Why Hunter-Gatherer Archaeology Matters: A Personal Perspective on Renaissance and Renewal in...

South African Archaeological Society

Why Hunter-Gatherer Archaeology Matters: A Personal Perspective on Renaissance andRenewal in Southern African Later Stone Age ResearchAuthor(s): Peter MitchellSource: The South African Archaeological Bulletin, Vol. 60, No. 182 (Dec., 2005), pp. 64-71Published by: South African Archaeological SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3889119 .

Accessed: 28/06/2014 18:07

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

South African Archaeological Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toThe South African Archaeological Bulletin.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 193.142.30.61 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 18:07:11 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=saas

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3889119?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


64 South African Archaeological Bulletin 60 (182): 64-71, 2005

Research Article

WHY HUNTER-GATHERER ARCHAEOLOGY MATTERS: A PERSONAL PERSPECTIVE ON RENAISSANCE AND RENEWAL

IN SOUTHERN AFRICAN LATER STONE AGE RESEARCH

PETER MITCHELL School of Archaeology, University of Oxford; St Hugh's College, Oxford, OX2 6LE, United Kingdom.

E-mail: peter.mitchell(st-hughs.ox.ac.uk

(Received June 2005. Accepted August 2005)

ABSTRACT

The 1985 meetingof the SouthernAfrican Association ofArchaeologists (SA3) in Grahamstown, South Africa, helped catalyse a sea-change in archaeological studies of Later Stone Age hunter-gatherers, heralding the take-up of ethnographically informed, historical materialist studies of past social relations and ideologies to complement and, in large part, take overfrom earlier ecological and typological emphases. Twenty years on, LSA archaeology risks becoming marginalized in

southern African archaeology. This paper discusses why this may be so, but reaffirms the global importance of the subject within the wider archaeological discipline. It then suggests a series of avenues along which future research might profitably be directed, stressing the

importance of three themes: expanding the range of ethnographic studies used for comparative and model-building purposes; developing more securely grounded means of relating hypotheses about past social relations to excavated evidence; and building chronologies for Bushman rock art that will allow the fuller integration of parietal and

excavated data.

Keywords: Later Stone Age, hunter-gatherers, social theory, rock art, ethnography.

INTRODUCTION This issue of the Bulletin is the first to be published under

the auspices of the Association of Southern African Profes- sional Archaeologists (ASAPA), successor to the Southern Afri-

can Association of Archaeologists (SA3) as the principal co-ordinator and voice of professional archaeological activity within the sub-continent. Writing as a longstanding member

and subscriber, and as someone in whose teaching and

research the archaeology of southern Africa continues to loom

large, I should like to wish both ASAPA and the Bulletin well in

this new joint venture. What follows is very much a personal perspective on one dimension of southern African archaeology, the study of Later Stone Age hunter-gatherer communities, although, following the brief given me by the editors, I empha- size almost wholly the non-rock art elements of their material

culture. From the vantage point of a two decade-long, but over-

seas-based, involvement in the subject, I offer, then, my own sense of where things now stand, how they have arrived there and where they could (and should) go next.

Just over twenty years ago, SA3 met for its regular biennial conference in the South African city of Grahamstown. As a

young British doctoral student halfway through his first trip to

southern Africa, this gave me an excellent opportunity to meet, hear and speak with many of those who continue to remain

active in our field. The occasion was made all the more memorable by the events taking place outside the conference venue itself. Foremost of these was the fact that the meeting occurred as South Africa struggled to come to terms with the

implications of the state of emergency recently proclaimed by the National Party government, the continued resistance to the apartheid regime by the great majority of the population and the rapidly worsening economic situation that the threat of international sanctions was producing. Not unrelated to these facts was the news, arriving midway through the conference, of the banning of South African and Namibian archaeologists from the 1986 Southampton meeting of what soon became the World Archaeological Congress (WAC), a ban instigated as a direct protest against the policies of P.W. Botha's government. No one present could fail to notice how the twin impacts of these events fed into the discussions that carried on late into the night and thrived during a highly successful post-conference excursion. The social responsibilities of archaeologists in making their research more widely accessible - especially to the non-white majority of South Africa's people - were a major theme of those conversations, conversations that bore fruit in many ways, including the eventual provision of a strong archaeological element in South Africa's new school curricu- lum (Esterhuysen 2000).

What enlivened these discussions still further was how the political developments occurring outside the conference hall intersected with the intellectual currents within it. At the risk of unduly singling out the work of only a few contributors, let me make special mention of three archaeologists, all of whom I met at Grahamstown for the first time. David Lewis-Williams (1985) argued convincingly (and, as I recall, controversially) for the introduction of social theory into southern African archaeology'. Identifying much of the work in which LSA archaeologists were engaged as a 'technicist' over-emphasis on issues of subsistence economy and stone tool typology, he

elegantly identified the limitations of functionalist (systems thinking-based) and cultural ecological models. In their place, he canvassed the merits of historical materialism, arguing that its adoption as the subject's theoretical base would transform southern African archaeology into an essentially social enquiry. His own experience with tackling the meaning of Bushman rock art using nineteenth and twentieth century ethnographic data and his discovery of that art's rich social and ideological implications clearly informed and impelled the arguments that

he made. Lewis-Williams's comments fell on fertile ground, perhaps

in part a measure of how things had already begun to change since the 1983 SA3 meeting at Gaborone (M. Hall et al. 1984). One measure of this was the response of other LSA archaeolo-

gists, some of whom (notably Lyn Wadley and Aron Mazel) themselves forcefully enunciated their dissatisfactions with previous concerns with lithic typology and seasonal mobility. For them, as for other conference participants, and especially those engaging in the back-of-bus discussions during the



South African Archaeological Bulletin 60 (182): 64-71, 2005 65

post-conference visit to sites in the Barkly East, Maclear, Queenstown and Fort Beaufort areas, there was a general sentiment that surely something else could be done with the archaeological record of Later Stone Age peoples. The answer to this question was, of course, yes, and the Grahamstown meeting of SA3 thus served as a catalyst for the transformation of LSA archaeology, and of southern African archaeology more generally, from a preoccupation with 'people-to-nature' questions to those about the relations of 'people-to-people' (Mazel 1987). Although I have no personal recollection of any connection being made to the broadly contemporary evolution of post-processual archaeology in Britain and elsewhere, the resonances with this to someone recently graduated from a Cambridge department in which Ian Hodder was a leading light were nonetheless unmistakeable.

The two decades since SA3 met at Grahamstown have, of course, seen many changes, most crucially the liberation of South Africa and Namibia from apartheid and the establish- ment of democratic systems of government in both countries. With that change, difficult to imagine in 1985, has come a much more profound re-engagement of southern African archaeology with the wider world. Many more archaeologists from outside the region now visit, or undertake fieldwork, there than was the case twenty years ago, and South Africa itself hosted several major international archaeological gather- ings in its first decade of freedom, most significantly the 1999 WAC conference in Cape Town (Malone & Stoddart 1999). Within LSA archaeology itself, both Wadley (1987) and Mazel (1989) went on to develop their own versions of a social theory- based programme of hunter-gatherer research. Wadley's elab- oration from Kalahari Bushman ethnography of how archaeologists might be able to identify aggregation and dispersal sites or gift-exchange, and what the social implications of these prac- tices might be, proved particularly influential'. Similarly, Mazel's interests in identifying distinct social groups (termed 'alliance networks'), considering the gender implications of his data, and emphasizing the study of hunter-gatherer relations with incoming farmer communities have all found parallels in more recent studies. Research by Simon Hall (1990), Johan Binneman (1995), John Parkington (1989,1996), Anne Solomon (1992, 1997) and members of the Rock Art Research Institute and its predecessor Unit [especially Colin Campbell (1987), Thomas Dowson (1994), Ben Smith (S. Hall & Smith 2000) and Geoff Blundell (2004)] has questioned, expanded upon and enhanced these initial insights and arguments. And this list of citations is, of course, by no means exhaustive.

As recent reviews of the history of LSA archaeology make plain (e.g. Mitchell 2002, 2004a), the result was an undeniable shift in the theoretical focus of hunter-gatherer archaeology in southern Africa, a renewal of the subject that paralleled the earlier shift from narrowly typological to broader ecological questions in the 1960s and 1970s (Deacon 1990a). However, more recently there have been signs of another, less desirable development, the increasing marginalization of LSA research within the broader discipline. To some extent, this is a relative thing, with other sub-fields gaining a prominence that was just not there twenty years ago. Thus, the archaeologies of both the colonial period and of Middle Stone Age early modern humans have expanded enormously over this period, benefiting from their attractiveness to overseas researchers who can bring in additional sources of funding3. At the same time, the ability of southern African data to address - and reshape - discussions in historical archaeology (M. Hall 2000) or debates about the antiquity of 'modern behaviour' (Wadley 2001; Henshilwood & Marean 2003; Henshilwood et al. 2004) - testifies to the

continuing impact of local evidence and local archaeologists on the world scene. Outside the fields of rock art and stable isotope research, however, this is decreasingly the case with LSA hunter-gatherer research. Reasons are many, but include real shifts in research priorities on the part of some individuals, retirements, and career moves into more administrative or cultural resource management positions. In addition, there may be a growing feeling that, relative to projects focused on the MSA, or studies that engage with southern Africa's more recent past, LSA hunter-gatherers constitute an increasingly unattractive research topic, distant from the cutting-edge of public interest at home and intellectual interest abroad. The cumulative result is less fieldwork, fewer students and a decreasing number of published papers (at least as measured in recent issues of the Bulletin). This strikes me as a sad and disturbing state of affairs. Thus, in the remainder of this paper I wish to reaffirm my own understanding of why LSA hunter- gatherer archaeology matters, and why its reinvigoration should be of concern for southern Africa as a whole, archaeologists and non-archaeologists alike. In conclusion, I sketch out some of the additional avenues along which that renewal might take place.

THE IMPORTANCE OF LSA HUNTER-GATHERERS Southern African hunter-gatherers (typically the !Kung-

speaking Ju/'hoansi of the northwestern Kalahari) will, without doubt, be among the ethnographic groups about whom any student learns when taking an introductory course on archaeology or anthropology. If he or she studies the origins and meaning of rock art (as is commonplace, albeit with an European focus, in British universities), then southern African hunter-gatherers will be encountered for a second time, largely through the work of David Lewis-Williams (2002). Finally, should the student learn about the use of stable isotope analyses to understand prehistoric diet and patterns of movement, then it is a fair bet that the southwestern Cape, and the debates between staff of the University of Cape Town (UCT) working there, will feature heavily, reflecting UCT's position as a world leader in stable isotope research (Sealy & van der Merwe 1986; Parkington 2001). I make these points at the outset to underline what may not always be immediately obvious to those on the ground: the archaeological study of LSA hunter- gatherers is of concern and interest far beyond southern Africa itself. Why, in brief, is this so? I identify seven additional reasons: . ever since the pioneering fieldwork of the Marshall family

(1976, 1999) and of Richard Lee and colleagues in the 1950s and 1960s (Lee 1979; Lee & DeVore 1976), Kalahari Bushmen have been widely touted as exemplars of a mobile hunter- gatherer way of life and as possible prototypes of how all humans once lived. Their popularity in introductory text- books is one demonstration of this, as are references to them in influential works that set out to develop a general theoretical understanding of hunter-gatherer behaviour (e.g. Kelly 1995; Binford 1980, 2001). Anthropological knowledge of these groups is, however, little more then a century old at best, even with the addition of earlier traveller and administrative accounts. It should therefore be self-evident that only archaeology can situate that knowledge in a broader historical perspective and that archaeological knowledge of southern African hunter-gatherers - and of those of the Kalahari in particular - will be of global interest;

. indeed, one of the other reasons why southern African hunter-gatherers have assumed a global relevance is precisely because of attempts to develop that historical perspective. I




refer, of course, to the so-called Kalahari debate, and specifically to the arguments of 'revisionist' scholars that the ethnographically captured lifeways of Kalahari Bushmen represented by Lee and others are an idealized version that ignore their interaction with pastoralists and others in the present and a millennia-long history of similar interactions in the past (Schrire 1980a; Wilmsen 1989; Wilmsen & Denbow 1990). Whatever the merits of this argument [see Solway & Lee (1990) and Kent (1990), among others, for critiques, and Sadr (1997) with specific reference to Kalahari archaeology], its thorough airing in the wider anthropological literature focused renewed global attention on the southern African hunter-gatherer record; emerging from these discussions and from our growing knowledge of the last two millennia or so of southern African archaeology more generally, it is increasingly apparent that the region offers one of the most interesting contexts anywhere in the world for studying interaction between different social formations (sensu Lewis-Williams 1985). Hunter-gatherers were in the thick of those interactions, as studies by S. Hall & Smith (2000), Wadley (1996), Sampson (1995), Mazel (1989) and Parkington et al. (1986) among others all show. Depending on place and time, archaeological (and, to some degree, historical, linguistic, genetic and ethnographic) evidence allows them to be explored between hunter-gatherers and herders, hunter-gatherers and farmers, hunter-gatherers and indigenous states and/or hunter- gatherers and European settlers. The sub-continent's limited representation in one recent overview of a part of this complexity (Murray 2004) plainly does little justice to what we already know, nor to what the rest of the world can learn, about how hunter-gatherers related to these various dynamics. Indeed, it can be readily argued, that nowhere else can so many kinds of interactions between hunter-gatherers and other societies be investigated in such detail or over such a relatively recent time-depth (with all the possibilities for close dating and networking of different bodies of evidence that this implies); moving on, we also need to acknowledge the richness of the wider southern African hunter-gatherer record. Along with parts of the Americas and Australia, southern Africa has one of the most intensively documented ethnographic hunter- gatherer datasets in the world, combined with a rich archaeological record that has also been the subject of sustained and intensive, high-quality scrutiny. This is a powerful combination, unmatched elsewhere in Africa. At a time when anthropology is increasingly becoming interested once more in questions of history and the uses of material culture in struc- turing social life (Gosden 1999), it offers manifold opportunities for exploring connections between past and present along both theoretical and methodological dimensions. The

popularity of social theory-derived models over the past twenty years is one illustration of how this exploration can productively proceed, but there are others. For example, apart from Schrire's (1980b) paper comparing the faunal extinction records of Sahul and southern Africa, there has been remarkably little attempt at a pan-southern hemisphere comparison of hunter-gatherer histories from an archaeological standpoint. Were one to be developed, as has already been begun for northern Eurasia (Zvelebil 1986) and the Arctic (Rowley-Conwy 1999), it would necessarily focus principally on the LSA as far as southern Africa is concerned. Conversely, without a LSA component no such comparison is thinkable. The recent overview of the archaeology of desert-dwelling hunter-gatherers by Veth et al. (2005), which

has a strong southern African component, illustrates what is possible, although it necessarily excludes the inhabitants of the less arid parts of the southern hemisphere.

Without doubt, such studies will prove challenging and stand in need of a robust theoretical framework if they are to be more than anecdotal or descriptive. Although running counter to the predominant 'social' emphasis of the past two decades, environmental variation provides one such framework, as already explored on a global basis by Kelly (1995). Southern Africa's rich palaeoenvironmental record (Par- tridge & Maud 2000) could allow precisely that kind of framework to be developed and adapted to patterning in the behaviour of southern African hunter-gatherers through time and space, and for that patterning to then be compared with observations from similar latitudes in South America and Australasia. Similar comparisons at the purely palaeoenvironmental level have, of course, been underway for some time (e.g. Jerardino 1995a). Recovered in substantial part from LSA excavations, southern Africa's late Quaternary palaeoenvironmental record may also provide some guid- ance to the impact of accelerating climate change on the distribution and composition of its plant and animal communities, information that will be vital to their future management and conservation and to the provision of sustainable economic development for the sub-continent's human inhabitants (Nyong 2005); tying some of these threads together into a different fabric on Goodwin's (1946) prehistoric loom, the intensity with which archaeologists have already researched the LSA and its environmental setting offers a globally outstanding opportunity for comparative studies of technological and social strategies across both relatively well defined slices of both time and space. Specifically, the approximately 3 500 000 km2

of southern Africa span an enormous range of ecological diversity (11 distinct biomes being recognized on land alone; Mitchell 2002), with quite different ecologies often in close proximity to each other. Furthermore, the LSA is in the unique position of allowing southern Africa to contribute to global studies of how behaviourally modern humans responded to the challenges posed by the most recent switch from glacial to interglacial environments across the Pleisto- cene/Holocene transition (Mitchell et al. 1996; Straus et al. 1996); not only that, but we should recall that the LSA record reaches back well beyond the Last Glacial Maximum. Indeed, if we take 20-25 000 BP as the approximate date for the replacement of MSA by LSA stone tool assemblages (Mitchell 2002), then fully half of the LSA record falls into the Pleistocene. Yet, relatively little has been published recently on this earlier timeframe, despite (or because of?) the extensive surveys of the 1980s and early 1990s (Deacon 1984; Mitchell 1988; Wadley 1993). If we are to understand changes and developments in hunter-gatherer societies over time then the long perspective afforded by the Pleistocene part of the LSA record has also to be included, and this requires a determined refocus on those few sites that we know contain informative deposits of the right age (Deacon 1990b), but also the location and investigation of even rarer, open-air sites against which to compare them (Churchill et al. 2000). Not only that, but the emerging evidence for a much greater than previously supposed antiquity for many forms of 'modern behaviour' (Henshilwood et al. 2004) focuses renewed attention on both the people making MSA artefacts during Oxygen Isotope Stages 4 and 3, and the significance and meaning of the shift to microlithic technologies that marked the onset of the LSA.




As suspected for some time (Mitchell 1994; Clark 1999), changes in stone tool production and use need to be decoup- led from other phenomena and investigated separately, but in parallel, to other changes in Pleistocene adaptive strategies, considered over both a long timescale and in a comparative context that reaches beyond southern Africa (cf. Ambrose 2002); finally, I return to rock art. Ideas connecting shamanism, altered states of consciousness and the production (and consumption) of painted and engraved imagery that were originally developed with reference to Bushman ethnography and rock art have since been taken up and explored in many different parts of the world, from Melanesia (Wallis 2002) through Palaeolithic and Neolithic Europe (Lewis- Williams & Dowson 1988; 1993; Dronfield 1995) to North America (Whitley 1992). What southern Africanists are well aware of, but what perhaps needs stressing for an international audience, given continuing resistance in some quarters to the explanatory power of such ideas, is that southern Africa also offers one of the best opportunities anywhere in the world for pursuing joined-up investigations of past hunter-gatherer communities exploiting both parietal and excavated records. The kinds of connections that may be identifiable here, and the kind of models that can therefore be realistically advanced, entertained and substantiated (e.g. Ouzman & Wadley 1997; Blundell 2004), are the stuff of dreams in Palaeolithic Europe.

WHERE TO RENEW? THOUGHTS ON FUTURE RESEARCH

Twenty years on from the Grahamstown meeting of SA3, LSA archaeology in southern Africa stands at another crossroads. In part, this has been brought about by changes in the numbers of those actively researching it, as well as by the height- ened profile of other components of the wider discipline, in particular, as far as 'Stone Age' matters go, the debate sur- rounding the 'origins' of modern behaviour (Henshilwood & Marean 2003). This crossroads has, however, also been reached by at least two other routes. The first of these maps out the gulf that has opened up between the aspirations of LSA archaeologists to discuss and model the social behaviour of the people whom they study and their capacity to substantiate or warrant many of those arguments by reference to the excavatable record. The second - and without contradicting my comments in the previous paragraph - relates to the difficulties of connecting the wealth of information about hunter-gatherer social relations preserved in Bushman rock art with that same 'dirt' archaeology record. Both these routes delimit some of the avenues along which future LSA research could proceed, but we still have some way to go before seeing whether the relevant robot4 will switch to green and allow that process to accelerate. I take each 'route' in turn, and conclude with some further comments.

Within only a few years of Lewis-Williams speaking at Grahamstown and of the publication of Wadley's and Mazel's seminal works, Larry Barham (1992) responded to the growing enthusiasm for the application of historical materialist models to LSA hunter-gatherer archaeology with an appraisal that sparked fierce rebuttals (Mazel 1992; Wadley 1992) and then relative silence. To my mind, the points that he made in that paper were not adequately dealt with in the responses that it provoked and they remain cogent ones today, as I have myself recently tried to show through a critique of archaeological usage of the concept of hxaro gift-exchange. This has, for example, generally been invoked with little more evidence

than that of formal analogy with current Jut'hoan practice, despite the fact that both beads and arrows have other uses, that bone points and arrows do not form an exhaustive, mutually definable set, that there is, almost everywhere, absolutely no independent evidence of their movement at all (Mitchell 2003), and that exchange does not always take the form of hxaro or necessarily imply particular kinds of kinship- based social relations (Kent 1992). Similar points can be raised with respect to aggregation and dispersal, the recognition of 'social relations', or the engendering of the artefactual record: how do we evaluate the relative weight of one aggregation/dispersal criterion against another, assess the significance for the model of absolute numbers of beads, bone points or other data (Walker 1995a), or bring in the complicating effects of the size, nature, duration and functions of site occupation (cf. Jerardino 1995b)? And how do we know that certain artefact attributes were really used to signal social affiliation or adherence to particular genders, when we still have so much to learn (from residue, microwear and technological analyses) about artefact use and know so little ethnographically about stone tools? Indeed, the difficulties here may be so great that, as Parkington (1998) suggests, rock art imagery and burials offer much better prospects for resolving person and gender to examine artefact associations, diet, lifestyle and social persona. Better to try and make progress with such 'high-level' questions in the LSA, where chronological resolution and organic preservation are generally much better, than to commit the error of over- interpreting a much older Pleistocene record where such evidence is typically far more partial and 'modern behaviour' controversial and difficult to define.

One of the problems of making progress with these issues is that while LSA archaeology certainly does benefit from an excellent hunter-gatherer ethnography, with which it is patently intimately connected, archaeological exploration of that ethnography remains limited to what I sometimes think of the 'holy trinity' of Ju/'hodnsi, G/wi and /Xam. This emphasis, criticism of which is nothing new (Parkington 1984), means that we as archaeologists are emphasizing a tiny, if very well recorded, fraction of the total sample of Bushman cultural variability. Nor for the most part, and the impact of revisionist scholarship notwithstanding, does our employment of that material take much notice of the potential impact of two millennia of contact and interaction with herders, farmers and (latterly) European settlers. Discussion of the 'Kalahari debate' itself and of the conceptually not unrelated arguments over the archaeological identities of people in the late Holocene, precolonial southwestern Cape [from A. Smith et al. (1991) and Schrire (1992), to Sadr (2004) and A. Smith (2005)] have sometimes given the impression of taking place in bounded universes from which archaeological usage of Bushman ethnography can happily isolate itself. I doubt this is so, and thus repeat a call already made (Mitchell 2004a) for a three- pronged approach to this problem: . first, develop a closely argued archaeology of ethnographically

known Bushman societies, as pioneered for the /Xam by Deacon (1996) and in the Tsodilo Hills by Robbins et al. (e.g. 1996), and urged more widely by Walker (1995b) and Stahl (2001);

* second, expand the sample of Bushman societies that we use to include, for example, those who did not practise seasonal aggregation/dispersal or hxaro;

* and third, reach beyond the Kalahari to other parts of the world, where more 'complex' hunter-gatherers may be at least as relevant as the Ju/'hoansi to the socially and economi- cally intensifying societies apparent in some parts of late




Holocene South Africa and Zimbabwe (Mazel 1989; S. Hall 1990; Walker 1995a; Jerardino 1996; Sealy & Pfeiffer 2000)5.

To give more effective realization to the ambitions for LSA archaeology voiced back in Grahamstown in 1985 expanded analogical horizons are, by themselves, insufficient. Accom-

panying them must be a further shift of emphasis toward sites capable of delivering data with the requisite spatio-temporal resolution and, more likely than not, a willingness to engage with small samples rather than larger, lumped ones

(Parkington 1992, 1993). Dunefield Midden (Parkington et al. 1992) and Likoaeng (Mitchell 2004b) are far from being unique, but, in their different ways, already challenge the domination of the rockshelter in LSA excavations and the emphasis that it places on sequence over space. Smaller samples recovered from microstratigraphic excavation raise still other issues,

among them the importance of developing a chronology that works, as best as we can make it, in real, i.e. calibrated, years, rather than with raw radiocarbon dates. If we want to explain change in human societies and explore the relationships between archaeological and palaeoenvironmental records, then we need to talk in something that more truly approximates real time, even if the price of greater honesty is more, not less,

ambiguity and fuzziness. So too, we stand in need of more detailed and informing studies of the site formation processes that lie behind the archaeological assemblages we excavate. In

part, this returns us to ethnographic studies, and I draw attention here to the potential of Mabulla's (2003) investigation of the continued use of rock-shelters by Hadzabe foragers in Tanzania. However, it also invites the kind of systematic studies on cave sediments and the movement of objects through them

(cf. Sealy & Yates 1994), and even of faunal taphonomy ([Gamble's (1993) 'economic anatomy'], that are still so rare for

southern Africa. Mention of dating returns us to the crossroads and the ro-

bot that I mentioned earlier, for dating lies at the heart of the

dilemma that is presented by the second avenue I identified.

David Lewis-Williams (1993) was not without reason in

criticizing some archaeological research programmes for their

inadequate connection of rock art and excavated evidence; most studies that have tried to do this have emphasized the last

two millennia for which images of livestock, agropastoralists, Europeans and artefacts associated with them provide some

internal chronometry. There is no doubt that a richer view of

the hunter-gatherer past will emerge if and where rock art's

wealth of reference to social relations can be integrated with

'dirt' archaeology, but this cannot happen unless rock art is

itself contextualized chronologically. While so much of the art

remains in a temporal vacuum, such connections can only produce ahistorical understandings of the entire archaeological

record. It is thus heartening to see so much effort now going into the development of dating tools that may help overcome

this problem (Russell 2000; Mazel & Watchman 2003; Swart

2004), and to see innovative research exploring the social

potential of painted stones found in excavated deposits (Pearce 2002,2003). While progress will inevitably be slow and localized, making it is nonetheless essential, and the potential benefits

for Bushman rock art and LSA archaeology in general are

enormous, as the examples offered by Australian prehistory illustrate (Mulvaney & Kamminga 1999).

CONCLUSION No single article can identify more than a fraction of the

richness of southern Africa's LSA hunter-gatherer record, nor more than a few of the directions along which future research might be pursued. Identifying the antiquity of ethno-

graphically documented patterns of social relations (including hxaro exchange, gender relations and shamanism) has been another leitmotif of the past twenty years (Lewis-Williams 1984; Wadley 1987; Parkington 1998), without, as yet, producing anything resembling a consensus. Another agenda for future research is set by the question of precolonial population movements, an issue largely relegated in LSA writing to discussing the origins of the Khoekhoen (Sadr 1998; A. Smith 1998; B. Smith & Ouzman 2004). With apartheid and cultural- historical models both superseded, perhaps the time is once again ripe for considering the possibility of prehistoric migrations, not least because we could make much more use of insights from genetics and linguistics as measures of interaction independent from, and potentially convergent with, those of material culture (cf. Veth 2000; M. Smith 2005). Walker's (1995b) suggestion that the spread of microlithic assemblages across the Kalahari relates to a post-3000 BP expansion of Khoe-speakers is one that could be explored further from this combined perspective, the diffusion of Wilton microlithic technologies and the recolonization of the southern African interior across the Pleistocene/Holocene transition two more

(cf. Mitchell 2002: 125). Above all, there are the twin challenges of ensuring that, even at a time of financial pressure and insti- tutional change, archaeologists active in the survey and excavation of hunter-gatherer sites will continue to be present in southern African museums and universities, and that their research will expand further beyond its traditional heartlands, foremost among them the Fynbos biome6.

Why all this is important is what I have tried to show, but, lest it be thought that my argument has focused too heavily upon the narrowly intellectual or academic reasons for renew- ing and expanding hunter-gatherer archaeology in southern Africa, let me add one final note. The archaeology of LSA

hunter-gatherers is not just a topic of interest only to the acad-

emy, nor merely one of concern to those who retain an interest, inherited from the New Archaeology of the 1960s, in comparative, generalizing studies of human behavioural and cultural variation. It ought, instead, to be of interest for everyone living in the sub-continent today, for the vast majority of the region's inhabitants are the descendants of those hunter-gatherers. Whether invoked as archetypal conservationists, original bwn- ers of the land', or the first resistance fighters to colonial rule, it is their past that is the enduring heritage of all southern Afri-

cans, as well as a matter of vital concern to Khoisan-speaking groups or those who claim particular descent from them. The combination of a rock art motif and a /Xam motto to form South

Africa's post-apartheid coat of arms (B. Smith et al. 2000) under-

lines this, and emphasizes, if further emphasis is needed, the

importance of learning more about the societies from whom

they derive.

NOTES

'Much of the substance of this paper, including the case for making rock

art central to a socially informed LSA archaeology, was eventually

published in Lewis-Williams (1993).

2Indeed, I made use of the aggregation/dispersal model myself, albeit in

a rather unconvincing way, when publishing some of the results of my

own fieldwork in western Lesotho (Mitchell 1993).

3By way of example, the last twenty years have seen the completion of

excavations at Klasies River, as well as continuing excavations at

Florisbad, both subjects of early reports at the Grahamstown meeting

of SA3. But this work has been accompanied by major renewed efforts

at Die Kelders, Border Cave and Rose Cottage Cave, and by ongoing

fieldwork with substantial international involvement at sites such as

Blombos, Sibudu and Diepkloof, as well as at others in the Ysterfontein

and Mossel Bay areas of the Western Cape Province.




4For those unfamiliar with South African English, 'robot' is the local term for 'traffic lights'. My first encounter with it, approaching Cape Town from Stellenbosch, unsurprisingly left me - like many other foreigners - searching for an automated steel man somewhere along the roadside.

5Almost wholly unresearched from this perspective (but see Deacon 1992), museum collections, especially those containing nineteenth and early twentieth century artefacts and/or those rich in holdings from south of the Kalahari, may also be able to document Bushman material culture in its social context in ways that reach beyond more recent ethnographies (Hobart & Mitchell 2004).

'Swaziland (where LSA fieldwork was last conducted by Barham 1989) continues to lack an indigenous archaeological infrastructure, and the situation in Lesotho and Namibia is little better (despite the substantial contribution made there by John and Jill Kinahan). The main focus in Botswana and in much of the northern half of South Africa remains, understandably perhaps, the archaeology of farming communities. In Zimbabwe the ongoing destruction of the country's political and economic institutions not only recalls the worst aspects of the South Africa of twenty years ago, but also makes it increasingly difficult to envisage how any substantive archaeological work can be maintained there. On the more positive side, environmental impact assessments play an increasingly important part in LSA fieldwork in areas such as Namaqualand, and previously neglected areas such as the Waterberg (Limpopo Province) and the Caledon Valley have both seen substantial research since 1985.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I should like to thank Ben Smith for the invitation to con-

tribute this paper to the Bulletin, Brian Stewart and John Hobart for their excellent comments and Marlize Lombard and David Pearce who refereed it and improved it further. In the short space available it is difficult to thank all those who have helped deepen and improve my own grasp of LSA archaeology, but I should particularly like to acknowledge those who have studied the subject with me in Cape Town, Lampeter and Oxford, Pat Carter and Pat Vinnicombe, pathbreakers in the archaeology of Lesotho, Ray Inskeep, who opened so many doors, and John Parkington, for his example as both teacher and researcher. For their enormous contribution to the subject, I hope they will not think it inappropriate if I offer this paper to David Lewis-Williams and Lyn Wadley, wishing them both many more years in which to continue to change our understanding of southern African hunter-gatherers.

REFERENCES Ambrose, S.H. 2002 Small things remembered: origins of early

microlithic industries in sub-Saharan Africa. In: Elston, R.G. & Kuhn, S.L. (eds) Thinking Small: Global Perspectives on Microlithization: 9-30. Arlington: American Anthropological Association.

Barham L.S. 1989. The Later Stone Age of Swaziland. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Pennsylvania.

Barham, L.S. 1992. Let's walk before we run: an appraisal of historical materialist approaches to the Later Stone Age. South African Archaeo- logical Bulletin 47: 44-51.

Bettinger, R.L. & Baumhof, M.A. 1982. The Numic spread: Great Basin cultures in competition. American Antiquity 47: 485-503.

Binford, L.R. 1980. Willow smoke and dogs' tails: hunter-gatherer settlement systems and archaeological site formation. American Antiquity 45: 4-20.

Binford, L.R. 2001. Constructing Frames of Reference: AnAnalytical Method for Archaeological Theory Building using Hunter-gatherer and Environ- mental Data Sets. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Binneman, J.N.F. 1995. Symbolic construction of communities during the Holocene Later Stone Age in the south-eastern Cape. Unpub- lished Ph.D. thesis, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg.

Blundell, G. 2004. Nqabayo's Nomansland: San Rock Art and the Somatic Past. Uppsala: Uppsala University Press.

Campbell, C. 1987. Art in crisis: contact period rock art in the south- eastern mountains of southern Africa. Unpublished M.Sc. thesis, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg.

Churchill, S.E., Brink, J.S., Berger, L.R., Hutchison, R.A., Rossouw, L., Stynder, D., Hancox, PJ., Brandt, D., Woodborne, S., Locock, J.C., Scott, L. & Ungar., P 2000. Erfkroon: a new Florisian fossil locality from fluvial contexts in the western Free State, South Africa. South African Journal of Science 96: 161-163.

Clark, A.M.B. 1999. Late Pleistocene technology at Rose Cottage Cave: a search for modern behaviour in a MSA context. African Archaeological Review 16: 93-120.

Deacon, J. 1984. The Later Stone Age of Southernmost Africa. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, International Series #S213.

Deacon, J. 1990a. Weaving the fabric of Stone Age research in southern Africa. In: Robertshaw, P (ed.) A History of African Archaeology: 39-58. London: James Currey.

Deacon, J. 1990b. Changes in the archaeological record in South Africa at 18 000 BP In: Gamble, C.S. & Soffer, 0. (eds) The World at 18 000 BR Volume two, Low Latitudes: 170-188. London: Allen Unwin.

Deacon, J. 1992. Arrows as Agents of Belief amongst the /Xam Bushmen. Cape Town: South African Museum.

Deacon, J. 1996. Archaeology of the Flat and Grass Bushmen. In: Dea- con, J. & Dowson, TA. (eds) Voicesfrom the Past: /Xam Bushmen and the Bleek and Lloyd collection: 245-270. Johannesburg: Witwatersrand University Press.

Dowson, TA. 1994. Reading art, writing history: rock art and social change in southern Africa. World Archaeology 25: 332-344.

Dronfield, J. 1995. Subjective vision and the source of Irish megalithic art. Antiquity 69: 539-549.

Esterhuysen, A.B. 2000. The birth of educational archaeology in South Africa. Antiquity 74: 159-165.

Gamble, C.S. 1993. The Palaeolithic Settlement of Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Goodwin, A.J.H. 1946. The Loom of Prehistory. Cape Town: South African Archaeological Society.

Gosden, C. 1999. Anthropology and Archaeology: A Changing Relationship. London: Routledge.

Hall, M. 2000. Archaeology and the Modern World: Colonial Transcripts in South Africa and the Chesapeake. London: Routledge.

Hall, M., Avery, G., Avery, D.M., Wilson, M.L. & Humphreys, A.J.B. (eds) 1984. Frontiers: Southern African Archaeology Today. Oxford: British International Reports, International Series #S207.

Hall, S.L. 1990. Hunter-gatherer-fishers of the Fish River Basin: a contribution to the Holocene prehistory of the Eastern Cape. Unpublished D.Phil. thesis, University of Stellenbosch.

Hall, S.L. & Smith, B.W 2000. Empowering places: rock shelters and ritual contexts in farmer-forager interactions in the Northern Prov- ince. South African Archaeological Society Goodwin Series 8: 30-46.

Henshilwood, C.S., d'Errico, F, Vanhaeren, M., van Niekerk, K. & Jacobs, Z. 2004. Middle Stone Age shell beads from South Africa. Science 304: 404.

Henshilwood, C.S. & Marean, C.W 2003. The origin of modern human behaviour: a review and critique of models and test implications. Current Anthropology 44: 627-651.

Hobart, J.H. & Mitchell, PJ. 2004. Foraging for southern African hunter-gatherers in the Pitt Rivers Museum: existence and potential. Before Farming [online version] 2004/3 article 5.http://www. waspress.co.uk/j ournals/beforefarming/journalI20043/reviews/ download.php?filename=2004_3_05.pdf. Accessed 14 July 2005.

Jerardino A. 1995a. Late Holocene Neoglacial episodes in southern South America and southern Africa: a comparison. The Holocene 5: 361-368.

Jerardino, A. 1995b. The problem with density values in archaeological analysis: a case study from Tortoise Cave, Western Cape, South Africa. South African Archaeological Bulletin 50: 21-27.

Jerardino, A. 1996. Changing social landscapes of the Western Cape coast of South Africa over the last 4500 years. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Cape Town.

Kelly, R.L. 1995. The Foraging Spectrum: Diversity in Hunter-gatherer Lifeways. Washington: Smithsonian Institution.

Kent, 5. 1992. The current forager controversy: real versus ideal views of hunter-gatherers. Man 27: 45-70.

Lee, R.B. 1979. The !Kung San: Men, Women and Work in a Foraging Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lee, R.B. & DeVore, I. (eds) 1976. Kalahari Hunter-got herers: Studies of the !Kung San and their Neighbours. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Lewis-Williams, J.D. 1984. Ideological continuities in prehistoric southern Africa: the evidence of rock art. In: Schrire, C. (ed.) Past and Present




in Hunter-gatherer Studies: 225-252. New York: Academic Press. Lewis-Williams, J.D. 1985. Social theory in southern African archaeol-

ogy. Unpublished paper delivered at the biennial conference of the Southern African Association of Archaeologists, Grahamstown, South Africa, September 1985.

Lewis-Williams, J.D. 1993. Southern African archaeology in the 1990s. South African Archaeological Bulletin 48: 45-50.

Lewis-Williams, J.D. 2002. The Mind in the Cave. London: Thames and Hudson.

Lewis-Williams, J.D. & Dowson, TA. 1988. The signs of all times: entoptic phenomena in Upper Palaeolithic art. Current Anthropology 29: 201-245.

Lewis-Williams, J.D. & Dowson, TA. 1993. On vision and power in the Neolithic: evidence from the decorated monuments. Current Anthro- pology 34: 55-65.

Mabulla, A. 2003. Archaeological implications of Hadzabe forager land-use in the Eyasi Basin, Tanzania. In: Kusimba, C.M. & Kusimba, S.B. (eds) East African Archaeology: Foragers, Potters, Smiths and Traders: 33-58. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archae- ology and Anthropology.

Malone, C. & Stoddart, S. 1999. Editorial. Antiquity 73: 1-12. Marshall, L. 1976. The !Kungof Nyae-Nyae. Cambridge: Harvard Univer-

sity Press. Marshall, L. 1999. Nyae-Nyae !Kung Beliefs and Rites. Cambridge: Har-

vard University Press. Mazel, A.D. 1987. The archaeological past from the changing present:

towards a critical assessment of South African Later Stone Age studies from the early 1960s to the early 1980s. In: Parkington, J.E. & Hall, M., (eds) Papers in the Prehistory of the Western Cape, South Africa: 504-529. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, International Series #S332.

Mazel, A.D. 1989. People making history: the last ten thousand years of hunter-gatherer communities in the Thukela Basin. Natal Museum Journal of Humanities 1: 1-168.

Mazel, A.D. 1992. Fear of running: a reply to Barham. South African Archaeological Bulletin 47: 132-134.

Mazel, A.D. & Watchman, A.L. 2003. Dating rock paintings in the uKhahlamba-Drakensberg and the Biggarsberg, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Southern African Humanities 15: 59-73.

Mitchell, PJ. 1988. The Early Microlithic Assemblages of Southern Africa. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, International Series #S388.

Mitchell, P.J. 1993. Archaeological investigations at two Lesotho rock- shelters: the terminal Pleistocene/early Holocene assemblages from Ha Makotoko and Ntloana Tsoana. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 59: 39-60.

Mitchell, P.J. 1994. Understanding the MSA/LSA transition: the pre-20 000 BP assemblages from new excavations at Sehonghong Rock Shelter, Lesotho. Southern African Field Archaeology 3: 15-25.

Mitchell, P.J. 2002. The Archaeology of Southern Africa. Cape Town: Cam- bridge University Press.

Mitchell, P.J. 2003. Anyone for hxaro? Thoughts on the theory and practice of exchange in southern African Later Stone Age archaeology. In: Mitchell, PJ., Haour, A. & Hobart, J.H. (eds) Researching Africa's Past: New Perspectives from British Archaeologists: 35-43. Oxford: Oxford University School of Archaeology.

Mitchell, P.J. 2004a. Modelling LSA societies in southern Africa. In: Stahl, A.B. (ed.) African Archaeology: 150-173. Oxford: Blackwells.

Mitchell, PJ. 2004b. Likoaeng: a Later Stone Age open air site in the Lesotho highlands, southern Africa. In: Sanogo, K. & Togola, T (eds) Proceedings of the Eleventh Congress of the Pan-African Associationfor Pre- history and Related Fields: 246-263. Bamako: Institut des Sciences Humaines.

Mitchell, PJ., Parkington, J.E. & Yates, R. 1996. At the transition: the archaeology of the Pleistocene-holocene boundary in southern Africa. In: Straus, L.G., Eriksen, B.V, Erlandson, J.M. & Yesner, D.R. (eds) Humans at the End of the Ice Age: The Archaeology of the Pleisto- cene-Holocene Transition: 15-41. New York: Plenum.

Mulvaney, J. & Kamminga, J. 1999. Prehistory of Australia. Washington:

Smithsonian Institution. Murray, T. (ed.) 2004. The Archaeology of Contact in Settler Societies. Cam-

bridge: Cambridge University Press. Nyong, A. 2005. The economic, developmental and livelihood implica-

tions of climate induced depletion of ecosystems and biodiversity in Africa. Unpublished paper presented at the Scientific Symposium on Stabilization of Greenhouse Gases, Exeter, United Kingdom, Febru-

ary, 2005. (http://www.wwf.org.uk/news/n_0000001454.as (with pdf file available for download). Accessed 14 July 2005.

Ouzman, S. & Wadley, L. 1997. A history in paint and stone from Rose Cottage Cave, South Africa. Antiquity 71: 386-404.

Parkington, J.E. 1984. Soaqua and Bushman: hunters and robbers. In: Schrire, C. (ed.) Past and Present in Hunter-gatherer Studies: 151-174. New York: Academic Press.

Parkington, J.E. 1989. Interpreting paintings without a commentary. Antiquity 63: 13-26.

Parkington, J.E. 1992. Making sense of sequence at Elands Bay Cave, Western Cape, South Africa. In: Smith, A.B. & Mutti, B. (eds) Guide to Archaeological Sites in the Southwestern Cape: 6-12. Cape Town: South- ern African Association of Archaeologists.

Parkington, J.E. 1993. The neglected alternative: historical narrative rather than cultural labelling. South African Archaeological Bulletin 48: 94-97.

Parkington, J.E. 1996. What is an eland? N!ao and the politics of age and sex in the paintings of the Western Cape. In: Skotnes, P (ed.) Miscast: Negotiating the Bushmen: 281-290. Cape Town: University of Cape Town Press.

Parkington, J.E. 1998. Resolving the past: gender in the Stone Age archaeological record of the Western Cape. In: Kent, S. (ed.) Gender in African Prehistory: 25-38. Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press.

Parkington, J.E. 2001. Mobility, seasonality and southern African hunter-gatherers. South African Archaeological Bulletin 56: 1-7.

Parkington, J.E., Nilssen, P, Reeler, C. & Henshilwood, C.S. 1992. Making sense of space at Dunefield Midden Campsite, Western Cape, South Africa. Southern African Field Archaeology 1: 63-70.

Parkington, J.E., Yates, R., Manhire, A.H. & Halkett, D. 1986. The social impact of pastoralism in the south-western Cape. Journal of Anthropo- logical Archaeology 5: 313-329.

Partridge, TC. & Maud, R.R. (eds) 2000. The Cenozoic of Southern Africa. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Pearce, D.G. 2002. The Tierkloof burial stones: the art and context of painted stones in the Eastern Cape, South Africa. Unpublished M.Sc. thesis, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg.

Pearce, D.G. 2003. The Tierkloof painted burial stones. South African Journal of Science 99: 125-127.

Robbins, L.H., Murphy, M.L., Campbell, A.C. & Brook, G.A. 1996. Exca- vations at the Tsodilo Hills Rhino Cave. Botswana Notes and Records 28: 23-45.

Rowley-Conwy, PA. (ed.) 1999. Arctic archaeology. World Archaeology 3(3): 349-517.

Russell, T 2000. The application of the Harris Matrix to San rock art at Main Caves North, KwaZulu-Natal. South African Archaeological Bulle- tin 55: 60-70.

Sadr, K. 1997. Kalahari archaeology and the Bushman debate. Current Anthropology 38: 100-104.

Sadr, K. 1998. The first herders at the Cape of Good Hope. African Archaeological Review 15: 101-133.

Sadr, K. 2004. Feasting on Kasteelberg? Early herders on the west coast of South Africa. Before Farming [online version] 2004/3 article 2. http://www.waspress.co.uk/j ournals/beforef arming/j ournal_ 20043/reviews/download.php?filename=2004_3_02.pdf. Accessed 14 July 2005.

Sampson, C.G. 1995. Acquisition of European livestock by the Seacow River Bushmen between AD 1770-1890. Southern African Field Archae- ology 4: 30-36.

Schrire, C. 1980a. An inquiry into the evolutionary status and apparent identity of San hunter-gatherers. Human Ecology 8: 9-29.

Schrire, C. 1980b. An analysis of human behaviour and animal extinc- tions in South Africa and Australia in late Pleistocene times. South African Archaeological Bulletin 35: 3-12.

Schrire, C. 1992. The archaeological identity of hunters and herders at the Cape over the last 2000 years: a critique. South African Archaeologi- cal Bulletin 47: 62-64.

Sealy, J.C. & Pfeiffer, S. 2000. Diet, body size and landscape use among Holocene people in the southern Cape, South Africa. Current Anthro- pology 41: 642-655.

Sealy, J.C. & van der Merwe, N.J. 1986. Isotope assessment and the seasonal mobility hypothesis in the south-western Cape of South Africa. Current Anthropology 27: 135-150.

Sealy, J.C. & Yates, R. 1994. The chronology of the introduction of pastoralism to the Cape, South Africa. Antiquity 68: 56-67.

Smith, A.B. 1998. Early domestic stock in southern Africa: a commen-




tary. African Archaeological Review 15: 151-156. Smith, A.B. 2005. The concepts of 'Neolithic' and 'Neolithisation' for

Africa? Before Farming [online version] 2005/1 article 2. http://www. waspress.co.uk/journals/beforefarming/journal_20051/abstracts! download.php?filename=2005_1_02.pdf. Accessed 14 July 2005.

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-gatherers within the last 2000 years. South African Archaeological Bulletin 46: 71-90.

Smith, B.W, Lewis-Williams, J.D., Blundell, G. & Chippindale, C. 2000. Archaeology and symbolism in the new South African coat of arms. Antiquity 74: 467-468.

Smith, B.W & Ouzman, S. 2004. Taking stock: identifying Khoekhoen herderrock art in southern Africa. CurrentAnthropology 45: 499-526.

Smith, M. 2005. Desert archaeology, linguistic stratigraphy and the spread of the Western Desert language. In: Veth, P, Smith, M. & Hiscock, P (eds) Desert Peoples: Archaeological Perspectives: 222-242. Oxford: Blackwells.

Solomon, A.C. 1992. Gender, representation and power in San ethnography and rock art. Journal ofAnthropologicalArchaeology 11: 291-329.

Solomon, A.C. 1997. The myth of ritual origins? Ethnography, mythol- ogy and interpretation of San rock art. South African Archaeological Bulletin 52: 3-13.

Solway, J.S. & Lee, R.B. 1990. Foragers, genuine or spurious? Situating the Kalahari San in history. Current Anthropology 31: 109-146.

Stahl, A.B. 2001. Making History in Banda: Anthropological Visions of Africa's Past. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Swart, J. 2004. Rock art sequences in uKhahlamba-Drakensberg Park, South Africa. Southern African Humanities 16: 13-35.

Veth, P. 2000. Origins of the Western Desert language: convergence in linguistic and archaeological space and time models. Archaeology in Oceania 35: 11-19.

Veth, P., Smith, M. & Hiscock, P (eds) 2005. Desert Peoples: Archaeological

Perspectives. Oxford: Blackwells. Wadley, L. 1987. Later Stone Age Hunters and Gatherers of the Southern

Transvaal: Social and Ecological Interpretations. Oxford: British Archaeo- logical Reports, International Series #S380.

Wadley, L. 1992. Reply to Barham: aggregation and dispersal phase sites in the Later Stone Age. South African Archaeological Bulletin 47: 52-55.

Wadley, L. 1993. The Pleistocene Later Stone Age south of the Limpopo. Journal of World Prehistory 7: 243-296.

Wadley, L. 1996. Changes in the social relations of precolonial hunter- gatherers after agropastoral contact: an example from the Magalies- berg, South Africa. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 15: 205- 217.

Wadley, L. 2001. What is cultural modernity? A general view and south African perspective from Rose Cottage Cave. CambridgeArchaeological Journal 11: 201-221.

Walker, N.J. 1995a. The archaeology of the San: the Late Stone Age of Botswana. In: Sanders, A.J.G.M. (ed.) Speakingfor the Bushmen: 54-87. Gaborone: The Botswana Society.

Walker, N.J. 1995b. Late Pleistocene and Holocene Hunter-gatherers of the Matopos. Uppsala: Societas Archaeologica Upsaliensis.

Wallis, R.J. 2002. The bwili or 'flying tricksters' of Malakula: a critical discussion of recent debates on rock art, ethnography and shamanisms. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 8: 735-760.

Whitley, D.S. 1992. Shamanism and rock art in far western North Amer- ica. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 2: 89-113.

Wilmsen, E.N. 1989. Land Filled with Flies: A Political Economy of the Kalahari. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Wilmsen, E.N. & Denbow, J.R. 1990. Paradigmatic history of San- speaking peoples and current attempts at revision. Current Anthro- pology 31: 489-524.

Zvelebil, M. (ed.) 1986. Hunters in Transition. Mesolithic Societies of Tem- perate Eurasia and their Transition to Farming. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.



Date post:	30-Jan-2017
Category:	Documents
Upload:	peter-mitchell
View:	212 times
Download:	0 times

Why Hunter-Gatherer Archaeology Matters: A Personal Perspective on Renaissance and Renewal in...

Documents