The stylistic origin of Bambata and the spread of mixed farming in

57

Southern African Humanities Vol. 17 Pages 57–79 Pietermaritzburg December, 2005

The stylistic origin of Bambata and the spread of mixed farmingin southern Africa

by

Thomas N. Huffman

School of Geography, Archaeology and Environmental Studies, University of theWitwatersrand, 2050 Johannesburg; [email protected]

ABSTRACT

Bambata pottery, and its role in the spread of food production, requires two explanations. The styleprobably originated somewhere in Angola, among farming communities which belonged to the KALUNDU

TRADITION, but it first spread into south-eastern Africa with hunter-gatherer groups at about AD 200. Onlylater, at about AD 350, were the Bantu-speaking, mixed farming communities, responsible for the style,present in eastern Botswana and western Zimbabwe.

KEY WORDS: Southern Africa, Early Iron Age, Kalundu Tradition, Bambata, hunter-gatherers, pastoralists,farmers.

INTRODUCTION

The spread of mixed farming into southern Africa has been of interest for severaldecades. We now know that some of the first Bantu-speaking people to enter the sub-continent brought with them a complete ‘Iron Age package’ (e.g. Phillipson 1985).Evidence for this package includes the physical remains of settled village life (storagepits, burnt daga houses/grain bins and enormous ceramic vessels), domestic animals(dung, bones and teeth), domestic crops (grindstones, soil casts, occasional carbonisedgrains and phytoliths) and metallurgy (slag, blowpipes and furnace/forge bases). Theassociation between this package and Early Iron Age ceramics is no longer a majorissue (Mitchell 2002).

Another debate involving cattle and pottery, however, is still current. Archaeologistshave not yet resolved the role of Bambata pottery in the spread of pastoralism andmixed farming. Over the years, Africanists have considered the pottery in terms ofthree logical possibilities.

Hypothesis I: that Bambata pottery represents the vanguard of the Iron Age—eitherwith a full mixed-farming economy, or primarily as pastoralists.

Hypothesis II: that hunter-gatherers acquired Bambata pottery through trade—eitheras whole vessels, when farming villages were nearby, and/or as fragments passedalong hunter-gatherer networks for use by shamans. Some of these people acquireddomestic animals along with the pottery and became hunter-gatherers with cattle,rather than full pastoralists.

Hypothesis III: that the pottery represents full pastoralists, or sedentary Later StoneAge with domestic stock, who had their own ceramic tradition.

BAMBATA POTTERY

To assess these three hypotheses, we must first separate the stylistic origins of thepottery from its use. The pottery itself was initially found in Bambata Cave (Fig. 1) in

http://www.sahumanities.org.za

58 SOUTHERN AFRICAN HUMANITIES, VOL. 17, 2005

Fig. 1. Bambata cave in the Matopos.

Fig. 2. Bambata pottery from Bambata Cave. Scale in inches.

HUFFMAN: BAMBATA AND THE SPREAD OF FARMING 59

Fig. 3. Spatial range of Bambata sites.


Fig.

4. B

amba

ta d

ecor

atio

n ke

y.


Fig. 5. Bambata stylistic types. Rec – reconstruction, F – fragment.


the Matopos (Arnold & Jones 1919) and then later described after a second excavation(Schofield 1941). From the beginning, archaeologists emphasised a few special features,such as thinness, spouts, decorated lips, punctates, concave rims and colour infilling(Fig. 2). This kind of pottery is now known from many small samples and a few largeassemblages spread over a wide area (Fig. 3). These larger assemblages, includingBambata Cave and Toteng, are important because they include a variety of motifs andtechniques on the same vessel and on different vessels that occur together. Thecontemporaneity of only one vessel at Bambata Cave (Schofield 1941: 372, no. 13), forexample, has ever been questioned. We can therefore use these larger assemblages as adatum to assess the affinity of samples with questionable associations. This approachmakes it possible to shift attention away from fragments and key features, such asthinness, to decoration themes and stylistic types.

At this point, one should remember that in an experimental test of different analyticalprocedures (Huffman 1980), stylistic types formed by the combinations of profile, layoutand motif categories were able to assign all samples to the correct control groups. Theywere successful because they characterised the stylistic structure of a ceramic unit.Procedures that emphasised function (shape) or technology (e.g. decoration technique),on the other hand, were not successful. Here, to avoid repetition and the effect of function,I use mostly jars.

Another point is also worth noting. I use the standard characteristics of thinness anddense decoration (especially stamping) to identify Bambata samples, but these keyfeatures do not constitute a definition. Such an approach in fact would exclude manyspecimens from the type assemblage at Bambata Cave. Only a complete list ofmultidimensional, stylistic types defines a ceramic unit. Once stylistic types have beendetermined from the standard samples, we can incorporate other vessels that have thesame profile, layout and motif combinations, but not the technological features.

In the case of Bambata, the range of decoration techniques includes incision, stampingand punctates (or stylus impressions), as well as colour, while motifs include simplehatched bands, crosshatching, herringbone, multiple bands, triangles and alternatingblocks of lines (Fig. 4). Next, the decoration positions (i.e. layout) include both a longand short rim, as well as a lip, neck and shoulder. Much of these data, incidentally, areavailable in existing literature (e.g. Cooke 1963; Schofield 1941; Walker 1983) and inthis paper (Fig. 2). These decoration positions, once combined with motif categoriesand vessel profile, generate some 14 stylistic types (Fig. 5); the following eight arenoteworthy:

Type 1 Type 2 Type 3Lip incision incisionShort 1 oblique incision stamping or incision multiple bands[ rolled on to lip2/3 alternating blocks empty empty

Type 5 Type 6Lip stamping stamping stampingShort 1 herringbone oblique stamping or crosshatching2 multiple bands parallel lines alternating blocks


Type 4 Type 7 Type 12Lip stamping stamping emptyLong 1 multiple bands or blocks alternating Short 1 empty

or vertical lines2 empty [ blocks multiple bands

There could be objections to Type 12 because the Toteng example illustrated inFigure 5 was an isolated vessel found some distance from the midden. While theassociation of this specific example could be questioned, the concept of the type issolid because multiple bands occur on the rim in Type 3 and in the neck in Types 4and 5. Fragmentary examples of multiple bands in the neck also occur at Hippo Toothand Toromoja. Furthermore, multiple bands as a motif category are common in theBambata Cave assemblage.

There could also be objections to the first example of Type 6 in Figure 5 because it iscommon in the Gokomere and Ziwa facies. That it is also part of Bambata is shown byits presence at Bambata Cave and Toteng, and its co-occurrence with Type 7 in theTswapong Hills. Furthermore, both Type 12 and this Type 6 variant occur together inthe sample from Whitewater Shelter. Figure 5, then, is a fair representation of the stylisticstructure of Bambata.

Although some types are fragmentary, the available profiles, layouts and motifcategories show that Bambata belongs to CHIFUMBAZE, rather than a separatecomplex. This point, by the way, has been known for many years (e.g. Robinson1966; Summers 1961). On present evidence, Bambata appears closely related toBenfica (Dos Santos Jnr & Ervedosa 1970; De Sousa Martins 1976), the earliestfacies of the KALUNDU TRADITION in Angola (Huffman 1989). Among other attributes,Benfica includes rims with both a long and short position decorated withcrosshatching, stamping, herringbone, parallel lines and multiple bands; along withparallel lines in the neck; and alternating blocks of lines both in the neck and onthe shoulder (Fig. 6). Significantly, Bambata does not directly resemble facies inthe Nkope or Kwale Branch of UREWE (Huffman 1989): multiple facets, forexample, dominate Kwale, while wavy lines on the neck and shoulder are commonin Nkope—both lack multiple bands in the neck. So, even if future research providesa better source than Benfica, the precise facies will still be related. Whatever thespecific facies, the analysis shows that the style originated within KALUNDU

communities.If the KALUNDU identification is correct, the Iron Age origin eliminates the possibility

that hunter-gatherers created the style. Other, different data further support thisconclusion. Smithfield pottery in the Seacow valley (Sampson 1988: 41–3, 48–9)provides an important example because it was probably made by hunter-gatherers afterpastoralists introduced the concept. First, only one shape category is common: a short,vertical-sided, asymmetrical flat-bottomed bowl. A second wide-mouthed open dish isalso probably present. Although the main shape is somewhat variable, and sizes alsovary, there do not appear to be other discrete conceptual categories (Sampson & Sadr1999). According to ethnographic data (cited by Sampson 1988), hunter-gatherers usedthe one shape category for multiple purposes, such as cooking meat, broth and a grass-seed porridge.


Fig. 6. Benfica stylistic types.


In contrast, Bambata includes several separate shapes, including jars with curvednecks, jars with straight necks, necked bowls, constricted bowls and open bowls. Thisrange of discrete vessel shapes is a common feature of agricultural communitiesthroughout southern Africa, where different shapes and sizes, with different names,serve different functions, such as brewing beer, drinking beer, storing water, carryingwater, cooking meat, cooking porridge and serving relish (e.g. Lindahl & Matenga1995). Thus, while Smithfield pottery has one main category for multiple purposes,farming pottery has multiple categories for specific purposes.

Secondly, Smithfield decoration is irregular and highly variable (Sampson 1988).Generally, stamp impressions made with different shaped styluses used in severaldifferent ways cover the vertical sides, which are sometimes divided into three zones(Bollong & Sampson 1999, fig. 4). Normally, only one technique occurs on a vessel. Interms of identity, this wide variability and marked idiosyncrasy produces a small scale,if not individual, identity. In contrast, the repeated combinations of different motifs indifferent positions produce a group identity statement for Bambata, as they do for otherIron Age ceramic units. A group statement, one should remember, was part of the natureof precolonial farming societies in southern Africa. Traditional African societies werefairly homogenous and communally oriented (Hammond-Tooke 1974). Potters werebound to the community through a network of social responsibilities where individualswere accountable to each other. Potters did not therefore stand-alone; rather, in order todistribute their work, they had to please the community. As a consequence, repetitionwas normal.

For similar reasons, the CHIFUMBAZE identification also eliminates the other possibilitythat Bambata represents a separate pastoral tradition. In particular, a bag-shaped vesselappropriate for transport and dairy products characterises pastoral pottery. In comparisonto farming assemblages, there are few motifs, and combinations, and therefore fewstylistic types (see also Sadr & Smith 1991 and Reid et al. 1998 for a comparison ofBambata and pastoral pottery in the Cape). These differences in shapes and functions,repetition and identity statements strengthen the conclusion that the Bambata stylederives from a farming context.

Contrary to some opinion, then, assessing the pottery in terms of known traditionshas not hampered interpretation; it has helped to narrow the range of possibilities byeliminating Hypothesis III. Interpretation has been hampered instead by the conflationof key technological features with a stylistic definition.

An Iron Age stylistic origin, it should be noted, does not exclude the possibility thatsome hunter-gatherers, or pastoralists, may have copied the style. One vessel at Toteng(Huffman 1994, fig. 3 top), for example, is thicker than the others, and the decoration isirregular. Occasional exceptions strengthen the original identification.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXT

Bambata A

The use of Bambata, reflected in its distribution, is the second important aspect ofthe debate. On the one hand, investigations have found Bambata pottery in rock sheltersthroughout the Matopos (e.g. Cooke 1963, 1970; Robinson 1966; Walker 1983), theLimpopo region (Robinson 1964; Walker 1994), the Makabeng (Van Schalkwyk pers.


comm.), the Waterberg (Van der Ryst pers. comm.), the Magaliesberg (Wadley 1987),and near Gaborone (Robbins 1985), as well as open sites (Fig. 7) around theMakgadikgadi Pans (Denbow & Campbell 1980, 1986) and Lake Ngami (Campbell1992; Huffman 1994; Robbins et al. 1998).

In many of these situations, the small collections do not represent typical farmingassemblages. Indeed, sometimes only a few fragments are present, each from a differentvessel. In other cases, such as Bambata Cave and Toteng, complete vessels had to havebeen present. In all these situations the pottery occurs together with Wilton-relatedLater Stone Age tool assemblages. The pottery always represents a ‘trait intrusion’, inthat the stone tool sequence continues with little or no modification, while the potteryitself lacks any antecedent whatsoever. For convenience, I call the pottery in this contextBambata A (Fig. 8). This pottery occurs throughout an enormous area, far greater thanthat of any other Iron Age ceramic unit on record, and therefore its use, as opposed to itsstylistic origins, was not associated with a typical set of farming communities. Theenormous distribution of fragments, and occasional vessels, supports the probabilitythat some hunter-gatherers acquired the pottery through trade.

The cluster of sites at Toteng requires further comment. I originally thought Toteng Iand III had been settled villages because discrete midden deposits were there, in contrastto the widespread distribution of debris on pastoral sites such as Kasteelberg (Smith etal. 1991). I am no longer sure about the significance of this point. While the middenssuggest some degree of sedentism, they are not conclusive evidence of settled villagelife. Furthermore, stone tools occurred underneath and throughout the Bambata midden,and the change in each level appears to parallel the Wilton sequence at Bambata Cave(Reid et al. 1998). The weight of evidence therefore supports the association of thepottery with stone tools.

Fig. 7. Makgadikgadi Pans, typical open location of Bambata A pottery.


Fig. 8. Bambata pottery: Bambata B, rows 1–3; Bambata A, rows 4–5.


Domestic animals were also clearly associated. Well-preserved remains of cattle andsmall stock (Hall in Campbell 1992) demonstrate a pastoral component in the economy.Sheep were also present at Bambata Cave (Walker 1983). Following Sadr (2003), theToteng people were probably hunter-gatherers with cattle. Bambata A is therefore bestexplained in terms of Hypothesis II: hunter-gatherers acquired Bambata pottery throughtrade and passed pots, and fragments, along pre-existing networks, while some alsoacquired domestic animals.

Bambata A dates

At Toteng, this pottery and domestic animal complex dates from AD 215 to 555.Further south, at Jubilee Shelter in the Magaliesberg, the pottery dates are later.

Toteng I 215 (Pta 5534) 330Toteng III 215–350 (Beta 44965, Beta 44966) 430–555Jubilee Shelter 540 (Wits 1381) 615

Note that I have calibrated all dates following Vogel et al (1993), omitted the mid pointand intercept, and rounded up the one sigma spans to the nearest five years. Followingthis procedure, the dating span for Bambata A is probably between AD 200 and 620.

Bambata B

The second archaeological context of Bambata pottery has a more limited extent,and there are farming affinities, for example, rain making hills (Great Zimbabwe PeriodI and Howmans Ruin) and villages (Buhwa and Mabveni). As rule, this second contextoccurs in areas with abundant agricultural land (Fig. 9). I call the pottery in this contextBambata B.

Although the style is the same (Figs 8, 10), Bambata B tends to be thicker thanBambata A. At Toteng, for example, A pottery ranges from 3.5 to 10 mm, with a clusterbetween 4 and 7 mm. Rim and neck measurements on a comparable sample from severalsites in the Matopos have the same range (Table 1a). On the other hand, Bambata Bvaries from about 5 to 11 mm with a cluster between 6 and 10 mm (Table 1b). Thisdifference suggests that farming communities may have purposefully made Bambata Athin, and therefore lighter, for trade to people with a mobile lifestyle. From thisperspective, Bambata may be a part of Benfica, rather than a separate facies. This lastpoint remains for future research.

3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 9.0 10 n

Rim 2 2 10 4 2 1 1 2 1 25T1 T4 T4 T1 T1 T1 T12

Neck 7 1 4 1 4 1 6 2 1 2 29T1 T3 T1 T3 T1 T5 T3 T17

Shoulder 1 1 2 3 7T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T5

TABLE 1a

Typical range of thickness (mm) in Bambata A pottery.(number of sherds per site: Bambata Cave - 14, Bambata Outspan - 3, Cave of Hands - 3,

Chamagwangadza - 1, Gulubahwe - 1, Gwanda Road - 2, Kwilembe - 2, Shame Shaba - 1, Tshangula -19, Whitewater - 4; T - Toteng sherds)


Fig. 9. Typical farming location of Bambata B pottery: top, Mabveni (note fields in background); bottom,Buhwa.


Mabveni

Fig. 10. Bambata B pottery: top, Mabveni; bottom, Great Zimbabwe. Scale in inches.

Great Zimbabwe


As an archaeological signature, Bambata B sites do not yet provide evidence for thefull Iron Age package, but it is a reasonable conclusion. First, Bambata B pottery isunlikely to represent hunter-gatherer/farmer interaction because of the different rangesof thickness and overlapping dates. Secondly, the concentration of Bambata A sites inthe Matopos, and the number of vessels at Bambata Cave, suggest that Bambata Bvillages were close by. And thirdly, the ceramic assemblages suggest that Bambata Boccurred with Silver Leaves at Buhwa CB 19, and vice versa at Buhwa CB 23: thissecond site yielded daga, slag and tuyere fragments. Incidentally, Ziwa sites are alsoon record along the base of Mt Buhwa (R. Burrett pers comm. 2005), and all threegroups probably wanted to utilise the rich iron ore resources.

Bambata B, then, is best explained in terms of Hypothesis I: it represents the vanguardof the Iron Age. The dates for the sub-sets of pottery overlap because the different usesprobably continued side by side. Indeed, interaction with hunter-gatherers probablyoccurred wherever the farmers lived in southern Africa.

INTERACTION

At this point, we need to consider the status of Gokomere. Gokomere belongs to theNkope Branch of UREWE (Fig. 11), differing from the parent facies of Ziwa and Nkopefurther north by having a significant proportion of multiple bands in the neck (Huffman1976, 1989). In contrast to Nkope, all KALUNDU facies have multiple bands; and so,Ziwa people must have interacted with a Kalundu neighbour. Bambata B occurs at thesame time as Ziwa in south-western Zimbabwe; and so, Bambata villagers are the most

3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10 11 n

Rim 1 2 4 4 3 1 15

Neck 1 3 2 2 2 2 1 13

Shoulder 1 2 3

Bowl 1 1

TABLE 1b

Typical range of thickness (mm) in Bambata B pottery.(number of sherds per site: Buhwa - 1, Great Zimbabwe - 4, Howmans Ruin - 4, Mabveni - 9)

Bambata B dates

In addition to thickness, there is a slight difference in dating. Bambata B, for instance,occurred together with Silver Leaves in the same daga structure at Buhwa CB 19(Huffman 1978, 1994), dating it to between AD 200 and 400. It also occurs with Ziwa(this is a new identification) in Great Zimbabwe Period I, dating it there to between thefifth and seventh centuries (Robinson 1961b, c); either under Gokomere at Mabveni,dating it to between the second and fifth centuries, or with Gokomere, dating it to theseventh and eighth centuries (Robinson 1961a). From these associations and dates, thechronology of Bambata B probably ranges from AD 350 to 650.

Great Zimbabwe PI 405 (M 913) 650Mabveni 140 (SR 43) 430Mabveni (Gokomere level) 630–790 (SR 79, Pta 2105) 670–700


likely candidates. From this perspective Ziwa potters incorporated some Bambatafeatures, creating Gokomere in the process.

Because Bambata and Gokomere share some types and many motifs, even before theinteraction, it is not always possible to identify the affiliation of small and fragmentarysamples. The Bambata B vessels at Mabveni, for example, could represent either theearly Bambata presence or the later period of incorporation. Either case provides supportfor interaction between Bambata and Ziwa people.

Gokomere ↑Bambata + Ziwa

Fig. 11. Spread of Early Iron Age Traditions into southern Africa.


CERAMIC CHANGE

Further north and west, the derivation of another Early Iron Age facies, Bisoli, ismost likely due to the evolution of Bambata (Table 2, Fig. 12). Early pottery at Bisoli(Denbow 1984; Denbow & Wilmsen 1986), Domboshaba (Van Waarden 1999, pers.comm. 2005) and Panga in eastern Botswana, and Merrys site in the Matopos, differfrom Gokomere and Zhizo assemblages in a few notable details, such as rolled rimswith decoration extending onto the lip, parallel broad lines in the neck and broaddecoration on the shoulder (Fig. 13). Many of these Bambata-like features also occuron Robinson’s (1985) Zhizo A that are especially early sites in the Khami Ruins area.

There are two dated sites in this new facies:

Bisoli 665–785 (Wits 1099, I-12, 708) 770–950Domboshaba 875 (I-13, 746) 1010

These dates overlap with both Gokomere and Zhizo. Indeed, Bisoli itself iscontemporaneous with the typical Zhizo site of Makuru (Huffman 1973) near GreatZimbabwe. The ceramic differences between Bisoli and Makuru strengthen theassignment of Bisoli as a new Early Iron Age facies. Its derivation from Bambatastrengthens Hypothesis I. The full definition of Bisoli and its relationships to otherfacies requires further research.

TABLE 2

Bisoli sequence.

10001950 ______________________1900185018001750 Bisoli17001650 ______________________1600155015001450 Bambata B14001350 ————————13001250 Bambata A1200 Benfica11501100

DOMESTIC STOCK

This study has concentrated on the stylistic origin and use of Bambata ceramics;the relationship with domestic stock is a separate issue. On the strength of onedate from Bambata Cave (Walker 1983), many Africanists place the introductionof small stock and Bambata pottery in the last centuries BC. The Bambata Cavedate is suspect, however, because an older date comes from above the Bambatalenses (Vogel et al. 1986). Recent AMS dates for domestic animals at Toteng

?


Fig. 12. Bisoli sequence.

?


Fig. 13. Bisoli stylistic types.


(Robbins et al. 2005) are early but ambiguous. The new dates place sheep andcattle at Toteng I about 2000 years ago, and then again in the seventh century, butin the tenth century at Toteng III:

Bambata Cave 185 BC (Pta 3072) 35 BCAMS datesToteng I (sheep 75–80 cm) AD 5 (Beta 186669) 55Toteng I (cattle 70–75 cm) 50 BC (Beta 1904888) 10 BCToteng I (cattle 55–60 cm) AD 615 (Beta 186670) 640Toteng III (sheep/goat 30–35 cm) AD 965 (Beta 186671) 985

The early dates come from levels below the main concentration of Bambata A pottery(Bambata lens at Toteng I: 35–60 cm and III: 30–45 cm), while the seventh to tenthcenturies dates come from within it. These dates therefore do not establish a directrelationship between domestic animals and Bambata A pottery, although they do confirmthe presence of early domestic livestock in north-central Botswana. If these dates areaccurate, and the bones are in situ, then domestic animals and Bambata pottery firstappeared at different times in different places: they do not automatically co-occur.

The origin of the stock is another separate issue. Many Africanists (e.g. Robbinset al. 2005) believe the Pastoral Neolithic in East Africa was the ultimate source ofboth cattle and small stock. While attractive, the ceramic study introduces a parallelpossibility: domestic stock may have moved with Kalundu people from their placeof origin in the proto-Bantu homeland. Significantly, Benfica shares many KALUNDU

traits with Early Iron Age pottery at Kafélé and Oveng (Clist 1992) in Gabon,including organisational structure (i.e. decoration layout), motifs and motifcombinations (Fig. 14). At Oveng, this pottery dates to between the first and thirdcenturies AD, and is therefore as early as Benfica. Equally significant, KALUNDU

and UREWE share aspects of structure, motifs and combinations that suggest a Co-Tradition source compatible with the proto-Bantu homeland in West Africa. Ifclimatic fluctuations created a tsetse-free corridor some 2000 years ago, Kalundufarmers could have brought domestic stock with them into southern Africa. Thispossibility too, remains a topic for future research.

CONCLUSION

Although special technological features help to identify Bambata pottery, the faciesneeds to be defined in terms of multidimensional types. Once defined, Bambata potteryand the nature of its involvement in the spread of food production require twoexplanations for two different archaeological contexts. The style originated amongfarming communities, probably Benfica in Angola, but it first spread into south-easternAfrica with hunter-gatherer groups at about AD 200. The association with domesticanimals, however, was variable both spatially and chronologically. Only later, at aboutAD 350, do mixed farmers responsible for the style appear to have been present inBotswana and Zimbabwe. These people might have purposefully made the pottery thinfor trade to mobile hunter-gatherers. Thus, Hypothesis II explains Bambata A, whileHypothesis I covers Bambata B. Hypothesis I is further strengthened by the in situevolution of Bambata into Bisoli. Hypothesis III, a pastoral ceramic tradition, has no


Fig. 14. Early Iron Age pottery from Kafélé, Gabon. Courtesy B. Clist.


support. Finally, the origin and spread of domestic livestock in southern Africa mayalso require more than one explanation.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I thank Bernard Clist for the drawings used in Figure 14. Wendy Voorvelt compiledthe map and completed the pot drawings. Karim Sadr made useful comments from analternate perspective.

REFERENCES

ARNOLD, G. & JONES, N. 1919. Notes on the Bushman Cave at Bambata, Matopos. Proceedings RhodesiaScientific Association 17 (1): 5–21.

BOLLONG, C. A. & SAMPSON, C. G. 1999. Later Stone Age herder-hunter interactions reflected in ceramicdistributions in the upper Seacow River valley. South African Journal of Science 95: 171–80.

CAMPBELL, A. C. 1992. Southern Okavango integrated water development study. Archaeological Survey ofproposed Maun Reservoir. Report on file, Department of Water Affairs, Gaborone.

CLIST, B. 1992. Interm report of the Oveng archaeological site 1991 excavations, Estuaire Province, Gabon.Nsi 10/11: 28–35.

COOKE, C. K. 1963. Excavations in Pomongwe and Tshangula Cave, Matopo Hills, Southern Rhodesia.South African Archaeological Bulletin 18: 73–151.

––––––1970. Archaeological report. Rhodesian Schools Exploration Society, 20th Expedition: Chibi,Bulawayo, pp. 12–14.

DENBOW, J. R. 1984. Prehistoric herders and foragers of the Kalahari; the evidence for 1500 years of interaction.In: Schrire. C., ed., Past and present in hunter gatherer studies. Orlando: Academic Press,pp. 175–93.

DENBOW, J. & CAMPBELL, A. C. 1980. National Museum of Botswana, archaeological research programme.Nyame Akuma November: 3–9.

–––––– 1986. The early stages of food production in southern Africa and some potential linguistic correlations.Sprache und Geschichte in Afrika 7 (1): 83–103.

DENBOW, J. R. & WILMSEN, E. N. 1986. Advent and course of pastoralism in the Kalahari. Science 234:1509–15.

DE SOUSA MARTINS, R. 1976. A estacao arquelogica da antiga Banza Quibaxe: Dembos-Angola. Contribuicoespara o Esrudo da Antropologia Portuguesa 9 (4): 244–306.

DOS SANTOS JR, J. R. & ERVEDOSA, C. M. N. 1970. A estacao arqueologica de Benfica (Luanda-Angola).Ciecias Biologicas (Luanda) 1 (1): 31–51.

HAMMOND-TOOKE, W. D., ed. 1974. The Bantu-speaking peoples of southern Africa. London: Routledge &Kegan Paul.

HUFFMAN, T. N. 1973. Test excavations at Makuru, Rhodesia. Arnoldia (Rhodesia) 5 (39): 1–21.––––––1976. Gokomere pottery from the Tunnel Site, Gokomere Mission. South African Archaeological

Bulletin 31: 31–53.––––––1978. The Iron Age of the Buhwa district, Rhodesia. Occasional Papers National Museums and

Monuments of Rhodesia A4 (3): 81–100.––––––1980. Ceramics, classification and Iron Age entities. African Studies 39 (2): 123–74.––––––1989. Iron Age migrations: The ceramic sequence in southern Zambia, excavations at Gundu and

Ndonde. Johannesburg: Witwatersrand University Press.––––––1994. Toteng pottery and the origins of Bambata. Southern African Field Archaeology 3: 3–9.LINDAHL, A. & MATENGA, E. 1995. Present and past: ceramics and homesteads. An ethnoarchaeological

project in the Buhera district, Zimbabwe. (Studies in African Archaeology 11). Uppsala:Department of Archaeology, Uppsala University.

MITCHELL, P. 2002. The archaeology of southern Africa. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.PHILLIPSON, D. W. 1985. African archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.REID A., SADR, K. & HANSON-JAMES, N. 1998. Herding traditions. In: Lane, P., Reid, A. & Segobye, A., eds,

Ditswa Mmung: The archaeology of Botswana. Gaborone: Pula Press and the Botswana Society,pp. 81–100.

ROBBINS, L. H. 1985 The Manyana rock painting site. Botswana Note and Records 17: 1–14.ROBBINS, L. H., CAMPBELL, A. C., MURPHY, M. L., BROOK, G. A., SRIVASTAVA, P. & BADENHORST, S. 2005. The

advent of herding in southern Africa: Early AMS dates on domestic livestock from the KalahariDesert. Current Anthropology 46: 671–7.


ROBBINS, L. H., MURPHY, M. L., CAMPBELL, A. C., BROOK, G. A., REID, D. M., HABERYAN, K. A. & DOWNEY,W. S. 1998. Test excavations and reconnaissance palaeoenvironmental work at Toteng, Botswana.South African Archaeological Bulletin 53: 125–32.

ROBINSON, K. R. 1961a. An Early Iron Age site from the Chibi District, Southern Rhodesia. South AfricanArchaeological Bulletin 16: 95–102.

––––––1961b. Excavations on the Acropolis Hill. Occasional Papers National Museum of Southern Rhodesia3A: 159–92.

––––––1961c. Zimbabwe pottery. Occasional Papers National Museum of Southern Rhodesia 3A:193–226.

––––––1964. Dombozanga Rock Shelter, Mtetengwe River Beit Bridge, Southern Rhodesia, excavationresults. Arnoldia (Rhodesia) 1 (7): 1–14.

––––––1966. Bambata ware; its position in the Rhodesian Iron Age in the light of recent evidence. SouthAfrican Archaeological Bulletin 21: 81–5.

––––––1985. Dated Iron Age sites from the upper Umguza Valley 1982: their possible implications. SouthAfrican Archaeological Bulletin 40: 17–38.

SADR, K. 2003. The Neolithic of South Africa. Journal of African History 44: 195–209.SADR, K. & SMITH, A. B. 1991. On ceramic variation in the southwestern Cape, South Africa. South African

Archaeological Bulletin 46: 107–15.SAMPSON, C. G. 1988. Stylistic boundaries among mobile hunter-foragers. Washington DC: Smithsonian

Institution Press.SAMPSON, C. G. & SADR, K. 1999. On the size and shape of Later Stone Age fibre-tempered vessels from the

upper Seacow River valley. Southern African Field Archaeology 8: 3–16.SCHOFIELD, J. F. 1941. A report on the pottery from Bambata Cave. South African Journal of Science 37:

361–72.SMITH, A. B., SADR, K., GRIBBLE, J. & YATES, R. 1991. Excavations in the south-western Cape, South Africa,

and the archaeological identity of prehistoric hunter-gathers within the last 2000 years. SouthAfrican Archaeological Bulletin 46: 71–91.

SUMMERS, R. 1961. The Southern Rhodesian Iron Age. Journal of African History II: 1–13.VAN WAARDEN, C. 1999. The prehistory and archaeology of Botswana: an annotated bibliography. Gaborone:

The Botswana Society.VOGEL, J. C., FULS, A. & VISSER, E. 1986. Radiocarbon fluctuations during the Third Millennium BC.

Radiocarbon 28 (2B): 935–8.VOGEL, J. C., TALMA, A. S., FULS, A., FISSER, E. & BECKER, B. 1993. Pretoria calibration curve for short lived

samples, 1930–3350 BC. Radiocarbon 35 (1): 73–86.WADLEY, L. 1987. Later Stone Age hunters and gatherers of the southern Transvaal. Cambridge Monographs

in African Archaeology 25. Oxford: BAR International Series 380.WALKER, N. J. 1983. The significance of an early date for pottery and sheep in Zimbabwe. South African

Archaeological Bulletin 38: 88–92.––––––1994. The Later Stone Age of Botswana: some recent excavations. Botswana Notes and Records 26:

1–35.


Documents

The stylistic origin of Bambata and the spread of mixed farming in