72 in
acetone as a base for the markings on the material. B-72 was used as it is reversible; therefore,
the material can be restored to its original state. The markings were made using a calligraphy
pen (the finer the tip the better, to prevent blotching while labelling) and white ink. The
material was then bagged and labelled. The material was bagged in zip-lock bags, with a label
containing the catalogue number and meta-data. The label was placed at the bottom of the zip
lock bag, and then was sealed using a plastic sealer, the material is then added and zip-locked.
This method prevents the label from becoming unreadable due to wear and tear, and also allows
for easy access to bag data. The meta-data contained on the label was: catalogue number,
project name, period at which material was excavated, site, section of site, excavation unit, layer
and material description as well as whether diagnostic or non-diagnostic material. The material
was stored according to material type and in unit/layer order.
92
4.10. Discussion
In the following chapters the results of this methodology will be presented. The following data is
divided into two chapters: the spatial interpretation of Lebenya, and the excavation data which
includes the analysis of the excavated material culture.
93
Chapter 5 Spatial Data
5.1. Overview
‘Space acted as a canvas upon which cultural activity left traces’

(Wheatley & Gillings 2002:5).
This chapter presents the data acquired from the survey and mapping of the site. The data is
compared to other sources (as reviewed in chapters two and three) in order to possibly
understand the social organisation and daily life of the past community settled at the site. The
site is then discussed in relation to the regional typologies for SWS.
5.2. Survey and mapping results
The settlement is located on a hill top with an elevation of 1394m at the southern part of the
hill, with the elevation decreasing to the north of the ridge to 1383m above sea level. Lebenya
covers an area of 5.67 hectares roughly, whereas Molokwane covers 156 hectares (Steyn
2011:122); this is demonstrative of the size difference between a small-scaled site and a mega-
site.
The settlement, particularly when viewed from aerial images, is divided into three clusters of
stone walling situated on a hilltop. The clusters have therefore been termed sections A, B and C.
Section A was further divided into A1, A2, and A3, for reasons discussed in chapter 3. The
sections represent enclosed entities, except between section A & B; across these sections a low
lying wall (now degraded) extends from the exterior western wall of B to the exterior western
wall of A. An exterior survey of the settlement revealed, just to the west of section A (less than
500m from the settlement), a cluster of three circular stone-walled structures. These were most
likely outlook enclosures or related to the grazing of livestock. No other sites related to the
stone wall settlement were found on the farm.
94
Figure 5.1 The clusters of walling divided into sections
Figure 5.1 indicates the division of the settlement into sections. Section A is located in the south,
section B in the centre, and section C in the north of the settlement. Furthermore, within section
A: A1 is located in the south easterly part, A2 in the south westerly part, and A3 in the northern
part. The settlement is elevated around the southern section, specifically along the east side of
section A, while the elevation decreases to the north. Section B is elevated along the west side,
but reaches its most elevated specifically in the southwest corner. Section C varies in elevation,
only by a metre, along a northwest to southeast line, where the western section is slightly more
elevated than the eastern section. The site is located near the non-perennial Tholwane (also
spelt Thulane or Tolanie) stream, with the stream parallel to section A. A stream of the Elands
River also occurs to the east of the settlement. All the streams in the vicinity are located 1 km or
less from the settlement, see Figure 5.2.
95
Figure 5.2 The location of streams found around the settlement
Throughout, the site surface material culture was recorded, such as the foundation of grain bins,
upper and lower grindstones, fragments of sliding door features, and ceramic and lithic clusters.
Figure 5.3 and Figure 5.4 depicts the general surface material culture features. No hut structures
were identified from the survey.
Lastly, the walling throughout the site has suffered from collapses in the structure; this could be
a result of game on the farm, as animals over time contribute to the collapse and destruction of
stone walls. This has had repercussions on the identifying of entrances and openings within the
different walled structures and enclosures.
Figure 5.5 (see QR code 1) is the complete map of the site. For better accessibility of images I
have created QR codes, as well as hyperlinks, which links the reader to an online high resolution
PDF version of the image. This allows the viewer to zoom in on features, as well as to access,
view, and store the image. The QR codes and their hyperlinks are available in the appendix.
96
Figure 5.3 Sliding door fragment
Figure 5.4 Lower grind stone
97
Figure 5.5 Map of the site
98
5.2.1. Features of section A
Figure 5.6 Features of section A
99
Section A is the largest unit and is therefore divided into three sections: section A1, A2, and A3.
Section A has clusters of walling within the boundary area. This suggests the marking of
household units, as discussed earlier in chapter three. Households would be identified by a
shared area, where courtyard walls would attach to the courtyard walls of relatives. Working on
this assumption, I identified possibly five clusters of related households, termed HU (meaning a
unit of related households). These were identified based on the sectioning of the boundary area,
where a dividing wall would enclose a number of bays, which represents a HU. The features of
section A are depicted in Figure 5.6 (see QR code 3). Section A3 is nearly a separate entity to the
rest of section A, it is only possibly connected to section A2 by two walls29. Therefore, I will
discuss section A1 & A2 as one entity and A3 as another.
5.2.2. Section A1 & A2
The boundary wall is scalloped, with entrances and/or exits found on the west side and south
side of the section. Prominent walling (termed PW) occurs in section A2 and at section A1. The
prominent walling occurs in two places, the south and west of section A. The prominent walling
to the south of section A appears along the boundary wall adjacent from the quarry area. The
prominent walling demarcates a likely entrance (as the walling naturally rounds along the edge
and is smooth along the surface) suggesting it did not attach to the walling on the other side, as
shown in Figure 5.8. The prominent walling to the west is part of an enclosure, within this
enclosure there is a platform. The enclosure is near a natural opening in the boundary wall
(suggesting this was an entrance). Therefore it is possible that this was a space used for the
welcoming of guests, due to its location near a possible entrance, the prominence of the walling,
and the platform feature. From the above discussion, it seems likely that the prominent walling
in section A1 & A2 is likely associated with entranceways and entry spaces, where prominent
walling would suggest a sense of status and authority to those entering the settlement.
The boundary wall has many features beyond scallops. Attached to the boundary walls on the
southwestern part of section A2 are enclosed walled areas, termed ES (enclosed space) as the
space is enclosed by low walling. The enclosed spaces are on a declining slope, providing a
panoramic view of the surrounding landscape (as shown in Figure 5.7).
29It is likely that the walls were cleared for the construction of the road, specifically where the road
(termed R on the map) crosses from the boundary walling into the settlement , due to the amount of stone
rubble lying near the road and wall.
100
Figure 5.7 Enclosed space, panoramic view looking south of section A2
Along the southeast boundary wall another unique feature is found. Attached to the boundary
wall is another single wall leading out to the plains. It is possible that this was used as a cattle
drive, termed CD (Cattle Drive), though it is also likely that it was used as a livestock barrier,
preventing livestock access to crops or gardens A possible entryway for livestock (termed LE-
Livestock Entrance/Exit) is found on the eastern side of the settlement, adjacent from the
possible cattle drive. The cattle drive would have been used to drive cattle in and out of the
settlement, with two possible routes available for the driving of cattle into the central
enclosures of the section A. To the west, through a series of low walls in section A1 across a
midden deposit into the central enclosures. The other is to the north, a more direct route to the
central enclosures.
The central area is ringed by a c-shape of linked enclosures and walling with two densities of
enclosures (one at each end of the c-shape). The intervening space is not as clear as in the other
sections, and is somewhat enclosed in these sections. No small circular features were found
attached to the central enclosures; nonetheless, two small circular features, 1m in diameter,
were found within another enclosed space in the boundary area, termed SCF (small circular
feature). In the central enclosure area of section A2 a semi-circular parallel double line of stones
occurs (another occurs in the northern section of A2). These double parallel semi-circular lines
of stone could be the foundation for thatch screens, creating a more secluded space. The one
attached to the central enclosure area of section A2 is likely to be part of the kgotla area, due to
it being situated centrally, in close proximity to the central enclosures, and in a private secluded
space..
101
Figure 5.8 The prominent walling located in section A1, also possibly an entrance
Five middens were identified. One midden was found in the intervening space (on one of the
possible routes the cattle would have been driven through to the central enclosure), three were
near or behind a wall of a central enclosure, and the other was located in an enclosed area
associated with bays. One of the middens in section A1, located between the wall of a central
enclosure and a boundary with prominent walling, is where excavation unit 3 was placed.
Lastly, in section A1, near the southeast section of the boundary wall, there is an area to which
access is restricted, termed RS (Restricted Space). This is an area that has a zigzag path, lined by
stones, that leads into a narrowly enclosed space, with natural boulders within this space. The
function of this space is unidentified, though the structure seems to indicate a secluded area.
Just south of this restricted space (which is found along the boundary wall), outside of the walls
of the settlement is the quarry area30 (Figure 5.9).
30It seems to have been an area of quarry; a quarry used possibly as a source for the stone used for the
construction of the settlement. Furthermore, a similar 5m depression was found outside of the
Klipriviersberg 18/69 site, which is also suggested to be a quarry area for the materials used in the
building of the settlement (Mason 1986:577).
102
Figure 5.9 Image of quarry area, note the depth of the quarry (middle bottom area of image).
Adjacent to the quarry area, a gong rock can be found. The gong rock is situated on the edge of
the slope just before the slope declines. It is unknown if the gong rock was utilised31 by the
inhabitants of the settlement, as another stone-walled homestead occurs just 700m south
(located on the neighbouring farm) of this point (as mentioned in chapter two, and shown in
Figure 2.7).
5.2.3. Section A3
The boundary wall is scalloped. This piece connects section A to B, with a wall extending from
the north of section A to the south of section B. From the western boundary wall, another
possible cattle drive extends to the veldt. Two entrances occur in section A3, one in the north
and the other in the west of the section. These entrances are marked by natural openings in the
boundary wall with no or little rubble found near these openings. A dividing wall from the
central enclosure to the boundary wall occurs in two places, creating two separate household
units in this section (and enclosing the intervening space in the southeast section of the unit).
Four middens and an ash deposit were identified in section A3. One of the midden deposits
found in the intervening space (north of the central enclosures) is where excavation unit 1 was
31A gong rock when tapped with another object makes a loud hollow sound. It cannot be known if it was
utilised, unless documented by a historical or ethnographic observers, which I have yet to come upon.
103
placed. The middens were found in the intervening spaces, and a possible midden deposit
(marked on map as PM) is located behind the east boundary wall. An ash deposit was also found
in an enclosed space linked to the central enclosures, but with no material culture found on the
surface. In the enclosed space containing this ash deposit is a stone platform. This enclosed
space is surrounded by midden deposits (to the east, west, and south). It is likely that this
enclosed space was a part of the kgotla; this is further substantiated by its relation to the largest
livestock enclosure in the settlement, as shown in Figure 5.15. The livestock enclosure also has
prominent walling along the south wall of the enclosure. A double parallel line of stones is
linked to the central enclosures: this feature was possibly used as a foundation for a fence,
providing privacy to the attached central enclosures. Near to this are multiple small circular
features, less than a 1m in diameter, on each side of the walling, with another three small
circular features attached to the northwest central enclosure, as shown in Figure 5.10 .
Figure 5.10 Small circular features section A3, attached to circular enclosure wall
5.2.4. Section B
The boundary wall of this section is predominantly scalloped, as shown in Figure 5.11 (see QR
code 4). The intervening space is enclosed by walls, which link the boundary wall to the central
circular enclosures. Attached to the southern boundary wall are walls that stretch out into the
veldt. These walls were most likely used as cattle drives. No middens were found just outside
the boundary walls. Four middens were found in section B: one in the north, one in the
northeast, one in the southeast, and one in the southwest. The midden deposit located in the
north seems to be a domestic midden associated with HU9. The midden deposit located
northeast could be related to the domestic activities of HU12, but it is also likely to be associated
with the central enclosures, as it was the only midden deposit found attached to central
104
enclosure walling. The southeast midden could also be associated with the central enclosures,
but could also be a communal domestic midden due to the size of the deposit and its proximity
to several household units. The southwest midden deposit is found outside the walls of the
central enclosure located in the western part, it is likely that HU8 contributed to this midden
deposit. It is possible that the middens located in the southern part of section B were communal
midden deposits since no individual household midden deposits were found in the vicinity. The
largest midden, the one in the southeast part of the unit, was where excavation unit 2 was
placed.
Figure 5.11 Features of section B
105
The walling along the southwest boundary wall is higher and neater than the rest of the walling
in this section. There was a soil mound (marked as MO on the map) in the southern section, in
the intervening space between the boundary wall and circular enclosures. Foundation stones of
a possible hut were only identified in one bay; this was the bay adjacent to the soil mound. The
bay adjacent from the mound also displays prominent walling, and to the west, within the
household unit, was a clear entrance that is now blocked by stones. Another blocked entrance
occurs in HU8, in the southern part. Within this household unit there is an enclosed space
(termed ES on the map) along the western boundary, and a circular enclosure attached to this
boundary wall. Within this enclosed space are bays, two of which have higher soil levels
(termed SH on the map) than the surrounding bays. The central space associated with the
western space (HU8 and HU7) is different from the central enclosures found within the rest of
section B and the settlement.
There is a high occurrence of natural boulders within the central space, which restricts
movement into the enclosure. There are a number of low walls in this area; these could be used
to demarcate the channels of movement, or could be foundations used for fencing in order to
privatise this area. Attached to the central enclosures, located within the midden deposit, are
three small circular features, each 1m in diameter. Another small circular feature, less than 1m
in diameter, is found along a wall in the intervening space, connecting the boundary wall to the
central circular enclosures in the northeast part of the section; this feature is unique to unit B, as
depicted in Figure 5.12.
Figure 5.12 Small circular feature section B
106
The soil level is generally higher (termed SH on the map) in the vicinity of HU6, with the
exception of the central enclosure adjacent to HU6. This enclosure has a markedly different soil
level to HU7, and slightly less so to HU6, which is 1.4m below the soil level of HU7 (marked on
the map with the term SL). This is mostly32 due to the slope of the landscape, as the western
central space also slopes down to the north quite significantly. Another area that slopes
significantly is the northern part of HU12, where another entryway into the settlement is
located. Upright stones, most likely hut foundations, were found in the southeast section in
HU12.
The eastern central enclosure part of section B has many features that suggest it is was used as a
Kgotla. The stone platforms were found in the eastern central enclosure part of section B; a
feature commonly associated with high status areas and the kgotla (Anderson 2009: Chapter V,
Eastern occupational unit, para. 2). A singular line of stones parallel to a stone wall occurs in the
central space of the eastern part of section B, in the near vicinity of the other stone platforms;
this central space also has a line of upright stones, possibly used as a foundation for fencing. A
low wall provides access into the enclosures to the east of this central space. The one enclosure
has prominent walling (marked PW on the map) that is built neater and higher than the rest of
the enclosure walling, with an ashy surface deposit with no surface material culture located
within this enclosure. The enclosure adjacent to this has a surface dung deposit. Figure 5.13
depicts the main livestock enclosure in section B. This livestock enclosure is one of the largest
enclosures in the settlement (the other is a livestock enclosure in section A3).
Figure 5.13 Panoramic view of livestock enclosure section B
32The other factor for different soil levels, especially in livestock enclosures, is the due to the removal of
dung in the enclosure, which alters the soil levels in the enclosures.
107
The enclosure adjacent to this (to the south west of the enclosure) has prominent walling, with
both these enclosures associated with the central space. The enclosures attached or connected
to this central space are likely to be part of the Kgotla, with different structures used for
different aspects of the space, such as a space for private versus public council.
5.2.5. Section C
The boundary wall is scalloped, with a clear intervening unenclosed space between the
boundary and central enclosures see Figure 5.14 (see QR code 5). The intervening unenclosed
space narrows to the north of the unit, where it eventually becomes an enclosed space
connected to the circular enclosures and boundary wall. There are a series of walls along the
northern part of the unit; these would have channelled movement into the homestead.
Therefore, it is likely that this area was an entrance with two channels, one to the east and one
to the west. The whole homestead has been classified as one set of related households, due to
the lack of divided spaces. There is an opening to the southeast of the section, across from the
platform area.
A midden was found inside an enclosed space in the northern part of the unit, and another in an
enclosed space in the central enclosure area of section C. Attached to the end of the bay wall in
the northern part of the unit is a small, 1m in diameter, circular feature. A core soil sample was
taken within this enclosure (ash soil and ceramic fragments were found in the sample). The
majority of the midden deposit is retained behind a wall, but there is a leakage of midden
deposit west of the wall into the intervening unenclosed space. Excavation unit 4 was placed in
this midden. Both midden deposits are unique features of section C; unique in that the midden
deposits were enclosed by walling.
Foundation stones of a possible hut were only identified in one bay in the northwest part of the
section. The soil level was consistent, with the bays and intervening unenclosed spaces around
the same level. In the intervening space on the eastern side of the unit attached to one of the
central enclosures is a stone platform. The enclosure seems to have had an opening, close to
where the stone platform attaches to the enclosure, which was blocked at some stage. Opposite
the blocked entrance is a low line of stones; this could have been used as a foundation for a
fence, blocking any view into the enclosed area. The walls were highest and neatest along this
enclosure and the other south connecting central enclosures. This area with the prominent
walling is likely to be the Kgotla area, with the midden deposit possibly the refuse of the Kgotla.
108
Figure 5.14 Features of section C
5.2.6. A comparison of enclosures throughout the site
As discussed previously, the central enclosures are areas within the centre of the settlement
that are enclosed by walling, usually in a circular form; they are generally associated with
109
livestock but could also be associated with the Kgotla. Figure 5.15 (see QR code 2) displays the
general size classes of the enclosures within the settlement.
Figure 5.15 Map with size classes of central enclosures
110
The large central enclosures are predominantly situated to the east side of each section. The
largest central enclosures occur in section B and in section A3. The differing sizes of the central
enclosures could be reflective of the different livestock kept within the settlement; generally,
the large enclosures (16m or more in diameter) were used for cattle, the medium ones (10-15m
in diameter) for calves and cattle, and the small ones (specifically those with a diameter of less
than 4m) for sheep and/or goats (Pistorius 1992:61).
Some central enclosures can be identified as livestock enclosures, as the soil level in some
central enclosures is lower than that surrounding the enclosure. This feature is caused by the
repeated removal of dung over some time, resulting in a lower soil surface level. Dung was a
source of fuel, but was also utilised for the decoration and surfaces of huts and floors, amongst
other uses (Pistorius 1992:61).
The kgotla, as discussed previously in this chapter, is the male gathering area. It is commonly
identified by its proximity to a central enclosure. Another aspect to consider in its identification
is the height of the walls and the creation of secluded spaces. While the height of the walls might
be a symbolic feature it is also functional, it alludes to the private and exclusive nature of the
affairs conducted within this space (Pistorius 1992:23). Another feature associated with these
secluded spaces is a lintel entrance, which also restricts entry into the space, but none were
found at the settlement. A lintel entrance could have occurred originally, but due to the common
collapses in the present walling it was not possible to identify such a feature. In the following
section I will discuss the features of the HU.
5.3. Settlement features
The features found within the different sections can be suggestive of how space was utilised
and/or cultural meaning (such as status and rank), while in other instances it remains a riddle. I
shall discuss these features in relation to the site and the possible group who inhabited the
settlement.
5.3.1. Features linked to rank and status
The prevalent idea of status and rank expressed in a Tswana settlement is through elevation,
whereby elevated positions within the settlement would have been reserved for people of
111
status (Huffman 1986b:301; Pistorius 1996:151). Therefore, elevation and position of
households can be seen as an index of rank throughout the settlement. Within section A the
elevation is equally high in HU3 (section A2), HU1 (section A1), and HU5 (section A3), while the
lowest elevation is HU2 (also section A2). In section B the HU6, HU7, and HU8 are situated on
the highest elevations and match the elevation range of HU2 (in section A2). The northern and
north eastern parts are the lowest elevated areas of section B. Section C has the lowest elevation
within the settlement, and is even lower in elevation than the north and north eastern parts of
section B. Some of the largest bays occur in HU1 (section A1), while one large bay occurs in HU5
(section A3), and HU3 (section A2). The largest bays in section B, are comparable to those of
section A, and are found in HU6, HU10, HU11, and HU12 (the eastern part of section B). The
largest bays of section C (comparable in size to both section A and B) are the first three located
in the north west of the homestead and another two in the south east of the homestead. The
largest livestock enclosures occur in section B and A3. With the most prominent features
associated with rank and status (such as platforms, and prominent walling) found within
section B, A3, and A1. Lastly, the walls termed as cattle drives are also associated with these
parts of the settlement, with the majority of this type of walling attached to section B.
Not only can an index of rank be seen through the elevation and position of households, but also
on a larger scale, where sections of a settlement can be ranked. By applying the threefold
division, discussed earlier in this chapter (Schapera 1953), ideas regarding rank and status can
be further discussed. According to this division, the centre is the high status section, in which
the chief or headman resides, and the section to the west/up of the centre retains individuals of
higher rank than the section to the east/lower of the centre (Schapera 1953:47).
The chronology of the establishment of each section of the settlement is not definitively known,
but there are various hypotheses. Each section of the settlement could be a subsequent
construction, for instance if a new headman required the building of a new homestead (as
discussed earlier in this chapter). Another hypothesis is that the sections were constructed and
lived in contemporaneously. It seems likely that section A and B were contemporaneous, due to
the low/degraded wall that links the two sections. However, section C differs in spatial features
from section A and B. This could be due to reasons of chronology. The outer walling of section C
is low, which could suggest that the stones from section C’s walling were pillaged for the
construction of the rest of the settlement. However, if section C is contemporaneous to the other
sections of the settlement this difference could be explained by the threefold division.
The elevation of each section in relation to the threefold division is comparable, whereby the
section which is slightly elevated to the centre is associated with higher ranking individuals,
112
while the section which is a lower elevation to the centre is of junior or less ranked individuals.
This then would suggest that section B is the centre section, where the individual and household
with the highest status and rank stayed. This is supported by the spatial data, the elevation is
highest amongst the household units located east of section B (HU6, HU10, HU11, and HU12),
and it is likely that the chief or headman of the settlements stayed in one of these household
units. Furthermore, this is where the largest bays are located and the households are located
near a large livestock enclosure and kgotla (see Figure 5.15), a space associated with the
headman or chief of the settlement. Section A, especially section A3, would be where other
households of high status would be situated; this is corroborated by the ranking of household
units according to elevation and position within the settlement. This is further substantiated by
the large livestock enclosure and kgotla, with prominent walling (see discussion on section A3
features), in this section. According to the threefold division, then Section C would be the
homestead of lower status households within the settlement, this is corroborated by the ranking
of household units according to elevation and position within the settlement. This suggests that
section C was the home of an immigrant ‘less ranked’ community that were assimilated into the
settlement. This could account for section C’s size, less distinguishable walling, and unique
features.
5.3.2. Comparison of settlement features
As mentioned previously, the occurrence of enigmatic features has value in itself. The
occurrence of these features at varying sites allows for a comparative discussion on these
features across various sites. Shared features can be culturally, socially, or politically important
and can allude to the dynamics of intra-regional relations.
The cattle drive feature, connected to the boundary walls of section B and A, is not commonly
seen in other settlements in the region. A similar feature occurs at Olifantspoort 20/71, where
instead of a single walled cattle drive there are two double walled cattle drives (Mason
1986:358). Outside of the ZPR region, a comparable feature is seen at the Klipriviersberg 18/69
site (Mason 1986:563). However, Mason (1986:577) does not identify the wall as cattle drive;
he sees it simply as an extension of the boundary wall. The feature is a single wall extending
from the boundary wall of the settlement to the veldt, the same as those which appear at
Lebenya. Another feature that occurs at Lebenya, which is not common in the region, is the
occurrence of small circular features. Small circular features, less than a metre in diameter,
appear throughout the settlement in different forms: attached within a small enclosure (section
113
A2), attached to central enclosures both near midden deposits (section A3 and section B), or
attached to a dividing wall running from boundary wall to central enclosure (section B), and
attached to the end of a bay wall, with the circular feature filled with midden deposit (section C).
The small circular feature in section C was unique from the others in form and function; it was
part of the bay wall and was of the same height as the boundary wall, it also was positioned in
the entrance way into the bay and a possible entranceway into section C. These small circular
features, except that of section C, are found at Group III type sites (those of Taylor’s 1979
classification system, as discussed in chapter two), one of which is Klipriviersberg 18/69. The
possible link between the inhabitants of Olifantspoort 20/71, Klipriviersberg 18/69, and
Lebenya is discussed further in this chapter and in chapter seven.
The enclosed (walled) midden deposit in section C is also a distinctive feature, not commonly
seen in other settlements in the region. However, this type of feature has been described at
Marothodi. At Marothodi type of midden deposit was associated with the court, kgotla
(Anderson 2009: Chapter VI, The court midden, para.1). Another similar feature, found at
Marothodi, is the location of large midden deposits in front of domestic areas, abutting the
central enclosure walls, the same location of a majority of midden deposits found at Lebenya
(see Figure 5.5). It is assumed that these large middens are the product of many households;
therefore, were communal midden deposits (Anderson 2009: Chapter VI, Midden 1, para. 1).
The location of large midden deposits in an area of public view and movement may be due to
anxieties about the disposal of intimate ash (Huffman & Steel 1996:54). As discussed in chapter
three, the southern African agro-pastoralists share a similar worldview, a worldview accounting
for two forms of misfortune, causal agents and impersonal behaviour. A causal agent is
witchcraft. The concern over witchcraft manifests in various forms, in this instance the location
of a midden in public view. This concern about witches stealing ash and utilising it against
individuals in the community becomes manifest in the public location of midden deposits
(Raum 1973:146 & 152). As Raum33 (1973:146) states:
A stranger must certainly not tamper with a homestead’s ash. He would be got hold
of; there would be a case against him. For ash is used in maleficent magic against its
owner… [the ash heap] must be kept under constant observation.
33Raum (1973) studied the social functions of avoidances and taboos among the Zulu, so the above
statement is representative of Zulu’ beliefs, but as discussed in chapter three, the Sotho-Tswana and the
Nguni- under which the Zulu fall- share a common worldview; therefore, share similar avoidance and
taboo ideas, to a degree.
114
Therefore, ash was a potentially hazardous substance and it could be dangerous to dispose of in
an unwatched space, such as outside the settlement (Anderson 2009: Chapter V, Western
occupational unit, para.5). A concern regarding witches utilising intimate items, such as hair or
nail clippings, and utilising it against the individuals from whom it came is noted in the
worldview of southern African agro-pastoralists (Hammond-Tooke 1974:339). Nonetheless,
there is a difference in emphasis between the Nguni and Sotho-Tswana communities, whereby
the Sotho-Tswana communities while believing in ancestral and witch causation, are less likely
to socially mobilise in action to this concern (Hammond-Tooke 1981:21). For example, the
placement of middens outside of the settlement occurs at Molokwane, a Kwena settlement
(Pistorius 1992:18), and suggests that the Kwena did not view their ash as a hazardous
substance34 that needed to be monitored. This difference in midden placement and the
occurrence of midden deposits within a walled enclosure at Marothodi, led Anderson (2009:
Chapter V, Western occupational unit, para.5) to suggest that these are features that depict the
Nguni roots of the Tlokwa who inhabited Marothodi. This necessitates further analysis of
middens for the understanding of group identity in the region, a concern to be further
developed in the following chapter.
5.3.3. Classifying the site
Regional typologies for stone wall structures have been discussed in chapter two. The
classification of sites into one or more of these typologies has not commonly been done for SWS
found in the North West Province. This is rather regrettable, as stone-walled sites in the North
West province show similar architectural trends and settlement patterns as those recorded in
Vredefort dome and Suikerbosrand Nature reserve (Sadr & Rodier 2012:1039). In the following
section I consider Taylor’s and Sadr’s comprehensive settlement typology in classifying
Lebenya.
The stone wall structures found at Lebenya, based on the wall features and spatial layout, either
belong to Group II or III, depending on which section of Lebenya is focussed upon. The following
figures (Figure 5.16, Figure 5.17, and Figure 5.18) depict the settlement plans of Taylor’s Group
I, II and III sites alongside Lebenya. Examples of known sites classified as Group II are
Kaditshwene and Molokwane (Sadr & Rodier 2012:1040). Examples of known sites classified as
34 As mentioned in chapter three, the Sotho-Tswana had a slightly different view to ash (it was viewed as
a ‘cooling’ rather than ‘maleficent’ agent).
115
Group III sites are Waterval 11/65, Klipriviersberg 5/65, and 18/69, and Buffelshoek CD 5 and
CD6 (Sadr & Rodier 2012:1040, and for a full account of sites listed in each group see Sadr &
Rodier 2012).
Figure 5.16 Group I site alongside Lebenya (after Maggs 1976b)
Both Group II and III sites date to the 17th to the 19th century CE, and are distributed north of the
Vaal river, from Gauteng to Zeerust (Huffman 2007:32 & 38). The Group II walling occurs
mainly north of this stretch, past the Limpopo River into Botswana, while the Group III walling
occurs mainly to the south of this stretch (Huffman 2007:32). Lebenya falls within the shared
distribution area. This could be another reason why characteristics of Group II and III features
are apparent at one site. As sites of both Groups occur in this area, it is likely that communities
interacted and adopted varying features in a socio-political environment of assimilation (as
discussed in chapter two). However, this is what Taylor (1979:107) suggested occurred for
116
Group III sites, that these sites were the product of interaction between different communities
sharing the Vredefort dome area.
Figure 5.17 Group II sites alongside Lebenya (after Boeyens 2000, Maggs 1976b, Mason 1968, Pistorius 1992)
117
Figure 5.18 Group III sites alongside Lebenya (after Loubser 1985, Mason 1968, Taylor 1979)
The different sections of the settlement have different pronounced features. Section C differs
from the rest of the settlement in the intervening unenclosed space between the boundary and
livestock enclosures, with the livestock enclosures clustered centrally. Section A and B share
118
similar features, such as the single walls extending from the exterior boundary to the veldt and
the enclosed intervening spaces. Furthermore, sections A2 and A3 have a dense cluster of
enclosures and embayments, with the livestock enclosures not located centrally but rather to
the east side of section A2, forming a c-shape ring of enclosures (similar to that seen at
Doornspruit type settlements). Features found in section A and B, the dividing walls from
boundary to central area, the attachment of small circular features to the inner enclosures and
along a dividing wall, and the singular wall attached to the boundary to the veldt, are
characteristics of Group III sites.
5.4. Discussion
The data acquired from the survey and the mapping of the site allowed for a spatial analysis of
the settlement. The spatial analysis was linked to the ethnographic and historical data, chapter
two and three, in order to understand the social organisation and daily life of the past
community settled at the site. The role of relative elevation and positioning within a settlement
allowed for the ranking of household units as well as sections within the settlement. The site
was also analysed according to regional stone wall classifications.
In the following section I will discuss the excavations conducted at Lebenya and the material
collected from this activity. The spatial data and the excavation data will then be combined in an
interpretation of the site in chapter seven.
119
Chapter 6 Excavation Data
6.1. Overview
This is the second data chapter, and it focuses on the excavation and the excavated material. In
this chapter, I discuss the data collected through the excavation processes, as well as the results
of fauna and ceramic analysis collected through this process. The results from this chapter are
then discussed in relation to the spatial results collected during the mapping process (chapter
five).
6.2. The Excavation
As discussed in chapter four, the objective for the excavation was to excavate an area with high
material culture potential in order to gain insight into the socio-political dynamics of the past
community. Therefore, ashy soil deposits with a concentration of surface material were key
areas for excavation, as these deposits represent potential midden areas. From these deposits a
selection of coring samples were taken, as to acquire an understanding of the extent and depth
of the deposit.
From the site survey and core sampling a selection of potential midden deposits were identified.
From this selection, four areas were selected for excavation. Three other high potential areas
were identified through coring, but due to the restraint on time and resources, these areas were
not excavated. An excavation unit was placed in each section, with two excavation units placed
in section A (due to the size of this section). All excavation units were 2m x 2m, except for unit 4
which was a 2m x 1m (due to the size of the enclosure in which the excavation unit was located).
Excavation unit 1 was placed in section A3, unit 2 in section B, unit 3 in section A1, and unit 4 in
section C. A datum was set-up near each excavation unit, datum I (S 25.62378˚, E 26.63018˚)
near unit 1, datum II (S 25.62274˚, E 26.63057˚) near unit 2, datum III (S 25.62560˚, E
26.63043˚) near unit 3, and datum IV (S 25.62132˚, E 26.63016˚) near unit 4. Figure 6.1 depicts
the excavation units and datum points.
120
Figure 6.1 Location of excavation units, units highlighted by colour, purple is unit 1, blue is unit 2, green is
unit 3, and red is unit 4.
The four excavation areas were chosen due to their proximity to areas of spatial interest, as
discussed in chapter 5. Excavation unit 1, 2, and 3 were placed in the intervening space, the
space between the boundary dwelling and the central enclosures area. The surface deposit in
121
each of these areas varied in size. Excavation unit 2 was placed in the area with the widest ashy
surface deposit, and was clearly a midden deposit. The extent of the ashy surface deposit in
excavation unit 1 and 3 was comparable. At excavation unit 1, a considerable amount of ceramic
fragments were scattered in the vicinity of the excavation unit. Excavation unit 3 did not have a
significant amount of surface material in the area, but was the nearest ashy soil deposit located
to the prominent walling (as described in chapter five). This spatial feature, as discussed in
chapter five, is associated with areas of high status. Therefore, excavation unit 3 was located in
this area in order to substantiate or provide further information on this claim. The area chosen
for excavation in section C was the only area with a surface ashy deposit. Furthermore
excavation unit 4 was unique in its location as it was located in an enclosure. This was a rare
feature at site, as discussed in chapter five, and necessitated further investigation.
6.3. Profiles and stratigraphy
Stratified sequences are formed by a process of deposition and removal, whereby the
stratigraphy enables an understanding of the activity represented in the archaeological record
(MoLAS 1994). As discussed in chapter 4, layers were excavated according to ‘natural layers’,
whereby changes in soil texture and colour as well as a change in the density of material culture,
guided the creation and closing of layers. The following section is divided into a discussion of
each unit’s stratigraphy accompanied by a profile image of the unit. Table 6.1 displays the meta-
data associated with each excavation unit.
Table 6.1 Meta-data for excavation units
Ex. Dates Section Datum Co- Size of unit Depth when

Unit ordinates closed
1 2013/07/15 A3 I S 25.62378, E Started as a2m x 2m Centre: 37cm
26.63018 Closed as a 1m x 1m
2 2013/07/16 B II S 25.62274, E 2m x 2m Centre: 60cm
26.63057
3 2013/07/17 A1 III S 25.62560 E 2m x 2m Centre: 32cm
26.63043
4 2013/07/23 C IV S 25.62132, E 1m x 2m Centre: 47cm
26.63016
6.3.1. Unit 1
Unit 1 is situated in section A3, in an intervening unenclosed space between the boundary wall
and the central circular structures. The surface area had a scatter of ceramic sherds, with a
122
slight depression to the SE of the unit most likely due to animal burrowing activity. After the
initial layer was excavated, the unit was downsized to a 1m x 1m (this being the SE quadrant of
the initial 2m x 2m excavation unit). This was due to the lack of material and ashy deposit found
in the northern part of the unit.
As shown in the profile image (Table 6.2) a homogenous brown soil dominates most of unit 1,
excluding the SE quadrant. Layer one was defined by the predominantly brown soil, and layer
two by the brownish grey soil. Below both layers a compact red soil was reached. Table 6.3 and
Table 6.4 provide further information on the volume of soil removed per layer and the
attributes of each layer.
Figure 6.2 Surface layer (unit 1)
123
Table 6.2 Southern profile image (unit 1)
Table 6.3 Volume of soil removed per layer (Unit 1)
Volume of deposit
Layer 1 615 L
Layer 2 155 L
Total for unit 770 L
Table 6.4 Attributes of each layer (Unit 1)
Soil texture Soil description Disturbances Further details
L1 Light Loam The soil was predominantly brown, Minor insect Unit downsized to
with grey ash pockets in the south- activity and very 1m by 1m
western part of the unit. little vegetation
L2 Light sand A reddish brown layer extends from Minor insect

the SE corner to the centre. Under activity and some
this reddish brown soil, a brownish vegetation.
grey soil was found. A compact
dung pocket occurs, interspersed,
from the southern part to the centre
of the unit.
6.3.2. Unit 2
Unit 2 was situated in section B in an intervening enclosed space between the boundary wall
and the central circular structures. The surface area had scatters of material culture and dung
124
deposit within a large area of greyish brown (ashy) deposit. The unit was located north of a
depression most likely caused by animal burrowing activity (as shown in Figure 6.3). The
profile image (Figure 6.5) depicts the southern wall of the excavation unit. The profile section
depicts the natural layers found in the unit, note localised pockets of deposits are found within
each layer. These pockets of deposits were shallow and/or occurred in parts throughout the
layer.
As shown by the profile image, unit 2 had several deposits most of which slope down to the east
of the unit. The surface deposit, in the area in which the unit was located, also slopes down to
the east, demonstrating the natural lay of the area. The unit had pockets of charcoal deposits for
which provenance readings were taken. The carbon was then extracted (for possible future
radio-carbon dating). The dung deposit, found near the surface and in the middle of the western
quadrant, reoccurred in stages throughout the unit mixed with grey soil. There were also lenses
of dark grey soil and grey soil between deposits of brown and red soil. The unit ends on compact
red soil. Table 6.5 and Table 6.6 provide further information on the volume of soil removed per
layer and the attributes of each layer.
Figure 6.3 Surface layer (unit 2)
125
Figure 6.4 Base of unit 2
Figure 6.5 Southern profile image (unit 2)
126
Table 6.5 Volume of soil removed per layer (unit 2)
Volume of deposit
Layer 1 120 L
Layer 2 126 L
Layer 3 630 L
Layer 4 660 L
Layer 5 & 635 230 L
Table 6.6 Attributes of each layer (unit 2)
Soil Description Disturbances Further details

texture
L1 Light loam Brown soil with pockets of Minor insect Natural dip in
dark grey soil and red soil. activity and north wall of unit,
The red soil occurs around some the area slopes
and between roots. vegetation. down to the NE.
L2 Loam Layer is mottled, with dark Minor insect Increase in
grey soil interspersed with activity and material culture,
red soil patches, and dung some with charcoal
patches. Dark grey soil found vegetation. prominent in dark
predominantly in South & grey soil. Dark grey
West quadrants of unit with soil is softer than
red showing more in the red soil.
North & East quadrants.
L3 Loam Layer is mottled. Varying soil Insect activity Soil softness
colours occur from very dark and some becomes more
greyish brown, to brown and vegetation uniform
red, with an ash pocket in NE throughout unit.
corner of unit. Dark Grey soil
is intermixed with dung
deposit which started at the
SW corner extending and
sloping out to NE corner of
unit. No dung deposit in NE
corner.
L4 Light sand The dung deposit continues Insect activity Large rocks found
through the middle of the and some in NW corner.
layer. Grey soil pockets occur vegetation.
in the SW quadrant, centre
and around the mid-section of
the eastern wall of the unit.
The soil is becoming rocky,
and is predominantly red in
these areas, specifically the
SW corner and along the
northern part of the unit.
L5 Sand Predominantly red soil within Insect activity, The layers were
&6 this layer. Along the northern and some combined, as they
35Layer 6 was a gravelly, red deposit; it was joint with layer 5. This was done as it became apparent that
layer 6 was a less compact deposit continuing from layer 5.
127
part of the unit bedrock is vegetation, seem to be from
reached. Along the southern with an the same natural
part of the unit the soil is increase in layer.
compact and gravelly gravelly
deposit.
6.3.3. Unit 3
Unit 3 was situated in section A1, in an intervening enclosed space between the boundary wall
and the central circular structures. The surface area has scatters of ceramic sherds. The unit is
located east of a depression most likely caused by animal burrowing activity. The profile image
(Figure 6.10 ) depicts the southern wall.
Unit 3 is characterised by a uniform brown deposit extending down from the surface. This is
followed by a grey deposit to the south of the unit and a brownish grey deposit to the north of
the unit. Patches of dung (compact and loose), grey soil, dark grey soil, reddish grey soil, red
soil, and compact dark red soil occur within the unit. In Layer 3 there is a concentration of rocks
that curves from the east wall and appears again from the centre of the southern wall, bordering
layer 436 in the SW corner, see Figure 6.8. Layer 537 occurs in the NE quadrant. The deposit is
light brown bordered by a line of white ash and carbon concentrations (see Figure 6.9). The
surface of layer 6 is marked by a concentration of stones grouped along the western wall and
southern wall of the unit; this stone feature is composed of mainly small stones with three
larger stones found along the western wall of the unit. This stone feature could be the
foundation of a structure or fence (this is further discussed in relation to the material data for
the unit). Table 6.7and Table 6.8 provide further information on the volume of soil removed per
layer and the attributes of each layer.
36 There was a concentration of light grey deposit in the SW quadrant, due to the small volume of deposit
it was decided to sample the whole layer; however, this sample does not form part of the discussion of
this masters.
37 Another small volume of deposit taken out as a separate layer for sample; however, this sample does
not form part of the discussion.
128
Figure 6.6 Area highlighted is the surface of layer 4 (unit 3)
Figure 6.7 Area highlighted is the surface of layer 5 (unit 3)
129
Figure 6.8 Plan of layer 4 and layer 5 in unit 3
Figure 6.9 Plan of NE quadrant showing details of layer 5 (surface), the dark dotted line, is line of charcoal
deposit, and the marked boxes are provienced points.
130
Volume of soil per layer

Layer 1 530 L
Layer 2 340 L
Layer 3 415 L
Layer 4 15 L
Layer 5 3L
Layer 6 220 L
Soil Soil description Disturbances Further details

texture
L1 Light loam The deposit is fine, soft and Little vegetation, with Flecks of carbon through-out
ashy. minor insect activity. unit, very little material
culture.
L2 Light loam Soil still ashy and loose as Little vegetation, with Carbon cluster in NE
in L1, though slightly more minor insect activity. quadrant. Layer slopes down
compact than L1. Patches from east to west.
of red soil, and dung
deposit appear within the
unit.
L3 Light sand Soil remains loose and Increase in rock Continued carbon cluster in
ashy. A compact dung debris in unit, as well NE quadrant. Burnt dung
deposit is revealed in the as insect activity. deposit and carbon coming
NE quadrant. White ashy out of SE corner.
pockets, possibly degraded
dung deposit, as well as a
compact deposit appear in
the SE quadrant.
L4 Light sand Soil in this section of unit is Rocks, and pebbles Layer from deposit in SW
a compact grey deposit, with some vegetation quadrant, L4 is below L3 and
below compact lens, it is on top of L6.
looser and soil becomes
light brown
L5 Light loam Layer was identified in L3. Slight presence of Layer from deposit in NE
A fine white ash and vegetation quadrant. Layer is only a few
carbon-lined border form centimeters deep. L5 sits
131
the boundary of this layer. directly on L3, and has no
association to L6.
L6 Light loam Sterile, gravelly soil. Minor insect activity, Minimal, if any, material
vegetation and rocks culture present. The debris of
of mixed sizes. rocks uncovered in this layer,
reveals a stone feature (as
depicted in the section
drawing).
6.3.4. Unit 4
Unit 4 is situated in section C, in an enclosed walled space connected to the central circular
structures. The surface area was bare of material culture; however, there was an animal burrow
in the area which revealed a significant grey ash deposit below the red surface soil. The
enclosed walled area deposit was also elevated (see Figure 6.11) from the surrounding deposit
in section C, with material culture and ashy deposit seeping from the walls into the intervening
space. The profile image (Figure 6.14) depicts the southern wall. Figure 6.15 depicts the
western profile of the excavation unit; this was included to demonstrate more clearly the
segmented layering of deposit in this unit (to be discussed further). Table 6.9 and Table 6.10
provide further information on the volume of soil removed per layer and the attributes of each
layer.
Figure 6.11 Enclosed midden deposit, note soil is filled to the brim at the west end of the enclosure.
132
Figure 6.12 Suface of layer 2 (unit 4)
Figure 6.13 Base of unit 4
133
Figure 6.15 Western profile image (unit 4)
Volume of soil per layer

Layer 1 110 L
Layer 2 310 L
Layer 3 380 L
Layer 4 186 L
134
Soil Soil description Disturbances Further details

texture
L1 Loam Brown soil, with a layer of Some vegetation. No further details.
compact red soil stretching Animal burrow
from the south of the unit, located south of the
fading to the north and east of unit.
the unit. This compact red soil
is likely soil displaced from
burrowing activity.
L2 Loam Brown soil, with pockets of Minor insect Layer slopes down
red and grey soil. activity, vegetation significantly from west to
and rocks of mixed east.
sizes.
L3 Light loam Soil is softer and mottled. Grey Minor insect Layer slopes down
soil mixed with red soil occurs activity, vegetation significantly from west to
throughout unit. and rocks of mixed east. Notable material
sizes. culture increase in layer.
L4 Light sand Dung deposit found in layer, Minor insect Minimal, if any, material
below dung deposit is activity, vegetation culture and fauna present.
compact gravelly red soil and rocks of mixed
sizes.
6.3.5. Discussion on Units
Unit 2 (at 60cm) followed by unit 4 (at 47cm) are the units excavated to the most depth with
unit 1 and 3 reaching similar depth readings (at 37cm and 32cm respectively). Unit 1 revealed
little variation of stratigraphy and the unit was dominated by a homogenous brown soil; the
unit was downsized due to the lack of ashy deposit and low material culture density. Unit 2
showed lenses and pockets of varying soil deposits as well as containing a high volume of
material culture. Unit 3 displayed variation in deposit with a low density of material culture
excavated from the unit. Unit 3 also had a concentration of rocks (which became apparent in L3)
which seems to have been the base of a structure. Unit 4 differed in placement from the rest of
the middens in that it was the only midden on site that was found in an enclosed walled
structure. Unit 4 displayed alternating layers of ash deposit and red soil (also seen in unit 2),
and contained a high percentage of material culture (relative to deposit removed per unit) in
comparison to Unit 3 and 1. All units were excavated to a compact red sterile soil level.
135
6.4. Excavated material
In this section I will discuss the results of the analysis of the various excavated material. I start
with the faunal material, then ceramics, and then the rest of the material. Lastly, this data is
synthesized in a discussion of the collection.
6.5. Faunal Material
The complete faunal count (NISP and weight) for each unit is given in Table 6.11. The amount of
faunal material is highest in units 2 and 4, and lowest in unit 3. Unit 4 has the least fragmented
material, while Unit 2 has the most fragmented material.
Table 6.11 Complete faunal count
NISP Weight
Unit 1 739 556.8g
Unit 2 5203 2477.6g
Unit 3 445 351.2g
Unit 4 2000 1695.2g
TOTAL 8387 5080.8g
6.5.1. Species representation
The faunal material was sorted into diagnostic and non-diagnostic groups (see Table 6.12). Of
the total amount of fauna recovered per unit (based on NISP) 14% of unit 1’s faunal material
could be identified to species, 9% of unit 2, 19% of unit 3, and 7% of unit 4. The higher
percentage of identifiable fauna in unit 1 and 3 is possibly due to the less fragmented nature of
the material. In total 758 specimens or 9 % of the collection was identifiable to species, genus or
family level.
136
Table 6.12 Diagnostic and non-diagnostic faunal counts
Layer Non-Diagnostic faunal Diagnostic Total faunal

material material count for layer
NISP Weight(g) NISP* Weight(g) NISP Weight (g)
Unit 1 1 254 138.1 24 41.3 278 179.4
2 426 312.2 35 65.2 461 377.4
Unit 2 1 98 50.1 21 5.7 119 55.8

2 211 98.7 57 59.6 268 158.3
3 1853 631.3 207 280.5 2060 911.8
4 2012 743.3 149 254.9 2161 998.2
5&6 560 272.9 35 80.6 595 353.5
Unit 3 1 80 64.1 18 6.5 98 70.6

2 174 94.9 34 27.2 208 122.1
3 108 67.2 31 70.9 139 138.1
6 24 20.4 - - - 20.4
Unit 4 1 31 3.6 13 143 174 146.6

2 201 100 58 84.6 259 184.6
3 1315 550.5 58 564.9 1373 1115.4
4 176 82.2 18 166.4 194 248.6
*Including shell fragments
See Table 6.13 for a full list of species identified in the collection. I will use the common English
names of the various species when discussing them in this text, for their scientific names please
refer to the table of species [taxa names follow those presented in Skinner & Chimimba (2005)].
A variety of species were identified, most of which are currently found in the region38. The site is
slightly outside the distribution region of red hartebeest, blesbok, and suricate. However, their
current distribution area is not distant enough to substantiate that the specimens were brought
or traded into the settlement. The specimen identified as either impala or springbok is more
likely to be impala, as this species occurs more readily in the environment (see chapter two for a
discussion of the environment), springbok are found further west of the site.
38The regional distribution of species was verified using Badenhorst & Plug (2001) and other sources, as
discussed in chapter four.
137
Table 6.13 Species list, numbers represent NISP count with MNI count in brackets
Taxon (common name) Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 Unit 4 Total

Homo sapiens sapiens (human) - 1 (1) 1 (1) - 2 (2)
Papio hamadryas (chacma baboon) - - - 1 (1) 1 (1)
Herpestidae (surricate/mongoose) - - - 1 (1) 1 (1)
cf. Herpestidae (possible - 2 (1) - 1 (1) 3 (2)
surricate/mongoose)
cf. Galerella sanguine (possible slender - - - 1 (1) 1 (1)
mongoose)
cf. Genetta genetta (possible genet) - 1 (1) - - 1 (1)
Suricata suricatta (suricate/meerkat) - 1 (1) - 1(1) 2 (2)
cf. Felis s. lybica (possible African wild cat) - 4 (1) - - 4 (1)
Felidae small (cat) - - - 1 (1) 1 (1)
Carnivora small (carnivore) - - - 1 (1) 1 (1)
Equus quagga (plains zebra) - 2 (2) - - 2 (2)
Equidae (horse/zebra) - - - 1 (1) 1 (1)
Suidae (pig ) - - - 1 (1) 1 (1)
Bos taurus (cattle) 2 (1) 17 (3) 1 (1) 13 (3) 33 (8)
cf. Bos taurus (possible cattle) - 2 (0) - 2 (0) 4 (0)
Capra hircus (goat) 8 (2) 11 (4) 1 (1) - 20 (7)
Ovis aries (sheep) 6 (1) 12 (4) 5 (3) - 23 (8)
cf. Ovis aries (possible sheep) - - 1 (0) 1 (0) 2 (0)
Ovis/Capra (sheep/goat) 12 (3) 13 (4) 5 (3) 3 (2) 33 (12)
Alcelaphus buselaphus (red hartebeest) - - - 2 (1) 2 (1)
Damaliscus pygargus (blesbok) - 3 (2) 3 (1) 1 (1) 7 (4)
cf. Sylvicapra grimmia (possible common - 1 (1) - - 1 (1)
duiker)
Antidorcas/Aepyceros (springbok/impala) - - 1 (1) - 1 (1)
Bovidae small (Bov. I) - - - 3 (2) 3 (2)
Bovidae medium non-domestic (Bov. II wild) 1 (1) 2 (2) 1 (0) 1 (1) 5 (4)
Bovidae medium indeterminate (Bov. II) 1 (1) 6 (2) 10 (4) 19 (3) 36 (10)
Bovidae large indeterminate (Bov. III) - 15 (4) - 9 (2) 24 (6)
Bovidae indeterminate (bovid) 1 (0) - - - 1 (0)
Hystrix africaeaustralis (porcupine) - - - 1 (1) 1 (1)
Rodentia small (rodent) 1 (1) 9 (3) 6 (2) 10 (5) 26 (11)
Struthio camelus (ostrich eggshell fragments - 3 (0) 1 (0) - 4 (0)
only)
Aves francolin-sized (bird) - 1 (1) - - 1 (1)
Aves medium indeterminate (bird) 1 (1) 2 (1) - - 3 (2)
Serpentes (snake) - - - 3 (1) 3 (1)
Gekkonidae (gecko) - - - 3 (2) 3 (2)
Bufo/ Rana (frog/toad) - - - 5 (2) 5 (2)
Freshwater crab 3 (2) 4 (2) - - 7 (4)
Freshwater bivalve 37 (1) 349 (1) 46 (1) 22 (1) 454 (4)
Cypraea sp. (cowrie shell) - 1 (1) - - 1 (1)
The high number of fresh water bivalve (FWB) fragments is due to the fragmentary nature of
the specimen, and the easier identifiability of a FWB fragment compared to mammal bone. Their
shells also survive much better than vertebrate teeth and bones (Reitz & Wing 2008:203). This
holds true for tortoise carapace as well. The domestic and non-domestic bovidae occur
throughout the units. Domestic stock make up 15% of the identifiable material, while 8% is
indeterminate Bov II and Bov III. Bov II numbers in unit 4 are significantly lower than those
found at the other units. Bov III occurs in each unit, with higher numbers found in unit 2 and 4.
138
6.5.2. Skeletal Part representation
Table 6.14 provides a summary of the bovid skeletal parts identified in the collection. The
highest percentages of skeletal parts are teeth, followed by the same number of ‘skull and
mandible’, and phalanx II parts. Metapodial and phalanx I are also highly represented. The high
representation of phalanx I and II is expected, as there are more phalanges in a single bovid
skeleton compared to other skeletal parts. In addition, these bones generally preserve well due
to their density (Boeyens & Plug 2011:12).
Table 6.14 representation of different sized bovid skeletal parts at the site
Skeletal Part BOV BOV BOV Total Percentage of

I II III BOVID total*
Skull and mandible 1 9 5 15 10.3%
Teeth 0 23 23 46 31.5%
Scapula 0 1 2 3 2.1%
Humerus 0 2 0 2 1.4%
Radius 0 1 2 3 2.1%
Ulna 0 1 1 2 1.4%
Pelvis 0 6 1 7 4.8%
Femur 0 2 2 4 2.7%
Tibia 0 5 3 8 5.5%
Metapodial 0 4 7 11 14.3%
Carpal 0 0 1 1 0.7%
Tarsal 0 0 3 3 2.1%
Sesamoid 0 4 0 4 2.7%
Phalanx I 1 7 3 11 7.5%
Phalanx II 0 10 5 15 10.3%
Phalanx III 0 1 0 1 0.7%
*The percentage at which a part occurs in the total bovid collection, calculated using NISP
Ribs and vertebrae were considered non-diagnostic and therefore are not represented in Table
6.14. The high representation of certain skeletal parts may be due to differing rates of
preservation for skeletal elements (see chapter four for further discussion). However, another
possible reason for this high presence of skull and lower leg/feet bones in the sample is due to
problems with the identification of long bone shaft fragments. Other bones become less
represented because it is easier to identify fragmented metapodial shafts, teeth, and phalanges
(partly due to density, but partly due to size and morphology) than other skeletal parts (see
Marean et al. 2004 for a full discussion). Therefore, a combination of differing preservation
139
rates and a lack of identification of highly fragmented shaft fragments likely affected the skeletal
representation at site level.
However, at a unit specific level the variation between skeletal parts could also be due to
cultural factors (see Reid 2004). The bovid skeletal parts identified per unit are given in Table
6.15. The ethnography points to cultural factors affecting the representation of skeletal parts.
The ethnographic literature suggests that certain meat cuts were preferred over others, and
that certain portions of meat were given according to an individual’s status (Grivetti 1976:361).
For instance, the Tlokwa have historically ascribed cultural significance to the receiving and
giving of meat, whereby the chest of a large wild or domesticated animal would be reserved for
the chief, an individual of high status (Grivetti 1976:361). However, the exact meat portions
given to the chief can differ depending on the context. At certain Tlokwa festivals, for example,
portions of the forelegs are given to the person with the highest status, which could include the
chief (Grivetti 1976:363). While the skeletal parts represented per unit do not, in this case,
reflect such specific preferences, they do reflect some general patterns. Generally, similar
skeletal parts occur at all units. Unit 1 has the least bovid skeletal diversity, and similar to Unit
3, has low BOV III representation. Unit 2 and unit 4 have similar skeletal parts and Bovid classes
represented. The most varied skeletal diversity for BOV II occurs in unit 3, and for BOV III in
unit 2. These patterns once again highlight the difference and similarities between the units. The
higher number of Bov III specimens in unit 2 and 4 could reflect differential wealth at the site.
Especially since cattle are seen as a sign of wealth (see chapter three). However, it could also be
a reflection of size and context, where single household midden deposits would possibly contain
less skeletal diversity of varying bovid classes. A midden deposit where several households
contribute to the deposit would likely contribute higher skeletal diversity of varying bovid
classes.
140
Table 6.15 Bovid skeletal part per unit
*Skeletal part39 Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 Unit 4

BOV BOV BOV BOV BOV BOV BOV BOV BOV BOV BOV BOV
I II III I II III I II III I II III
Skull and - 3 - 1 - 1 - 3 - - 3 4
mandible
Teeth - 3 - - 16 17 - 1 1 - 3 5
Scapula - 1 - - - 1 - - - - - 1
Humerus - - - - 1 - - 1 - - - -
Radius - - - - - 1 - 1 - - - 1
Ulna - - - - - 1 - 1 - - - -
Pelvis - 1 - - - 1 - 4 - - 1 -
Femur - - - - 1 1 - 1 - - - 1
Tibia - - - - 2 - - 1 - - 2 3
Metapodial - 3 1 - 2 8 - 1 - - 2 4
Carpal - - - - - 1 - - - - - -
Tarsal - - - - - 3 - - - - - -
Sesamoid - - - - 1 - - - - - 3 -
Phalanx 1 - 1 1 - - - - 3 - 1 3 2
Phalanx 2 - - - - - 3 - 3 - - 7 2
Phalanx 3 - - - - - - - 1 - - - -
* Calculated using NISP
6.5.3. Taphonomy
Although the non-diagnostic specimens are not identifiable to species or even skeletal part at
times, these specimens still provide useful data on other aspects of the collection. Such data can
inform on the deposition context and activity areas found at the site (see chapter four). Table
6.16 contains the NISP count for each category of the collection. Figure 6.16 depicts the
distribution of weathered, burnt, butchered, and gnawed specimens found within the diagnostic
and non-diagnostic faunal material per unit.
Table 6.16 Taphonomy count for each unit
Weathered Burnt Cut Chop Carnivore Rodent
Unit 1 72 (9.7%) 82 (11.1%) 15 (2%) 15 (2%) 29 (3.9%) 7 (0.9%)

Unit 2 256 (5%) 440 (8.5%) 14 (0.3%) 26 (0.3%) 110 (2.1%) 35 (0.7%)
Unit 3 99 (22%) 115 (26 %) 10 (2.2%) 8 (2.2%) 31 (7%) 14 (3.1%)
Unit 4 244 (12%) 98 (4.9%) 11 (0.6%) 13 (0.6%) 81 (4.1%) 32 (1.6%)
39Note on table: all cf. specimens left out of count, horncore identified to bovid, but no further, tibia
includes calcaneum and talus
141
Frequency of taphonomic features
Unit 4
Rodent
Unit 3 Carnivore
Chop
Unit 2 Cut
Burnt
Weathered
Unit 1
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Figure 6.16 The frequency of taphonomic features across the units (numbers across the horizontal axis are a
percentage of taphonomic feature per unit)
The taphonomic attributes, while presented as distinct categories, should not be seen as such.
Patterns can be better seen by drawing together these different attributes. For instance, high
percentages of weathering and burning, could affect the fragmentation rate and the visibility of
butchery and gnaw marks. Beyond analytical issues, taphonomic patterns can also reveal
cultural information, such as food preparation practices and depositional processes (see Orton
2012). In the following discussion I highlight the taphonomic patterns which contribute to the
understanding of activity areas and cultural practices at the site.
Unit 2 displays a lower percentage of weathered specimens compared to the other units, and
has a low percentage of rodent and carnivore gnawed specimens. This combination implies that
the remains did not remain exposed in the deposit for a lengthy period. The material in the
deposit would have been ‘buried’ by new material or soil quicker than the rate suggested at the
other deposits. This variation could be linked to cultural practices (to be discussed further in
this chapter). Unit 1 has a low percentage of rodent gnawed specimens, which could suggest
that the deposit was not a large or established midden; therefore, not attracting rodents to the
deposit. Another possibility is that the deposit was placed in a high thoroughfare area (of people
and dogs) which would disturb rodents from the deposit. This is possible as the excavation unit
is located in an intervening space (see chapter five for spatial discussion).
142
Burning40 and butchery are the visible modifications of Human action on bone. The frequency
and location of burning, and the presence of butchered41 specimens, can inform on food
preparation and related areas (Orton 2012:323). The high percentage of burnt and butchered
specimens in unit 3 could suggest that this deposit was related to a food preparation area. The
excavation data (as discussed for unit 3) revealed a stone feature in the unit; it is possible that
this feature is related to a cooking structure. Unit 1 also displays these attributes (though not to
same degree as unit 3 in regards to weathered and burnt specimens). The high incidence of
weathered, and possibly the burnt, specimens in unit 3 could be due to the deposit being
exposed, and not covered by subsequent material debris and soil. Unit 2 and 4, have low
percentages for burnt and butchered specimens relative to the other deposits, suggesting that
the debris from these deposits was not primarily related to a food preparation area. Lastly, the
specimens predominantly burnt or butchered across all units were of bovid and FWB type. A
further review on burnt and butchered specimens is discussed shortly (in the ‘dietary and non-
dietary contributors’ section of this chapter).
6.5.4. Modified shell and bone
Out of all the faunal specimens 19 were modified, and seven were possibly modified. Two bird
tibia fragments from unit 2 are in the initial stages of bead manufacture. There is also a
perforated rodent mandible from unit 3 (Figure 6.17). It also has cut marks, suggestive of
skinning. It seems likely that the specimen was worn as a pendant.
The FWB specimens have smoothed edges, and, according to Boeyens & Plug (2011:19), were
probably used to smooth the clay of pots and house walls. The worked FWB specimens all occur
in unit 1 and 2. Modified bone occurs in all units, except for unit 1. Two, and one possibly
worked, BOV III specimens are found in unit 4, two of which are identified as cattle specimens.
The rest of the modified specimens are unidentified and consist mainly of bone flakes and long
bones. Similar specimens are recorded at Molokwane, Boitsemagano, Mabjaamatshwana, and
Buffelshoek (Loubser 1985; Plug & Badenhorst 2006; Pistorius & Plug 2001). The majority of
40 Though burning could be a direct result of food preparation, in a majority of cases the burning is severe
and does not reflect usual cooking practices (Orton 2012:325).
41 However, the lack of butchery marks does not mean an animal was not butchered. Skilled butchers tend
to leave as little marks as possible, as scraping the bone dulls the cutting tool (Orton 2008:282).
143
the specimens are non-formal bone tools, and are arc-shaped and smoothed at the end. Figure
6.18 depicts two of the modified specimens from the collection, note the similarities between
modified bone specimens found at Buffelshoek (Figure 6.19).
Figure 6.17 Perforated rodent mandible from unit 3
Figure 6.18 Modified bone from collection
144
Figure 6.19 Modified bone from Loubser (1985:83).
Figure 6.20 Ochre stained interior of a Tortoise carapace
The tortoise was likely a diet contributor, but it seems as if at least one carapace was re-utilized
as a container. A number of the tortoise carapace fragments were red stained in the interior (see
Figure 6.20) and suggests that the shell was used as an ochre container. Ethnographic records
substantiate such a use, whereby containers are diverse in form and matter (Insoll 2011:158).
6.5.5. Discussion of faunal material
145
The following section brings together the faunal data in a discussion on dietary and non-dietary
contributors. However, variability between different Tswana groups and their food practices
also needs to be acknowledged.
6.5.5.1. Dietary and non-dietary contributors
Tswana populations for this period were nourished with meat and milk from their domestic
stock (Boeyens & Plug 2011; Plug & Badenhorst 2006; Pistorius & Plug 2001), while wild game
supplemented their diet and provided items such as natural clothing, implements, medicines,
ornaments, weapons, charms, and emblems of status (Morton 2013:5). The faunal collection at
Lebenya supports this statement.
Medium-sized bovids (Bov II) are represented at each unit, with higher numbers of larger-sized
bovids (Bov III) found in unit 2 and 4. The majority of butchered specimens in each excavation
unit were bovid with a high percentage of these specimens representing domestic stock. Other
butchered specimens that occur at a majority of the excavation units are freshwater bivalve and
freshwater crab. The occurrence of these specimens demonstrates the utilization of riverine
food sources, even if only seasonally.
Figure 6.21 Chopped (at both ends) FWC pincer
Non-contributors can range from self-introduced specimens to specimens associated with trade,
ornaments, and cultural practice. Taphonomic features may assist the researcher to
differentiate between dietary and non-dietary contributors, as well as self-introduced species at
the site. Self-introduced species are specimens that entered the midden deposit during or after
146
the settlement were occupied, and would not display butchery damage (Scott et al. 2009:55).
This might explain the presence of rodents, amphibians, and lizard at Lebenya. The rodents
occur in all units and are likely42 to be self-introduced (with one exception43). The amphibian
specimens44 occur in unit 4; these could be self-introduced but it is also peculiar that they are
only found within one unit. The lizard is also likely self-introduced.
The isolated human specimens, a juvenile incisor from unit 2 and an adult metacarpal from unit
3, are unlikely to be dietary contributors. It is not uncommon to recover isolated human
specimens from agro-pastoralist sites; these are associated with ritual, healing, or disposal
practices (e.g. Plug & Pistorius 2001:37).
The following discussion focuses on specimens, some of which were dietary contributors, which
were utilised for non-dietary purposes.
6.5.5.2. Hunting, Trade, and Status
The trade of animal products prior to the 19th century CE was not large-scale, as discussed in
chapter two (see Morton 2013b). During this time, the Tswana predominantly hunted for meat,
raiment, ornaments, and status markers for trade at a local-community scale. Grivetti
(1981:356-357) describes organised regimental hunts for communal distribution. These hunts
were conducted under the discretion of the chief and were initiated primarily when food
reserves were low (Grivetti 1981:356-357). The prey species would include a range of
carnivores and large to medium ungulates, including small bovids (Pistorius & Plug 2001:37).
Ostrich eggs, tortoises, and freshwater bivalves were opportunistically collected predominantly
by women and young children on their way to collect water, or to tend the crops (Pistorius &
Plug 2001:37). Grivetti (1981) observed that young boys, while herding the stock outside of the
settlement, would collect and set traps for birds and small game.
42 However, Grivetti (1996:98) mentions that rodents were not totally rejected as food by children at
times, though there is no evidence to suggest this of the rodent specimens found at Lebenya.
43 The modified rodent mandible, as discussed in modified bone section.
44 Though the amphibian specimens have been suggested as self introduced, they may be associated with
non-dietary practices. As noted by Grivetti (1996:98), amphibians are significant in Tlokwa folklore.
However, how this significance is interpreted in daily practiceand whether the group inhabiting Lebenya
shared this tradition is unknown.
147
Freshwater bivalves, tortoises and ostrich eggshell are found in the faunal collection. Tortoise
carapace fragments, and ostrich eggshell fragments45 were found, but no skeletal remains of
either were identified at the site. Both the carapace and the eggshell were used beyond dietary
concerns, the carapace as a container (discussed under modified bone section) and the ostrich
eggshell fragments as beads.
Many of the wild animals hunted, were also prized for their skins, some of which were the
preserve of royalty (Boeyens & Plug 2011:1). Skins, and other animal by-products, attained
from hunting signified status and authority in the pre 19th century CE of the Tswana in the ZPR
region. In the Lebenya collection, the African wild cat specimen suggests such a purpose. There
are cut marks on the phalanx II pieces of a likely African wild cat. The location of these marks,
suggest that the animal was skinned, with the skin used as a dress item (Badenhorst & Plug
2006:63; Morton 2013:6). This specimen was found in excavation unit 2, in section B. The
occurrence of a carnivore specimen, the skin of which is a high status object, supports the
assertion that section B (as discussed in the spatial data chapter) is the homestead of the chief.
Therefore, items linked to high status might be more likely to found in this excavation unit than
others. Other possible animals in the collection utilised for raiment are shown in Table 6.17
(after Morton 201346).
Table 6.17 Historically documented use of specific animals for raiment and ornament items
Animal Closest comparative in Raiment and ornament Unit

collection Type
Guineafowl Bird (medium sized) Plumes and beads47 1&2
African wild Cat Cf. African wild Cat Fur and tail used for cloak 2
Duiker Duiker Leggings 2
Weasel/ferret/Meercat Mongoose Fur and tail cloak 2&4
Sprinkbok Blesbok Skin used as a sling 2, 3 & 4
Skin used as a knapsack
Head sash
45 Ostrich eggshell fragments occurred, either as irregular fragments (less than one cm in size) or
incomplete to complete bead fragments (these are listed and discussed later in this chapter). It is
unknown if these fragments were collected as a raw material for bead production, or from eggs collected
for consumption, or both.
46 Morton has synthesised information regarding wild animals and their utility from varying historical
sources: Barrow (1806); Borcherds (1861); Burchell (1824); Campbell (1813 & 1822); Cole & Moncho-
Warren (2012); Lichtenstein (1973 & 1815); Kay (1834 & 1835); Kirby (1939&1940); Moffat (1841); and
Schapera (1965).
47 This is not suggested by Morton (2013), but from the Lebenya faunal and bead collection. Tibia
fragments of medium sized bird shows modification, likely part of the bead making process. The bead
collection displays further worked bird bone (discussed further in bead section).
148
Sprinkbok Springbok/Impala Skin used as a sling 3
Skin used as a knapsack
Head sash
Warthog Pig Turban 4
Porcupine Porcupine Skin made into a hat 4
Hair used for headdress
Quill headdress
Hartebeest Hartebeest Skin used as a cloak 4
Tail hair as cloak fringe
Tail hair as head ornament
Snake Snake Head adornment 4
The majority of animals possibly used for raiment and ornament are found in excavation units 2
and 4. Unit 4 contains a wide variety of animals which could have been used for such purposes
(this is discussed shortly). A cowrie shell was found in unit 2; this is indicative of trade, as the
cowrie shell is only found along the east African coast (Mason 1974:212). At Molokwane, cowrie
shells have their dorsal surfaces cut away and the cut edges are worn smooth, which is
indicative that the specimen was worn as a dress item (Pistorius & Plug 2001:37). Cowrie shells
as dress items usually grace the apparel of high status figures, such as diviners or other officials
(Pistorius & Plug 2001:37). The cowrie shell, another status associated item, was retrieved from
unit 2 (Figure 6.22).
Figure 6.22 Cowrie shell fragment from Unit 2
6.5.5.3. Taboo, Charm and Medicinal specimens
The different groups of Tswana people are usually associated with totem animals. The members
of such a group may not kill, eat, or have any contact with the skin of their totem animal (Massie
1905:125; Schapera 1946:18). These and other animals could be restricted for dietary
149
consumption based on the specific taboos of the community (Plug & Badenhorst 2006: 63).
There are several animals which are taboo to different Tswana groups. For example, some avoid
porcupine consumption as it is said to resemble pork48 (Grivetti 1996:100).
Other animals could be used for ritual activity, charms, and medicine, such as for the act of
divining (Plug 1987). A diviner would use a set of objects; these collected items could range
from botanical material, stones, seashells, tortoise shell, and other skeletal parts (Plug 1987:50-
55). The species included in such sets were lion, dog, hyena, horse, pig, warthog, cattle,
sheep/goat, impala, duiker, steenbok, klipspringer, aardvark, baboon, bullfrog, and chicken.
Domestic substitutes were made in the absence of wild animals (Plug 1987:57). The primary
skeletal parts used in divination sets are horn-sheaths, hoof-sheaths, first phalanges, carpals,
and astragali (Plug 1987:57). However, the interpretation of ritual activity should be
strengthened by other collected data (see Plug 1987).
The specimens found at Lebenya do not suggest a primary ritual context throughout the site.
Table 6.18 lists the Lebenya collection specimens to those associated by Morton (2013) to
charm and medicine making. However, one specimen does suggest ritual activity. Only the
Baboon specimen matches the description49 given by Morton (2013:7). The baboon specimen, a
portion of burnt femur, matches the description aptly. Baboon specimens have been associated
with medicinal, social, and divination contexts (Plug 1987:57). The baboon specimen occurs in
unit 4, where a wide variety of other species are found (as mentioned in previous section).
Table 6.18 Historically documented use of specific animals for charms and medicine
Animal Closest comparative in Charms and medicine Unit

collection
Small antelope Duiker Horn used as amulet and 2
blood-drawing cup
Baboon Baboon Bones burned to make rain 2&4
Blesbok Blesbok Bones burned to make rain 2, 3 & cf.4
Antelope Springbok/Impala & Hooves cut into pyramid or 3&4

Hartebeest dice and used in divining
Another specimen found in unit 4 associated with medicinal practice is snake. Snake is generally
rejected as food by Tswana groups, and is predominantly only ingested as medicine (Grivetti
48 Interestingly, the only pig/hog specimen identified at the site occurs in the same unit as the porcupine
(unit 4).
49 The other specimens are not of the skeletal part or in the state as described by Morton (2013).
150
1996:107). Unit 4 is the only deposit that could be associated with ritual activity based on this
evidence.
6.5.5.4. Use and deposition context
The higher percentage of identifiable faunal material in unit 1 and 3 is possibly due to the less
fragmented nature of the faunal material, but perhaps also reflecting area usage or disposal
habits. Unit 3 had a much lower number of fauna in relation to the other units, which perhaps
reflects a short term midden deposit or an area not related to food disposal. Unit 3 has the
highest percentage of weathered, carnivore, and rodent gnawed specimens, this area was likely
the most exposed. This suggests that Unit 3, and possibly Unit 1, were primary rather than
secondary deposits.
Unit 2 has a low percentage of weathered specimens as well as a low percentage of rodent and
carnivore gnawed specimens. This indicates that the midden deposit was not exposed to the
same environmental conditions and scavenging animals as at the other units. This is suggestive
of midden capping; a practice by which midden deposit is sealed with a layer of red sterile soil
(as described in the stratigraphy section). This practice has social significance (see chapter five,
comparison of settlement features). Unit 2 and 4 have a low percentage of butchery marks on
the specimens, suggesting that food preparation was not a primary activity in that area. Unit 2
and 4 have a high number of fauna in relation to the other units, suggestive of a long term
midden deposit.
6.6. Ceramics
The complete ceramic count for each unit is given in Table 6.19. The largest quantity of ceramic
material is in unit 2, and lowest in unit 3. The material in unit 1 and 2 is slightly more
fragmented than the material from unit 3 and 4. The ceramic material was sorted into
diagnostic and undiagnostic groups, according to the principles established in chapter four, see
Table 6.20.
151
Table 6.19 Total number and weight of sherds collected per unit
No. of sherds Weight

Unit 1 409 3284g
Unit 2 701 5929g
Unit 3 289 2955g
Unit 4 383 3692g
TOTAL 1782 15860g
Table 6.20 Total count of non-diagnostic and diagnostic ceramics
Non-Diagnostic Diagnostic Total ceramic

ceramic material Ceramic material count
Layer NS* Weight(g) NS Weight(g) NS Weight
Unit 1 1 327 2230 33 243 360 2473
2 46 800 3 11 49 811
Unit 2 1 139 760 12 38.8 151 798.8

2 93 530 8 30 101 560
3 220 2310 16 70 236 2380
4 152 1600 11 50 163 1650
5&6 47 530 3 10 50 540
Unit 3 1 114 1030 15 80 129 1110

2 83 1000 14 125 97 1125
3 42 450 9 120 51 570
4 - - - - - -
5 - - - - - -
6 6 90 6 60 12 150
Unit 4 1 24 190 1 2 25 192

2 157 1375 22 100 179 1475
3 144 1550 25 375 169 1925
4 10 100 0 0 10 100
*Number of sherds
Of the total number of ceramics recovered per unit: 9% of unit 1’s material was diagnostic, 7%
of unit 2’s material was diagnostic, 15% of unit 3’s material was diagnostic, and 13% of unit 4’s
material was diagnostic. The higher percentage of diagnostic ceramic material in unit 3 and 4 is
possibly due to the less fragmented nature of the material. The collection was dominated by
152
non-rim plain sherds, and, out of the total collected ceramic material, only 10% of the collection
was diagnostic.
6.6.1. Diagnostic ceramics
The total number of diagnostic ceramic sherds is 178 out of a collection of 1782 sherds, and the
total number of diagnostic vessels50 is 168. The varying number of sherds identified to various
features is listed in Table 6.21. Within the diagnostic collection 41% of the ceramics could be
identified to vessel type51: the majority of vessel types fall within type 1A (smooth necked jar),
followed by type 1C (straight necked jar) and 2B52 (straight open bowl), with a paltry number of
1B (short necked jar) vessels, as depicted in Figure 6.23.
Table 6.21 Percentage and number of sherds displaying various diagnostic features
Identifiable features *Number of Vessels **Percentage of diagnostic collection

Vessel form 74 44%
Rim sherd/extent 156 93%
Rim type 70 45%
Rim diameter 36 23%
Surface treatment 60 36%
Decoration 10 6%
* Number of vessels contains ‘cf.’ counts

** Percentage calculated from total diagnostic vessel count (168), except in the case of rim type and rim
diameter which is calculated from the total of rim sherds (156).
The frequency of different vessel types in each unit is depicted in Figure 6.24. In unit 1 only jar
types occur in the assemblage. In unit 2 there is high number of jars, specifically smooth necked
jars and a bowl. In unit 3 there are a high number of jars and some bowls. Unit 4 has a high
50 Sherds can be fragments of one vessel, or multiple. By noting similar profiles some sherds can be
refitted to form a part of, or complete, vessel. Therefore, diagnostic vessels refer to sherds, with at least
one sherd displaying a diagnostic feature, which form part of one vessel.
51 Some fragments could not be identified to either straight-necked bowl or straight-necked jar type due
to the size of the fragment and or the deterioration of the rim surface. These specimens, classified as
1C/2B, were not included in the total vessel type count.
52 Vessel type 2A was not included as it was not identified in the collection.
153
number of jars, specifically straight necked jars, and a high number of bowls. Unit 3 and 4 have
the highest percentage of bowls per unit. No necked bowls were identified in the collection.
Within the diagnostic collection 93% (n=156) are rim sherds; those which were not rim sherds
consist mainly of modified ceramic sherds (to be discussed in the modified ceramics section). A
lug and a lid fragment are also part of the non-rim diagnostic material (see Figure 6.26).
Out of the total rim sherds 97% (n=68) could be identified to rim type. The most prevalent rim
type was flattened; this could be so that there is a flat surface for a lid53. The frequency of
different rim types in each unit is depicted in the Figure 6.28. In unit 1 rounded rims are
predominant. In unit 2 and 3 flattened rims are predominant. In Unit 4 flattened rims are
predominant. Unit 4 is the only unit with a high percentage of tapered rims (discussed further
shortly).
As shown in Figure 6.29, certain rim types occur more frequently with certain vessel shapes:
vessel shape 1A was likely to have rounded or flattened rim types, 1C was more likely to display
a flattened rim type, and 2B more likely to be tapered. There is not sufficient data to associate
vessel type 1b with a rim type. However, it seems likely that jars were more likely to be rounded
or flattened and bowls to be tapered. This suggests that rim type was perhaps related to vessel
type, and that the higher occurrence of tapered rim types in Unit 4 correlates with the high
number of bowls (in relation to the other units) occurring in this unit.
Out of the total rim sherds 23% (n=35) could be identified to rim diameter, with the majority
falling within the 10-15cm and 20-25cm bracket (see Figure 6.30). The smooth necked jar
generally had a smaller orifice range than the straight necked jar, and was most likely used
either for storage, and/or cooking, and/or the transport of goods.
One of the reasons for the low identifiable number of rim diameters could be due to the rim
extent. The majority of the rims are a centimetre in extent, as depicted in Figure 6.31, with a rim
extent of no larger than 10cm. Out of the total diagnostic material, 6% (n=10) is decorated and
36% (n=60) have a form of surface treatment (discussed further in the following section).
53 However, it is just as likely to do with style or accident as function (Henrickson & McDonald 1983:682).
154
Frequency of Vessel types
2B
0% 16%
0%
(n=11)
1C
20% 1A
(n=14) 60%
(n=41)
1B
4%
(n=3)
Figure 6.23 Frequency of vessel types in collection
Table 6.22 Number of vessel types per unit
1A 1B 1C 2B
Unit 1 2 0 2 0
Unit 2 18 2 1 1
Unit 3 11 1 4 4
Unit 4 10 0 7 6
Frequency of vessel types in

each unit
Unit 4
2B
Unit 3
1C
Unit 2 1B
Unit 1 1A
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
Figure 6.24 Frequency of vessel types in each unit
155
Figure 6.25 Ceramic forms in collection
156
Figure 6.26 A lid and lug fragment, part of the collection
Frequency of rim types

Tapered
22%
(n=15)
Flattened
49%
Rounded (n=33)
29%
(n=20)
Figure 6.27 Frequency of rim types at site
157
Table 6.23 Number of rim types per unit
Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 Unit 4

Flattened 4 11 9 9
Rounded 7 4 6 3
Tapered 3 1 1 10
Frequency of rim types

Unit 4
Unit 3
Tapered
Rounded
Unit 2
Flattened
Unit 1
0% 5% 10% 15% 20%
Figure 6.28 Frequency of rim types per unit
Table 6.24 Number of rim type occurring with vessel type
1A 1B 1C 2B
Tapered 3 0 1 5
Rounded 10 0 1 1
Flattened 12 1 8 0
Not identifiable 16 2 4 5
158
Frequency of rim type with vessel
type
2B
1C Not identifiable
Flattened
1B Rounded
Tapered
1A
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Figure 6.29 Frequency of rim type with vessel type per unit
Table 6.25 Number of vessels for different rim diameter classes
0- 10- 16- 20- 26- 30- 36-

Rim diameter 9cm 15cm 19cm 25cm 29cm 35cm 39cm
Number of vessels 2 12 5 13 2 1 1
Frequency of varying rim

diameter ranges
3% 3%
6%
5% 0-9cm
10-15cm
16-19cm
33%
20-25cm
36% 26-29cm
30-35cm
14%
36-39cm
Figure 6.30 Frequency of varying rim diameter ranges at the site
159
Table 6.26 Number of vessel types falling within the different rim diameter classes
1A 1B 1C 2B
0-9cm 1 0 1 0
10-15cm 5 1 2 3
16-19cm 6 0 0 0
20-25cm 9 0 4 0
26-29cm 0 0 1 1
30-35cm 0 0 1 0
36-39cm 0 0 1 0
Table 6.27 Number of vessels for different rim extent classes
Rim Less than Between Between Between Between 8cm-

extent 1cm 1cm- 2cm 2cm- 3cm 4cm- 7cm 10cm
N. of
vessels 68 48 21 17 2
Frequency of rim extent

1%
11%
Less than 1cm
13% 44% Between 1cm- 2cm
Between 2cm- 3cm
Between 4cm- 7cm
Between 8cm-10cm
31%
Figure 6.31 Frequency of rim extent
6.6.1.1. Decoration
Decoration on the ceramics were minimal, out of the total diagnostic collection only 10 vessels
fragments were decorated, which is 6 % of the diagnostic collection, and 0.6% of the total
160
ceramic collection, as shown in Table 6.28. The unit with the highest percentage of decorated
ceramics is unit 3 and the lowest is unit 4.
Table 6.28 Number and percentage of decorated sherds per unit
No. of decorated sherds per unit *Percentage of decorated sherds per unit
Unit 1 2 0.5%
Unit 2 4 0.6%
Unit 3 3 1%
Unit 4 1 0.3%
*Percentage calculated from total number of sherds per unit
Some vessels were polished, burnished, and or had slips on the surface of the vessel. The most
prominent position for surface treatment was the neck area. However, such a small portion of
vessels were diagnostic, and, those that were, were commonly rim pieces. Therefore, this is not
a realistic account of the position of surface treatment for the collection. The decoration
techniques recorded in the diagnostic collection fall into three categories incision (including
notching), stamping, and punctuation (further described in the decoration section of the
methodology chapter). Table 6.29 list the decorated ceramics found in the collection. The
decorated ceramics are illustrated in Figure 6.32.
Table 6.29 List of decorated ceramics in collection
Vessel Unit/Layer Decoration Style Decoration Placement

Number
21 1/1 Incision (notching) Rim
36 1/2 Stamping with ochre slip Unknown
40 2/1 Stamping with graphite slip Unknown

115 3/3 Incision (notching) and punctates Rim and neck
127 3/6 Incision (notching) Rim, neck and body.

and graphite slip
143 4/2 Punctates and ochre slip Rim and neck
161
Figure 6.32 Illustration of decorated ceramics in collection
The predominant decoration technique was incision, specifically rim notching, this is
characteristic of Buispoort ceramics, as discussed in chapter two and four. The rim notching,
initially sub-divided according to slight variances, has been collated into one group, as variation
is minimal. Stamping occurred on two ceramic sherds, one from unit 1 and another from unit 2.
Two styles of decoration occur that are not characteristic of Buispoort ceramics that is stamping
and punctates. The stamped ceramic sherds are possibly a reflection of a different ceramic style,
termed Uitkomst, which is characterised by stamping, cord impressions, stamped arcades,
appliqué, and blocks of parallel incisions, as discussed in chapter two (Huffman 2007:173). The
punctated sherds are also possibly a reflection of a different ceramic style. However, both
punctated sherds differ quite significantly from each other. The one from unit 3 has dots of
punctates with rim notching, and the one from unit 4 has broad punctates on the rim with an
ochre slip on the neck. The one from unit 4 shares features with the ceramic style Madikwe, a
preceding ceramic style to Buispoort, and occurs in the region early 16th – 18th century CE
(Huffman 2007:199 & 201). The Madikwe ceramic style is characterised by multiple bands of
cord impressions, incisions, stabs, and punctates separated by colour, as discussed in chapter
two (Huffman 2007:199 & 201) .
Another aspect which was noted in the ceramic analysis was the inclusion of platy, fibrous, and
lustrous mineral inclusions. This refers to the use (most commonly) of Muscovite Mica as a
temper in the production of ceramics (as discussed in chapter two). Mica as a temper was
provisionally noted in a large sample of the ceramic collection, with mica tempered ceramics
162
occurring in all units. However, future thin section analysis on the material will provide further
information on this attribute. The inclusion of mica as a temper was identified in Buispoort
ceramics from the later occupations at Olifantspoort and Molokwane (Rosenstein 2008:28). It
seems likely that this type of temper might be a regional characteristic of Buispoort ceramics
(Hall 2012:310).
6.6.1.2. Modified ceramics
Modified ceramics, as defined in the methodology chapter, are present in the collection. They
are characterised by abraded edges, as depicted in Figure 6.33.
Figure 6.33 Collection of modified ceramics, abraded along the top edge of the ceramic
Modified ceramics do not occur in unit 1, but they do occur in all of the other units. In each of
the other units (unit 2, 3 and 4) a total of four modified ceramic sherds are identified. Relative to
the low density of ceramic material retrieved in unit 3, it would seem to have the highest
percentage of abraded ceramics per unit. Similarly modified ceramics occur at Marothodi and at
Buffelshoek, see Figure 6.34 (Anderson 2009: Chapter VI, Artefacts from the court midden, para.
3; Loubser 1985:82). They are suggested as tools for scraping and skinning (Anderson 2009:
163
Chapter VI, Artefacts from the court midden, para. 3; Loubser 1985:82). The modified ceramics
are similar to the modified bone found in the Lebenya collection, and are associated with the
same context and activities, according to Loubser (1985:82-83). This seems likely as the items
are similarly modified, with one edge smoothly abraded.
Figure 6.34 Modified ceramics from Buffelshoek, from Loubser (1985:83)
6.7. Other material
The other excavated materials to be discussed in this chapter are the bead, metal, and ceramic
object categories. Other excavated material, such as ochre, lithics54, and dung, were not further
analyzed after collection.
6.7.1. Beads
The bead collection consists of bone and ostrich egg shell (OES) pieces. A total of 3755 beads
were collected from the excavations; however, beads were only found in unit 2 and 3 (see Table
6.30). Unit 2 and 3 had a similar count of beads retrieved, but for unit 3 this indicates quite a
high percentage of beads (relative to deposit removed per unit). The majority of the beads are
not whole fragments, and none were in the production stage. Unit 2 and 3 were also the only
units in which non-bead OES fragments were found (three fragments in unit 2 and two
54 The lithic material was scant with no formal tools collected from the excavations.
55 This count includes the likely clay bead, similar to the one described by Mason (1986:465).
164
fragments in unit 3 each under around or under a centimetre in size). Figure 6.35 depicts the
varying bone beads found in unit 2.
Table 6.30 Bead type and distribution at site
Number of OES pieces Number of bone pieces

Unit 2 15 4
Unit 3 17 0
TOTAL 32 4
One piece is quite distinct from the rest and is not made from bone or OES, and is not in the above total, as
it was originally classified as a ceramic object.
Figure 6.35 Beads made from bone in collection
One bead has not been classified as OES or bone, as it is distinct from the rest of the bead
material; it is an incomplete fragment of spherical shape with a distinct perforation in the centre
(see Figure 6.36). Mason (1986:465) recorded spherical beads, made from clay, at Olifantspoort
20/71, and states that these are similar to those found at OND3 (a type V settlement pattern)
site in the Free state (Maggs 1976b:329).
165
Figure 6.36 Clay bead (the image has been manipulated to include the interior view of specimen)
6.7.2. Metal
The metal collection consists of 4 pieces, two pieces from unit 2 and two pieces from unit 3. The
two pieces of metal from unit 2 are degraded, fragmented, flat pieces of no recognisable shape.
The two pieces from unit 3 are complete. The one piece is a bullet casing that appears to be
recent; therefore, is not a part of the archaeological material discussion. The other piece from
unit 3 is a small complete Y-hoe shaped piece of metal, see Figure 6.37.
Figure 6.37 Hoe-shaped metal piece
166
6.7.3. Ceramic objects
Out of the excavated material, 9 ceramic objects were retrieved. Four different types occur:
termed A, B, C, and D. Type A is a cylinder fragment that narrows to one side, and, at the
narrowed end, the bottom is pressed in to a concave shape. Type B is an irregular cone-like
fragment, which could be a horn or foot of an animal figurine. Type C is a double cone (diamond
shape) fragment: however, the one end is stubbed, rather than pointed. Type D is an irregular
fragment with smooth areas. The ceramic fragments occur in all units, except unit 1. A similar
styled ceramic object to type C occurs at Olifantspoort 61/71, termed miscellaneous pottery
(Mason 1986:476). The function of these ceramic objects are unknown, they are depicted in
Figure 6.38.
Table 6.31 List of ceramic objects in collection
Type A Type B Type C Type D

Unit 2 0 4 1 0
Unit 3 1 0 0 1
Unit 4 0 1 1 0
Figure 6.38 The varying types of ceramic objects identified in the collection
167
6.7.4. Discussion of other material
Unit 2 and 3 are the only units from which metal and bead pieces were retrieved. Unit 3 has a
large percentage of beads, relative to the other units, and contains a shaped metal fragment.
This once again differentiates unit 2 and 3 from the rest of the units. The occurrence of beads in
unit 3 could indicate an area of differing status or wealth from the other sections. Ceramic
objects occur in all units but unit 1: the function or symbolism of the differing ceramic objects in
the assemblage is unknown.
6.8. Discussion of excavation results
Unit 1 largely consisted of a homogenous soil, with little differentiation in the deposit. It has the
second lowest amount of excavated material. The excavated material is also limited, in
comparison to the variety of excavated material retrieved from the other units. The unit has the
highest density of ceramic material recovered, with a low faunal density. No beads, metal,
ceramic objects, or modified ceramics were found in the unit. The selection of species found in
the unit was primarily domestic bovid, freshwater bivalve, and crab, with the majority of
specimens likely being dietary contributors. The unit seems to have been a household disposal
area, but not a large one, as attested by the excavation depth; however, this could also be due to
the unit placement.
Unit 2 showed lenses and pockets of varying soil deposits as well as containing a high volume
and variety of excavated material. Unit 2 has a low percentage of weathered, as well as rodent
and carnivore gnawed specimens suggesting that the midden deposit was not exposed as much
as the other units. This may suggest the practice of capping, where the midden deposit is sealed
with a layer of red sterile soil in order to avoid ‘stealing of the ash’ (see chapter 5 for further
details). The stratigraphy for Unit 2 was complex, with various pockets of dark grey soil and
dung overlaid by red soils lenses. The deposit displays a wide variety of excavated material and
was the only unit with bone beads, and a cowrie shell. It seems likely that unit 2 was a
communal midden; therefore, a secondary deposition area for the material, as supported by the
fragmentary nature of the material and the density and variety of the recovered artefacts. A
similar practice of capping occurs at Marothodi, and is associated with middens in the court
areas (Anderson 2009). This might echo with excavation unit 2, where the spatial data suggest
that excavation unit 2 is near the kgotla of section B.
168
Unit 3 had variation in the deposit and contained a rock feature, which was likely part of a
structure. This structure could be related to cooking or could be the edge of a storage hut. This
unit had a low number of faunal material in relation to the other units, and had the highest
occurrence of taphonomic features, suggesting that the faunal material was exposed for
prolonged periods before burial. Perhaps the deposit was a not a formal midden, and the
material is likely related to the possible structure excavated in this unit. The high percentage of
decorated material found within unit 3 could indicate an area where food was served or stored,
as these vessels tend to be the more decorated pieces (Rice 2005:238). This is further
substantiated by the relatively high (in comparison to unit 1 and 2) occurrence of unrestricted
vessels in unit 3, which is typically associated with the serving and preparation of food (Rice
2005:238).
Unit 4 is a midden deposit located in an enclosed walled structure, the only one in such a
location identified at the site. The unit displayed alternating layers of ash deposit and red soil,
similarly seen in unit 2, but with thicker alternating deposits. It contained a high density of
material culture, once again similar to unit 2. However, while similar to unit 2, there were no
metal or beads found in unit 4. Besides the location of the midden deposit, unit 4 also
differentiated from the other units in fauna. It has a wide variety of identified species, the only
pig, snake, porcupine, baboon, and hartebeest specimens occur in unit 4. The variety of species
identified from unit 4, could suggest different status, activity, and or cultural practice in Section
C. The idea of different status and or cultural practice from the main settlement resonates with
the spatial data. The spatial data suggests that section C was a foreigner community assimilated
into the Tswana group inhabiting Lebenya.
In the following chapter I will discuss the excavations in relation to the spatial results, and
conclude with the site appraisal and future research avenues.
169
Chapter 7 Conclusion
7.1. Overview
In this chapter I combine the spatial data and the excavation data in order to present a holistic
interpretation of the past inhabitants of the settlement. The chapter is then concluded with a
discussion of possibilities for further research at the site and within the region.
7.2. The Archaeological data
The material retrieved from each excavation unit varies somewhat; in the following section I
will discuss the excavated material, for a full account see chapter six, in relation to the spatial
data, as discussed in chapter five. Then I conclude with a discussion on the excavation material
in relation to the settlement as a whole. The material excavated from each unit can be summed
up in Table 7.1.
The archaeological data does provide support to the spatial interpretation of the site. Section B
is likely the homestead of the chief, and is where excavation unit 2 was placed. The material
excavated from unit 2 is that of higher status items, and items not retrieved elsewhere on site,
such as the carnivore specimens, the cowrie shell, and the metal hoe. The material retrieved
from excavation unit 3, in section A1 (to the south of section B) also contained items of status,
with the highest quantity of beads and metal items retrieved per unit. Spatially, this has also
been interpreted as an area of status; this section is second in rank to that of the chief. The
excavated material from unit 1 (in section A3) differs from the other units. It is likely that this
deposit is a household midden, which would account for the homogenous nature of the
excavated material and deposit. The placement of the midden deposit in which unit 4 was
excavated (as discussed in chapter five) is unique to the site, but occurs at another site in the
region, Marothodi (Anderson 2009: Chapter VI, The court midden, para.1). This midden deposit
was connected to the central enclosures and is likely a deposit linked to the kgotla in the
homestead. This is further supported by a similar structured midden deposit associated with
the kgotla at Marothodi (Anderson 2009: Chapter VI, The court midden, para.1).
170
Table 7.1 List of attributes from each excavation unit
Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 Unit 4

Soil profile Mostly Varied- lenses of Varied- stone Varied-alternating
homogenous ash soil deposit feature, and pockets red soil and ash
of varying soil soil deposits
deposits
*Amount of Medium High Low High
ceramic material
*Amount of Medium High Low High

faunal material
Bead fragments No Yes Yes No
Metal fragments No Yes Yes No
Ceramic objects No Yes Yes Yes
Modified No Yes Yes Yes

material
Faunal Predominantly Widest range of Predominantly Possible

specimens dietary dietary dietary contributors. medicinal or ritual
contributors. contributors, and specimens, with
carnivore dietary
specimens. contributors.
Type of deposit Household Communal A short term midden Likely midden

midden midden deposit, and an area deposit associated
linked to a stone with the Kgotla.
feature (likely the
base of a fence or
structure)
*Amount taking into consideration the extent of the unit
The decorated ceramics recovered from the excavations at Lebenya are few; nonetheless, these
have been identified as Buispoort based on the geographic and chronological occurrence of this
type in the region. This provides a disjuncture in the expected ceramic sequence at a site
sharing features with the Klipriviersberg walling type. The expected ceramic style for a
Klipriviersberg type walled site is the Uitkomst style, and this pottery style does not occur
throughout the site. This disjuncture of settlement layout with ceramic style is also noted at
Marothodi, where the settlement layout echoes the Molokwane type walling but Uitkomst styled
pottery is found throughout the site (Hall 2012:312).
171
7.3. A site perspective
The walling layout of section A and B differ from section C, specifically in the unenclosed
intervening interior space and the organisation of the inner enclosures. Section A and B are also
physically linked (with a wall that connects the two sections), while section C is independent
(physically) from the other sections. Furthermore, the stamped ceramic fragments occur only
in section A and B. Section C varies from the other sections in spatial style and in material
culture. The broad rim punctated decorated ceramic and faunal specimens of a medicinal and
ritual nature occur in unit 4. The spatial data suggests that section C was the homestead of an
immigrant group (as discussed in chapter five), who were incorporated into the larger group
inhabiting the settlement, or was occupied prior to the rest of the settlement by another group.
Either way this could account for the difference in material culture. The faunal specimens while
seeming to be of a medicinal or ritual nature compared to the specimens found at the rest of the
site might actually be specimens that are more likely to be eaten by another group, due to
different food beliefs within different communities. The walling of Section C is of the Molokwane
type, suggesting the group who inhabited this section of the site were of the western Sotho-
Tswana cluster. The punctated sherd retrieved from layer 2 of unit 4, could indicate that this
section of the site was inhabited earlier than the rest of the settlement, as it is characteristic of
the Madikwe facies which precedes the Buispoort facies. However, mica tempered ceramic
sherds (a likely characteristic of Buispoort ceramics) occur throughout the layers of unit 4;
therefore, this singular punctuated ceramic sherd is inconclusive. Furthermore, both facies are
associated with groups of the western Sotho-Tswana cluster, sustaining the idea that the group
who inhabited section C were of western Sotho-Tswana descent. .
However, a feature connecting section C to Section B is the layering of red soil deposit, at
excavation unit 2 and 4. Though this is possibly a cultural factor associated with Nguni practice,
it is also a practice documented in other southern African agro-pastoralist groups during times
of conflict or expansion ; therefore, this could not necessarily only reflect a Nguni based practice
(A. Schoeman 2014 pers. comm.). The region, over different periods was marked by droughts
and famine, as discussed in chapter two, which could have been a source of conflict. As attested
by the oral records, the Phiring themselves were suffering from a time of famine (Breutz
1953:218).
7.4. A regional perspective
172
As discussed in chapter five, the classification of the sites into a regional typology is somewhat
complex. The lack of a fixed chronology for the inhabitation of the different section of the site
presents some difficulties in classifying the site. Settlement form is the result of dynamic
processes, and settlement typologies mask this nature of site formation. A Group III
classification for the site indicates that the site formation is a product of cultural interaction in
the region, either of a ‘foreign’ group assimilating a Sotho-Tswana identity, or a ‘foreign’ group
incorporating people of a Sotho-Tswana identity. The use of the term ‘foreign’ refers to people
of a non Sotho-Tswana origin, likely people of Nguni-origin who migrated into the region at
different times.
Certain aspects of the settlement at Lebenya could be suggestive of a non Sotho-Tswana

affiliation for the inhabitants of Lebenya, such as the Klipriviersberg styled walls, the placement
of middens in public spaces, the possible cultural practice of capping ash deposits, and the
occurrence of stamped ceramics in section A and section B. Other aspects reflect a western
Sotho-Tswana identity, such as the Buispoort styled ceramics, the scalloped walling, and
centrally placed enclosures found in section C. A mix of attributes between Sotho-Tswana and
Nguni settlement characteristics occurs at Marothodi, a site reflective of Tlokwa assimilation in
a western Sotho-Tswana environment, and also at Doornspruit type settlements. Doornspruit
type settlements are reflective of a Nguni affiliated society who incorporated Sotho-Tswana
women into their society (Kruger 2010: 172). Section A, specifically section A2, does share
similarities with Doornspruit settlements in the spatial layout of the c-shaped ring of
enclosures. A further consideration in this matter of cultural interaction is the timeline for the
site. The date range for the site is mid 17th century to 1830s CE, based on the walling sequence
for the region. Colonial ware and related structures would have been a feature at this site had it
dated from 1830 CE onwards, due to the expansion of colonial trade and farmers into the region
around this time (Bergh 2005: 99). Furthermore, there are no signs of sudden flight from and
destruction of the settlement. Prior to 1830 CE, the region was beset by the turmoil of the
Mfecane (Boeyens and Hall 2009:479). This incursion into the region by Mzilikazi’s Ndebele left
many settlements deserted and damaged. The site displays no mounds in the settlement bays,
which would have been a sign of burnt down hut structures. This suggests that either the site
was no longer inhabited by the time of the Ndebele incursion into the region, or that the
inhabitants of the site were associated with the Ndebele, therefore avoiding the destruction of
the settlement, as is suggested to be the case for the inhabitants of Doornspruit type settlements
(Kruger 2010),
173
Nonetheless, the oral records place the nearest known group in the vicinity to be the Phiring.
The Phiring do have a possible link to the Fokeng cluster, a group said to be of Nguni-Origin but
that had assimilated a Sotho-Tswana identity. This could also account for the cultural mix of site
attributes at Lebenya. Ngcongco (1979: 28) refers to the Fokeng-Dighoya,s discussed in chapter
two, the Dighoya may refer to either the Kubung or the Taung (Maggs 1976b:327); however,
according to Breutz (1953:217), the informants for the Kubung and the Phiring assert that they
together formed the Dighoya.
Lastly, the presence of Buispoort styled pottery at the site signifies a connection between the
inhabitants of Lebenya and the dominant western Sotho-Tswana cluster established in the
region at that time. Therefore, it is likely that Lebenya was connected to Molokwane and
Boitsemagano either socio-politically or economically.
7.5. Future research
Hall’s idea of layered identities in the Magaliesberg region could account for the variances
displayed at Lebenya. Certain features of the settlement, such as ceramic style, display a
western Tswana character; therefore, indicating involvement in regional socio-political
dynamics in the 18th century CE. While other settlement features, such as walling style, could
reflect a layered historical identity, which connects the inhabitants of the site to groups of the
Fokeng and Nguni cluster.
While it is possible that the settlement at Lebenya is part of the Phiring capital ofMotsôkwe,
further archaeological and historical research needs to be conducted to verify this statement.
Further archaeological research needs to be conducted at the neighbouring farm, Eensaamheid,
as well as the adjacent farm, Nooitgedacht. A full survey of the farms and a complete map of all
stone wall sites on these farms would confirm whether the settlement at Lebenya was related to
these settlements, and whether they are the Phiring capital, Motsôkwe.
Further historical research on the Phiring and their relation to the Kubung or other groups in
the region would establish a better understanding of the origins of these groups and their
association to the western Tswana cluster. This avenue of research could substantiate the
archaeological evidence found at Lebenya, providing a historical account for the varied
settlement features.
174
The research in this region also highlights the need for further in-depth material culture studies,
such as Rosenstein’s temper analysis of Buispoort pottery. Ceramic decoration in of itself is not
sufficient for a discussion on cultural difference. This is why further ceramic analysis is needed,
but analysis focused on the technological attributes of pottery formation.
The past archaeological focus on mega-sites has led to an uneven presentation of the range and
character of groups and settlements found in the region. This was characterised by the difficulty
of finding comparative archaeological data in the region. By re-focusing archaeological attention
on a small-scaled settlement it allows for the creation of larger data sets, which will allow for a
more nuanced view of regional identities and interaction.
Lastly, settlements, such as these constructions in stone, will always leave an impression
whether on the landscape or on the imagination. Locally, we have a heritage worth displaying,
sharing, and developing. Further research should attempt to impress this rich local heritage on
the public imagination, installing pride locally byan acknowledgement of past achievements in
the region.
175
References
Acocks, J. 1988. Veld Types of South Africa, Memoirs of the Botanical Survey of South Africa, 57.
Anderson, M. 2009. The Historical Archaeology of Marothodi: Towards an Understanding of

Context, Space and Organisation of Production at an early 19th Century Tswana Capital
in the Pilanesberg Region of South Africa, Unpublished Doctoral thesis, University of Cape
Town, Cape Town, no page numbers.
Antonites, A.R., 2014. An Archaeological Investigation of Zhizo/Leokwe Foodways at Schroda and

Pont Drift, Limpopo Valley, South Africa. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, Yale University.
Asmussen, B. 2009. ‘Intentional or incidental thermal modification? Analysing site occupation

via burned bone’, Journal of Archaeological Science, 36, 528-536.
Badenhorst, S. 2008. ‘Ina Plug: A Tribute’, in S. Badenhorst, P. Mitchell, & C. Driver (eds),
Animals and People: Archaeozoological Papers in Honour of Ina Plug, Archaeopress:
England, 1:7.
___________. 2009. ‘The Central Cattle pattern during the Iron Age of southern Africa: a
critique of its spatial features’, South African Archaeological Bulletin, 64 (190):148-55.
Banning, E. 2002. The Archaeologist’s Laboratory: The analysis of archaeological data,

Kluwer Academic Press: New York, 1-316.
Behrens, J. & N. Swanepoel. 2008. ‘Historical archaeologies of southern Africa: Precedents and
prospects (Chapter 2)’, in Swanepoel, N., Esterhuysen, A., Bonner, P. (Eds.) Five Hundred
Years Rediscovered: Southern African Precedents and Prospects, Wits University Press,
Johannesburg, 23-40.
Behrensmeyer, A. 1978. ‘Taphonomic and ecologic information from bone weathering’.

Paleobiology 4(2):150–62.
Bennett, J. 1999. ‘Thermal alteration of Buried bone’, Journal of Archaeological Science, 26, 1-8.
Bergh, J.S, 2005. “We Must Never Forget Where We Come from”: The Bafokeng and Their Land
in the 19th Century Transvaal, History in Africa, 32: 95–115.
Binford, L.R. 1967. ‘Smudge pits and hide smoking: the use of analogy n archaeological
reasoning’, American Antiquity, 32:1-12.
176
Boeyens, J. 2000. ‘In search of Kaditshwene’, The South African Archaeological Bulletin, 55 (171),
3-17.
__________. 2003. ‘The Late Iron Age sequence in the Marico and early Tswana history’, The
South African Archaeological Bulletin, 58(178): 63–78.
__________. 2011. ‘The intersection of archaeology, oral tradition and history in the South African
Interior’, New Contree, 64:1–28.
Boeyens, J. & Hall, S. 2009. ‘Tlokwa Oral Traditions and the Interface between History and
Archaeology at Marothodi’, South African Historical Journal, 61(3), pp.457–481.
Boeyens, J. & Plug, I. 2011. ‘A chief is like an ash-heap on which is gathered all the refuse”: the
faunal remains from the central court midden at Kaditshwene’, Annals of the Ditsong
National Museum of Natural History, (1):1–22.
Bourdieu, P. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice, trans. R. Nice, Cambridge University press,
Cambridge UK.
Brain, C. 1974. ‘Some suggested procedures in the analysis of bone accumulations from
southern African Quaternary sites’, Annals of the Transvaal museum, 29: 1–8.
Brain, C. 1981. The Hunters or the Hunted? An Introduction to African Cave Taphonomy,
University of Chicago Press: Chicago.
Breutz, P. 1953. The Tribes of Rustenburg and Pilanesberg districts, Ethnological publications
28, Government Printer, Pretoria.
Breutz, P. 1954. Die stamme van die distrik Ventersdorp, Pretoria: Government Printer.
Brooks, A. & J. Yellen. 1987. ‘The Preservation of Activity Areas in the Archaeological Record:
Ethnoarchaeological and Archaeological Work in Northwest Ngamiland, Botswana’, In S.
Kent (ed) Method and Theory for Activity Area Research: An Ethnoarchaeological
Approach, New York: Columbia University Press, 63-106.
Calabrese, J.A. 2001 . The emergence of Social and Political Complexity in the Shashi-Limpopo
Valley of Southern Africa, AD 900 b 1300: Ethnicity, Class and Polity. Cambridge
Monographs in African Archaeology 69, Oxford: Archaeooress.
Campbell, J. 1822. Travels in South Africa undertaken at the request of the London Missionary
Society; being a narrative of a second journey in the interior of that country (1820),
Westley, London.
177
Chittenden, H. 2007. Roberts bird guide: a comprehensive field guide to over 950 bird species in
southern Africa, Trustees of the John Voelcker Bird Book Fund: Cape Town.
Conkey,M. and J.M.Gero, 1997. 'Programme to Practice: Gender and Feminism in Archaeology’,
Annual Review of Anthropology, 26: 411-37.
Cowling R., Richardson D. & S. Pierce, 2004. Vegetation of southern Africa, Cambridge university
press: Cambridge, 1- 652.
Croucamp, A. & Roberts, B., 2011. ‘A short history of the Bakgatla-ba-Kgafela’, Kgabo, 1–9.
David, N. & C. Kramer, 2001. Ethnoarchaeology in Action, Cambridge World Archaeology,

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
DeCorse, C. 1989. ‘Material aspects of Limba, Yalunka, and Kuranko ethnicity: archaeological
research in northeastern Sierra Leone’, in S.J. Shennan (ed), Archaeological Approaches
to Cultural Identity, London: Unwin Hyman ltd, 125-139
Deetz, J. 1991. ‘Archaeological evidence of sixteenth and seventeenth century encounters’, in L.

Falk (ed) Historical Archaeology in Global Perspective, Washington: Smithsonian
Institution Press.
Denbow, J.R. 1986. ‘A new look at the later prehistory of the Kalahari’, Journal of African History,
27: 3-28.
Dederen, J., 2010. ‘Women ’ s Power , 1000 AD: Figurine Art and Gender Politics in Prehistoric
southern Africa’, Nordic Journal of African Studies, 19(1): 23–42.
Dobney, K. & Rielly, K. 1988. ‘A method for recording archaeological animal bones: the use of
diagnostic zones’, Circaea, 5(2): 79–96.
Dobres, M., and J. Robb, 2000. Agency in Archaeology, Routledge, London.
Du Plessis, S. 1969. The past and present geographical distribution of the Perissodactyla and
Artiodactyla in southern Africa, unpublished M.Sc. dissertation, University of Pretoria:
Pretoria.
Drewett, P. 1999. Field Archaeology: an introduction, UCL Press: London, 1-196.
Fewster, K. 2006. ‘The Potential of Analogy in Post-Processual Archaeologies: A Case Study

from Basimane Ward, Serowe, Botswana’, The Journal of the Royal Anthropological
Institute, 12(1): 61-87.
178
Fisher, J. 1995. ‘Bone Surface Modifications in Zooarchaeology’, Journal of Archaeological Method
and Theory, 2(1):7-68.
Fredriksen, P.D. 2007. ‘Approaching intimacy: Interpretations of changes in Moloko household

space’, The South African Archaeological Bulletin, 62(186):126–139.
__________. 2012. ‘Material Knowledges, Thermodynamic Spaces and the Moloko Sequence of the
Late Iron Age (AD 1300-1840)’, in Southern Africa BAR S2387 L. Smith & T. Insoll, eds.,
Oxford, England: Archaeopress.
Giddens, A. 1979. Central Problems in Social Theory: Action, Structure, and Contradiction in Social
Analysis, University of California Press: Berkeley.
__________. 1984. The Constitution of Society: Outline of a Theory of Structuration, University of

California Press: Berkeley.
Gould, R.A. & Watson, P.J., 1982. ‘A Dialogue on the Meaning and Use of Analogy in
Ethnoarchaeological Reasoning’, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 1:355–381.
Gosselain, O. 2000. ‘Materializing identities: an African perspective’, Journal of Archaeological

Method and Theory, 7: l87 -217.
Grayson, D. 1984. Quantitative Zooarchaeology, London: Academic Press Inc, 1-202.
Grivetti, L. 1976. Dietary resources and social aspects of food use in a Tswana tribe,
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, UMI Dissertation services: Michigan.
Hall, M., 1984. ‘The Burden of Tribalism : The Social Context of southern African Iron Age
Studies’, American Antiquity, 49(3): 455–467.
__________. 1986. ‘The role of cattle in southern African agropastoral societies: more than bones
alone can tell’, Southern African Archaeological Society Goodwin Series, 5: 83-7.
__________. 1997. Patriarchal facades: the ambivalences of gender in the archaeology of

colonialism, in L. Wadley (ed) Our Gendered Past: Archaeological studies of Gender in
southern Africa, Johannesburg: Witwatersrand University Press, 221-236.
__________. 2000. Archaeology and the Modern World: Colonial transcripts in South Africa and the
Chesapeake. London: Routledge.
Hall, M. & Maggs, T., 1979. ‘Nqabeni, a later Iron Age site in Zululand’, Goodwin Series, (3):159–
176.
179
Hall, S. 1995. ‘Archaeological Indicators of stress in the Western Transvaal Region between the
Seventeenth and Nineteenth Centuries’, in C. Hamilton (ed) The Mfecane Aftermath:
Reconstructive Debates in Southern African History. Johannesburg and Pietermaritzburg:
WITS Press and University of Natal Press, 307-321.
_________. 1998a, ‘A Consideration of Gender Relations in the Late Iron Age “Sotho” Sequence of
the Western Highveld, South Africa’, in S. Kent (ed), Gender in African Prehistory,
Sage publications, London.
__________. 1998b, ‘Material culture and gender correlations: The view from Mabotse in the late
nineteenth century’, in L. Wadley (ed), Our gendered past: Archaeological studies of
gender in southern Africa, Wits Press, Johannesburg.
__________. 2007. ‘Tswana History in the Bankenveld’, In Bonner, P., Esterhuysen, A. & Jenkins, T.
(eds.) A Search for Origins: Science, History and South Africa’s ‘Cradle of
Humankind’, Witwatersrand University Press: Johannesburg, 162-179.
Hall, S. 2012. ‘Identity and Political Centralisation in the Western Regions of Highveld, c. 1770–c.
1830: An Archaeological Perspective’, Journal of southern African Studies, 38(2): 301–
318.
Hall, S., Anderson, M., Boeyens, J., Coetzee, F., 2008. ‘Towards an outline of the oral geography,
historical identity and political economy of the Late Precolonial Tswana in the
Rustenburg region’, In Swanepoel, N., Esterhuysen, A., Bonner, P. (Eds.), Five Hundred
Years Rediscovered: Southern African Precedents and Prospects, Wits University Press,
Johannesburg, 55-85.
Hamilton, C. & Hall, S., 2012. ‘Reading across the Divides: Commentary on the Political Co-
presence of Disparate Identities in Two Regions of South Africa in the Late Eighteenth
and Early Nineteenth Centuries’, Journal of Southern African Studies, 38(2):281–290.
Hammond-Tooke, W. 1974. ‘Worldview I: A System of Beliefs, Worldview II: A System of Action’,

in W Hammond-Tooke (ed.), The Bantu-speaking peoples of southern Africa, Routledge &
Kegan Paul, London, 318-62.
__________. 1981. Boundaries and belief: The structure of a Sotho Worldview, Witwatersrand
University Press, Johannesburg.
__________. 2004. Southern Bantu origins : light from kinship terminology, Southern African
Humanities, 16, 71–78.
180
Hardie, G. 1981. Tswana design of house and settlement-continuity and change in expressive
space, unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Arizona, Arizona.
Henrickson , E. & McDonald, M. 1983. ‘Ceramic Form and Function: An Ethnographic Search and
an Archaeological Application’, American Anthropologist, 85(3):630-643.
Herbert, R.K. 1993. ‘Linguistic studies in southern Africa, An introduction’, In R.K. Herbert (ed),
Foundations in Southern African Linguistics, WITS University Press: Johannesburg, vii-xv.
Hillson, S. 2005. Teeth, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1-373.
Hodder, I. 1982. Symbols in Action; Ethnoarchaeological studies of Material Culture, Cambridge

University Press: Cambridge UK.
__________. 1986. Reading the Past: Current Approaches to Interpretation in Archaeology, New
York: Cambridge University Press.
__________. 1987. Archaeology as Long-Term History. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge UK.
Hodder, I. & Hutson, S. 2003. Reading the past, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Hoernle, W. 1962. ‘Social organisation’, in I Schapera (ed.), Bantu-speaking tribes of South Africa,
Routledge, London, 67-93.
Howard, P. 2007. Archaeological Surveying and Mapping: Recording and Depicting the landscape,
Routledge: New York, 1-300.
Huffman, T. N. 1971. ‘A Guide to the Iron Age of Northern Mashonaland’, Occasional Papers of the
National Museums of Rhodesia, 4(1): 2–44.
__________. 1974. ‘Linguistic Affinities of the Iron Age in Rhodesia’, Arnoldia, 8(23): 1–12.
__________. 1978. ‘Origins of the Leopard’s Kopje Tradition: An 11th Century Difaqane’,
Arnoldia, 8(23): 1–12.
__________. 1980. ‘Ceramics, Classification and Iron Age Entities’, African Studies, 29(2): 123–74.
__________. 1982. ‘Archaeology and ethnohistory of the African Iron Age’, Annual Review of
Anthropology, 11:133-50.
__________. 1986a. ‘Archaeological evidence and conventional explanations of southern Bantu

settlement patterns’, Africa, 56(3):280–298.
181
__________. 1986b. ‘Iron Age settlement patterns and the origins of class distinction in southern
Africa’, Advances in World Archaeology, (5):291-338.
__________. 1986c. Cognitive studies of the Iron Age in southern Africa, World Archaeology,
18(1): 84–95.
__________. 1989. ‘Ceramics, Settlements and Late Iron Age Migrations’, The African
Archaeological Review, 7, 155–82.
__________. 1993. ‘Broederstroom and the Central Cattle Pattern’, South African journal of
Science , 89:220-6.
__________. 1996. ‘Archaeological evidence for climatic change during the last 2000 years in
southern Africa’, Quaternary International, 33: 55-60.
__________. 2002. ‘Regionality in the Iron Age: the case of the Sotho-Tswana’, Southern African
Humanities, (14):1-22.
__________. 2004. ‘The archaeology of the Nguni past’, Southern African Humanities, (16):79–
111.
__________. 2006. ‘Maize grindstones, Madikwe pottery and ochre mining in precolonial South
Africa’, Southern African Humanities, 18(2):51–70.
__________. 2007. Handbook of the Iron Age: The Archaeology of Pre-Colonial Farming Societies in
southern Africa, KZN Press, Pietermaritzburg.
Huffman, T. & Steel, R. 1996. ‘Salvage excavations at Planknek, Potgeitersrus, Northern

Province’, Southern African Field Archaeology, (5):45-56.
Hunt, T. & Sadr, K. 2014. ‘Inter-analyst variability in identification and classification of pre-
colonial stone-walled structures using Google Earth , southern Gauteng , South Africa’,
South African Archaeological Bulletin, 69(199):0–8.
Insoll, T. 2011. ‘Introduction. Shrines, substances and medicine in sub-Saharan Africa:

archaeological, anthropological, and historical perspectives’, Anthropology & medicine,
18(2): 145–66.
Johnson, M., 1989. ‘Conceptions of Agency in Archaeological’, Journal of Anthropological

Archaeology, 8:189–211.
__________. 2008. Archaeological Theory: An Introduction. Blackwell Publishing: Oxford.
182
Jones, S. 1997. The Archaeology of Ethnicity, London: Routledge.
__________. 2000. ‘Discourses of identity in the interpretation of the past’, in Thomas, J. (ed.),
Interpretive Archaeology: A Reader, Leicester University Press: London, 445–457.
Joyce, R.A. & Lopiparo, J. 2005. ‘PostScript : Doing Agency in Archaeology’. Journal of
Archaeological Method and Theory, 12(4): 365–374.
Kruger, F.J. 2011. Investigation of class 3 and class 4 (Doornspruit) homesteads in the North
West Province, South Africa. Unpublished master’s thesis, Cape Town University.
Kuper, A. 1975. ‘The social structure of the Sotho-speaking peoples of Southern Africa’, Africa:
Journal of the International African Institute, 45(1): 67–81.
__________. 1980. ‘Symbolic Dimensions of the southern Bantu Homestead’, Africa: Journal of the
International African Institute, 50(1):8–23.
__________. 1982. Wives for cattle: bridewealth and marriage in southern Africa, Routledge & Kegan
Paul, London.
Laidler, P.W. 1938. ‘South African Native Ceramics: Their Characteristics and Classification’,
Transactions of the Royal Society of South Africa, 26: 93–172.
Lane, P. 1994/5. ‘The use and Abuse of Ethnography in the study of the southern African Iron
Age’, Azania: Archaeological Research in Africa, 29(1):51-64.
__________. 2000. ‘Engendered Spaces Bodily Practices in the Iron Age of southern African
(Chapter 10)’, in Susan Kent (ed) Gender in African Prehistory, Califfornia: AltaMira
Press, 179-204.
Lestrade, G. 1937. ‘The spelling of names of Bantu Languages and tribes in English’, Bantu
Studies, 11: 373-375.
__________. 1962. ‘Domestic and Communal Life’, in I Schapera (ed.), Bantu-speaking tribes of
South Africa, Routledge, London, 119-128.
Legassick, M. 1969. ‘The Sotho-Tswana peoples before 1800’, In L. Thompson (ed.), African
Societies in southern Africa. London: Heinemann, 86- 125.
__________. 2010. The Griqua, the Sotho-Tswana, and the missionaries, 1780-1840: the politics of a
frontier zone, Basel: Basier Afrika Bibliographien.
Little, B. 1992. Text-aided Archaeology. CRCR Press: Florida.
183
Loubser, J., 1985. ‘Buffelshoek: an ethnoarchaeological consideration of a Late Iron Age
settlement in the southern Transvaal’, The South African Archaeological Bulletin,
40(142): 81–87.
Lyman, L. 1994. ‘Quantitative units and terminology in Zooarchaeology’, American Antiquity, 59:
36– 71.
__________. 2008. Quantitative Paleozoology, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1-348.
Maggs, T. 1976a. Iron Age Communities of the southern Highveld, Council of the Natal Museum,
Pietermaritzburg.
__________. 1976b. ‘Iron Age patterns and Sotho history on the southern Highveld: South Africa’,
World Archaeology, 7(3):318–332.
__________. 1993. ‘Sliding doors at Mokgatle ’s , a nineteenth century Tswana town in the central
transvaal’, The South African Archaeological Bulletin, 48(157):32–36.
Manson, A. 1995. ‘Conflict in the western Highveld/southern Kalahari,c. 1750-1820’ in

Hamilton, C. (ed.) Mfecane Aftermath: Reconstructive Debates in Southern African History,
Johannesburg: University of Witwatersrand Press, 351-361.
Marx, K. and F. Engels, 1970. The German ideology, International publishers, New York.
Mason, R. 1968. ‘Transvaal and Natal Iron Age settlement revealed by aerial photography and
excavation’, African Studies, 27(4):167-180.
__________. 1974. ‘Background to the Transvaal Iron Age-new discoveries at Olifantspoort and
Broederstroom’, Journal of the South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy,
20(January): 211–216.
__________. 1986. Origins of Black People of Johannesburg and the southern Western Central
Transvaal AD 350 to 1880, Occasional Paper 16, University of the Witwatersrand
Archaeological Research Unit, Johannesburg.
Massie, R. 1905. The Native tribes of the Transvaal. London: Harrison and Sons.
McKenzie , J. 1871. Ten years north of the orange river, Edmonston & Douglas, Edinburgh.
Mitchell, P. & Whitelaw, G., 2005. The Archaeology of southernmost Africa from c. 2000 BP to
the early 1800s: A Review of Recent Research, The Journal of African History, 46(2):
209–241.
184
MoLAS, 1994. ‘3.1.2 Recording Deposits’, Archaeological Site Manual, Museum of London:
London, no page numbers.
Molema, S. 1963. The Bantu, C. Struik, Cape Town.
Mönnig, H. O. 1967. The Pedi, J.L. van Schaik Limited, Pretoria.
Morton, F. 2008. ‘Creating maps as historical evidence : Reconsidering settlement patterns and
group relations in the Rustenburg- Pilanesberg area before 1810’, New Contree, 1–21.
__________. 2011. ‘Bogwera and Mephato’, Botswana Notes and Records, 43:38-51.
__________. 2013. ‘Settlements, Landscapes and Identities among the Tswana of the western
Transvaal and eastern Kalahari before 1820’, South African Archaeological Bulletin,
68(197), 15–26.
Morton, F. & Hitchcock, R. 2014. ‘Tswana Hunting : Continuities and Changes in the Transvaal
and Kalahari after 1600’, South African Historical Journal, 37–41.
Mucina L. & M.C. Rutherford, M.C.Lotter, G.J. Bredenkamp, J.H.L. Smit, C.R. Scott-Shaw, D.B.
Hoare, P.S. Goodman, H.Bezuidenhout, L .Scott, F. Ellis, L.P. Powrie, F. Siebert, T.H.
Mostert, B.J. Henning, C.E. Venter, K.G.T. Camp, S.J. Siebert, W.S. Matthews, J.E. Burrows,
L. Dobson, N. van Rooyen, E. Schmidt, P.J.D. Winter, P.J. du Preez, R.A. Ward, S.
Williamson, P.J.H. Hurter, 2006. ‘Chapter 9: The Savannah Biome’, in L. Mucina & M.C.
Rutherford (eds) The vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland, Strelitzia 19,
South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria: 439-539.
National Heritage Resources Act, Act 25 of 1999, Government Gazette, 28 April 1999, Vol. 406,
no. 19974, notice no.506.
Nelson, C. 2008. An Archaeozoological and Ethnographic investigation into animal utilisation

practices of the Ndzundza Ndebele of the Steelpoort River Valley, South Africa, 1700AD-
1900AD, Unpublished masters dissertation, University of Pretoria: Pretoria.
Ngcongco, L.D. 1979. ‘Origins of the Tswana’, Pula: Botswana Journal of African Studies, 1(2):21-
46.
Orser, C.E. 1996. A Historical Archaeology of the Modern World, Plenum Press: London.
__________. 2004. Historical Archaeology, Harper Collins: New York.
185
Orton, D. C. 2012. ‘Taphonomy and interpretation: an analytical framework for social
zooarchaeology’, International Journal of Osteoarchaeology, 22: 320–337.
Orton, C. & Tyers, P. & Vance, A. 1993. Pottery in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press:
Cambridge.
Parsons, N. 1995. ‘Prelude to Difaqane in the interior of southern Africa,c. 1600-C.1822’, in

Hamilton, C. (ed.) Mfecane Aftermath: Reconstructive Debates in Southern African History,
Johannesburg: University of Witwatersrand Press, 322-349.
__________. 2008. ‘South Africa in Africa more than five hundred years ago: some questions’, In
Swanepoel, N., Esterhuysen, A., Bonner, P. (Eds.), Five Hundred Years Rediscovered:
Southern African Precedents and Prospects, Wits University Press, Johannesburg, 41-54.
PetraDiamonds, 2015, Helam, Available from: http://www.petradiamonds.com/operations/

operating-mines/helam.aspx
Pikirayi, I., 2007. ‘Ceramics and group identities: Towards a social archaeology in southern
African Iron Age ceramic studies’, Journal of Social Archaeology, 7(3): 286–301.
Pistorius, J. 1992. Molokwane: an Iron Age Bakwena village, Perskor, Johannesburg.
__________. 1994. ‘Molokwane, a seventeenth century Tswana village’, South African Journal of
Ethnology, 17 (2):38-53.
__________. 1995. ‘Rathateng and Mabyanamatshwaana: cradles of the Kwena and Kgatla’, South
African Journal of Ethnology, 18(2):49–64.
__________. 1996. 'Spatial expressions in the kgosing of Molokwane', South African Journal of
Ethnology, 19(4):143.
Pistorius, J. & Plug, I. 2001. ‘The faunal remains from Molokwane, capital of the Bakwena be
Modimosana, Northwest Province, South Africa’, South African Journal of Ethnology,
24(1): 25–39.
Plug, I. 1987. An analysis of witchdoctor divining sets, National Cultural History and Open-Air
Museum, Pretoria.
__________. 1988. Hunters and herders: an Archaeozoologcial study of some prehistoric communities
in the Kruger National Park, Unpublished PhD. Dissertation, University of Pretoria:
Pretoria.
186
__________. 1993. ‘The macrofaunal remains of wild animals from Abbot’s Cave and Lame Sheep
Shelter, Seacow Valley, Cape’, Koedoe, 36(1):15-26.
__________. 2014. What bone is that? A guide to the identification of southern African mammal
bones, Rosslyn Press: Pretoria.
Plug, I. & Badenhorst, S. 2001. The Distribution of Macromammals in southern Africa over the
Past 30,000 Years as Reflected in Animal Remains from Archaeological Sites. Pretoria:
Transvaal Museum.
__________. 2006. ‘Notes on the Fauna from Three Late Iron Age Mega-Sites, Boitsemagano,
Molokwane and Mabjanamatshwana, North West Province, South Africa’, The South
African Archaeological Bulletin, 61(183): 57–67.
Prehistoric Ceramics Research Group, 2010. The study of later prehistoric pottery: general
policies and guidelines for analysis and publication, 3rd Edition (PCRG) Occasional
Papers Nos. 1 and 2, 1-78.
Raum, O. 1973. The Social Functions of Avoidances and Taboo among the Zulu, Walter de Gruyter,
Berlin.
Rautenbach, I.L. 1982. Mammals of the Transvaal, Ecoplan Monograph No. 1., Beria printers:
Pretoria.
Reid, A., Lane, P. & Segobye, A. 1997. ‘Tswana architecture and responses to colonialism’, World
Archaeology, 28(3), 370–392.
Reid, A., 2004. ‘Access to cattle resources in a Tswana capital’, in P. Lane & A. Reid (eds), African
historical archaeologies, Plenum/Kluwer: New York, 1-33.
Reid, A., & Lane, P. 2004. ‘African Historical Archaeologies: An introductory Consideration of
Scope and Potential (Chapter 1)’, in P. Lane & A. Reid (eds), African historical
archaeologies, Plenum/Kluwer: New York, 1-33.
Reitz, E. & Wing, E. 2008. Zooarchaeology, 2nd ed., Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press.
RHP (River Health Programme) 2005. State-of-Rivers Report: Monitoring and Managing the
Ecological State of Rivers in the Crocodile (West) Marico Water Management Area,
Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism: Pretoria.
Rice, P.M. 1987. Pottery analysis: A Sourcebook, 1st edition, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
187
Rice, P.M. 2005. Pottery Analysis: A Sourcebook, 2nd edition, The University of Chicago Press:
London
Rosenstein, D., 2008. Sorting out Ceramics: Correlating Change in the Technology of Ceramic
Production with the Chronology of 18th and early 19th Century Western Batswana Towns.
Unpublished MSc Dissertation, University of Cape Town: Cape Town.
Sadr, K., 2012. ‘The Origins and Spread of Dry Laid , Stone-Walled Architecture in Pre- colonial
southern Africa’, Journal of Southern African Studies, 38(2): 257–263.
Sadr, K. & Rodier, X. 2012. ‘Google Earth, GIS and stone-walled structures in southern Gauteng,
South Africa’, Journal of Archaeological Science, 39(4):1034–1042.
Schapera, I. 1935. ‘The social structure of the Tswana ward’, Bantu Studies, 9 (3): 203-224.
__________. 1946. ‘Some Features in the Social Organization of the Tlokwa (Bechuanaland
Protectorate )’, Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, 2(1):16–47.
__________. 1953. The Tswana, International African Institute, London.
__________. 1955. A Handbook of Tswana Law and Custom, Frank Cass: London.
__________. 1963. Kinship and Politics in Tswana History, The Journal of the Royal Anthropological
Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, 93(2): 159-173.
__________. 1978. ‘Some Notes on Tswana Bogadi’, Journal of African Law, 22(2):112–124.
Schapera, I. & Goodwin, J. 1962. ‘Work and Wealth’, in I Schapera (ed.), Bantu-speaking tribes of
South Africa, Routledge, London, 131-170.
Schofield, J.F. 1948. Primitive Pottery: An Introduction to the South African Ceramics, Prehistoric
and Protohistoric. Cape Town: South African Archaeological Society.
Schmidt, P.R. 2006. Historical archaeology in Africa: Representation, social memory, and oral
traditions. Altamira: Oxford.
Schmidt, P.R. & Walz, J.R., 2007. ‘Re-Representing African Pasts through Historical Archaeology’,
American, 72(1):53–70.
Scott, K. Juwayeyi, Y. and Plug, I. 2009. ‘The faunal remains from Mankhamba, a Late Iron Age
settlement site of the Maravi in central Malawi’, Annals of the Transvaal Museum,
46: 45–61.
188
Seddon, J.D., 1968. ‘An aerial survey of settlement and living patterns in the Transvaal Iron Age:
preliminary report’, African Studies, 27 (4): 189-195.
Skinner, J.D. and C.T. Chimimba, 2005. The mammals of the southern African sub-region,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Smithers, R.H.N. 2002. Smithers’ mammals of southern Africa. A field Guide, London: Swan Hill.
Stahl, A.B. 1993. ‘Concepts of time and approaches to analogical reasoning in historical
perspective’, American Antiquity, 58:235-60.
Steyn, G 2011. ‘The spatial patterns of Tswana stone-walled towns in perspective’, SAJAH,
26(2):101-125.
Stuart, C. & T. Stuart, 1995. Veldgids: Soogdiere van Suider-Afrika, Struik Uitgewers: Kaapstad, 1-
272.
Swanepoel, N., Esterhuysen, A., Bonner, P. 2008. ‘Preface’, In Swanepoel, N., Esterhuysen, A.,
Bonner, P. (Eds.), Five Hundred Years Rediscovered: Southern African Precedents and
Prospects, Wits University Press, Johannesburg, vi-viii.
Tans, P.P., de Jong, A.F.M., Mook, W.G., 1979. ‘Natural atmospheric 14C variation and the Suess
effect’, Nature, 280 (5725):826-828.
Taylor, M. 1979. Late Iron Age Settlements on the Northern Edge of the Vrededort Dome,
Unpublished Master Dissertation, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg.
Tyson, P. D., Karlen, W., Holmgren, K. & Heiss, G. 2000. ‘The Little Ice Age and medieval warming
in South Africa’, South African Journal of Science, 96: 121–6.
Van Niekerk, J., Van der Watt, R., Biemond, W. & Luyt, M. 2002. Voorlopige argeologiese
ondersoek van ‘n terrain op die plaas EENZAAMHEID, distrik Swartruggens, Noord-Wes
Provinsie, QualiPro, Groenkloof.
Van Warmelo, N. J. 1935. A preliminary survey of the Bantu tribes of South Africa. Pretoria:
Government Printer.
__________. 1962. ‘Grouping and Ethnic History’, in I Schapera (ed.), Bantu-speaking tribes of South
Africa, Routledge, London, 43-66.
Von den Driesch, A. 1976. A guide to the measurement of animal bones from archaeological sites,
Peabody Museum Press: Cambridge.
189
Walker, C. 1996. Signs of the Wild: A field guide to the spoor & signs of the mammals of southern
Africa, Struik publisher: Cape Town, 1-215.
Wallis, J.P.R. 1945. The Matabele Journals of Robert Moffat, 1829 1860, Vol I, London: Chatto &
Windus.
Walton, J. 1958. ‘Sotho cattle-kraals’, The South African Archaeological Bulletin, 13(52):133–143.
Wheatley, D. and Gillings, M. 2002. ‘Spatial Technology and Archaeology: The Archaeological
Applications of GIS’, Taylor and Francis, London.
Wheeler, M. 1956. Archaeology from the earth, Penguin books, Baltimore, Md.
Whitelaw, G. 1994. KwaGandaganda: Settlement patterns in the Natal Early Iron Age, Southern
African Humanities, 6: 1-64.
Willoughby, W. C. 1905. ‘Notes on the totemism of the Bechwana’, Joint Meeting Brit. & S. Afr.
Assoc. Adv. Sci., 3:263- 293.
Wylie, A., 1985. ‘The Reaction against Analogy’, Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory,
8:63–111.
190
Appendix A - Forms
191
192
Appendix B - QR codes and hyperlinks
The hyperlink is:

https://drive.google.com/fil
e/d/0B7_LHlkDtztDVjVnUlc
xeWxOXzg/view?usp=shari
ng
QR code 1, links to Figure 5.9, The map of the site
The hyperlink is:

https://drive.google.com/fil
e/d/0B7_LHlkDtztDalJTQldr
b1R0a0k/view?usp=sharing
QR code 2, links to Figure 5.10, Map with general sizes of central enclosures
The hyperlink is:

https://drive.google.com/file
/d/0B7_LHlkDtztDS1Y5Q09N
c0hIZUk/view?usp=sharing
QR code 3, links to Figure 5.11, Features of Section A
193
The hyperlink is:
https://drive.google.com/fi
le/d/0B7_LHlkDtztDdHdHc
zhpU0xldms/view?usp=sha
ring
QR code 4, links to Figure 5.16, Features of Section B
The hyperlink is:

https://drive.google.com/file
/d/0B7_LHlkDtztDeU9kX3ZB
dC1CcGs/view?usp=sharing
QR code 5. links to Figure 5.19 , Features of Section C
194

Jordaan Archaelogical 2016

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jordaan Archaelogical 2016

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jordaan Archaelogical 2016

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

An archaeological investigation into the social structure of a stone-walled

site in the North West Province, South Africa

Dr Ceri Ashley & Dr Alexander Antonites

Department of Anthropology and Archaeology, University of Pretoria

Keywords: Tswana, stone-walled site, Swartruggens, Phiring, Buispoort, historical archaeology,

All rights reserved.

Table of Contents …………………………………………………………………………………………………………....……i

1.1. Overview ........................................................................................................................................................... 1

1.2. Research objectives ...................................................................................................................................... 5

1.3. Dissertation outline ...................................................................................................................................... 6

Chapter 2 Literature Review........................................................................................................................................ 8

2.1. Overview ........................................................................................................................................................... 8

2.2. The study region ............................................................................................................................................ 8

2.2.1. The topography and vegetation..................................................................................................... 9

2.2.2. The Geology and soils ..................................................................................................................... 11

2.2.3. Climate .................................................................................................................................................. 12

2.2.4. Rivers ..................................................................................................................................................... 12

2.3. Groups historically found in the ZPR region ................................................................................... 13

2.3.1. The Tswana cluster .......................................................................................................................... 14

2.3.2. The Tswana groups in the region .............................................................................................. 16

2.3.3. Groups in the Swartruggens area .............................................................................................. 18

2.3.4. The Phiring at Nooitgedacht ........................................................................................................ 20

2.3.5. Finding Motšokwe ............................................................................................................................ 21

2.4. Settlement and ceramic classification of stone wall sites ......................................................... 23

2.4.1. Stone wall site typologies for the region................................................................................. 23

2.4.3. Classification associations and issues ...................................................................................... 40

2.5. Direction of following chapter .............................................................................................................. 40

Chapter 3 Theoretical Framework ......................................................................................................................... 42

3.1. Overview ........................................................................................................................................................ 42

3.2. Historical archaeology ............................................................................................................................. 42

3.3. Analogy and Southern African Archaeology ................................................................................... 44

3.4. The application of the Central Cattle Pattern ................................................................................. 46

3.4.1. The critique of the Central Cattle Pattern............................................................................... 49

3.5. The Tswana worldview and structure .............................................................................................. 52

3.5.1. Accounting for misfortune ............................................................................................................ 52

3.5.2. The socio-political order of a Tswana settlement ............................................................... 53

3.5.3. The organisation of a Tswana settlement .............................................................................. 56

3.6. Discussion ..................................................................................................................................................... 63

Chapter 4 Method .......................................................................................................................................................... 64

4.1. Overview ........................................................................................................................................................ 64

4.2. Aerial and satellite survey ...................................................................................................................... 64

4.3. Archaeological Survey of farm .............................................................................................................. 69

4.4. Survey for mapping of site...................................................................................................................... 70

4.5. The mapping of the site ........................................................................................................................... 71

4.6. Excavation ..................................................................................................................................................... 73

4.7. Method of Analysis .................................................................................................................................... 76

4.7.1. Faunal material.................................................................................................................................. 76

4.7.2. Ceramic Material ............................................................................................................................... 84

4.7.3. Other material .................................................................................................................................... 90

4.7.4. Flotation and soil samples ............................................................................................................ 90

4.7.5. Carbon samples ................................................................................................................................. 91

4.8. Photographs and illustrations .............................................................................................................. 92

4.9. Curation and Storage ................................................................................................................................ 92

Chapter 5 Spatial Data ................................................................................................................................................. 94

5.1. Overview ........................................................................................................................................................ 94

5.2. Survey and mapping results .................................................................................................................. 94

5.2.1. Features of section A ....................................................................................................................... 99

5.2.2. Section A1 & A2 ............................................................................................................................... 100

5.2.3. Section A3 .......................................................................................................................................... 103

5.2.4. Section B ............................................................................................................................................. 104