KEEPING THE WATCHMEN WATCHING...2015/12/27 · Dewar, G. 2008. The archaeology of the coastal...

South African Archaeological Society

In an earlier article published in The Digging Stick(Jerardino 2010), I presented the first observationsfrom a site known as Baboon Point Terrace (BPT) inElands Bay. This is a north facing, 35 m long andnearly 6 m wide flat rock floor stepping up to a similarlylong overhang abutting the Baboon Point cliff face(see photo on right). The rocky surface under theoverhang is likely to have been the living area, fromwhere food remains were tossed to the lower floor(lower photo on right). Currently, low bushes andsucculent plants cover some of the edges and middleareas of the terrace. Excellent views of the surroun-ding landscape are afforded from the small overhang(BPT1) situated to the west of the main terrace, suchas Mussel Point and sandy beaches to the south, thebay reefs and more sandy beaches to the north.

Successions of short occupation events at BPT took

place over 400 years (900–1280 AD, at 2 �, namely acombination of two calibrated dates plus two standarddeviations on either side of the mean date). BPT wasprobably used because of the need to watch thelandscape closely because of likely competitiverelationships among indigenous groups at a timewhen warm and dry climatic trends (the MedievalWarm Epoch from 800 to 1300 AD) were dominantlocally, as in many other regions of the world (Seageret al. 2007; Wanner et al. 2008). Simon se Klip (SSK)(Jerardino and Maggs 2007) is an encampment atopa kopje near Lamberts Bay and its two youngestcalibrated dates (with 2ó) overlap significantly withBPT’s 400-year long age bracket. SSK is a formidablelookout point with views all the way to Baboon Point tothe south and to Nortier Government experimentalfarm to the north.

While people (men?) kept an eye on the horizon, theysurely needed to eat and replenish liquids likeanybody else. Other group members would havetaken food and water up the cliff so that watchmenkept to their task without much interruption. Theanalysed food and artefactual debris from the three

THE DIGGING STICK

KEEPING THE WATCHMEN WATCHING

Faunal and artefactual contents at Baboon Point Terrace, West Coast

Antonieta Jerardino

Volume 29, No 2 ISSN 1013-7521 August 2012

OTHER FEATURES IN THIS ISSUE

4 Lesotho’s Metolong Dam: A lastinglegacy? – Charles Arthur and PeterMitchell

10 Rheboksfontein 1 – Jayson Orton

14 Of monuments and rubbish heaps –Gareth Angelbeck

17 The salvor and maritime archaeology –Charles Shapiro

Antonieta Jerardino is with Institució Milà i Fontanals-CSIC(ICREA), Dept. d’Arqueologia i Antropologia, Barcelona, [email protected]

The Digging Stick 2 Vol 29(2) August 2012

samples recovered at BPT are presented and dis-cussed here.

Table 1 shows the great dominance of marine shell,with bones from different species and Cape rocklobster (Jasus lalandii) remains being the second andthird dominant. Ostrich eggshells (OES) are presentonly at BPT1 (Jerardino 2010). In the absence ofwater flask holes or rims, it is not clear whether OESfragments reflect diet or the use of one or more egg-shells as water containers. Ceramic fragments mightwell have been part of one or two containers for trans-porting cooked food. Medium to fine grained black ordark grey matrix with little temper fragments alongwith coarse-grained and quartz-temper shards charac-terise the recovered ceramics at BPT. The smallstone artefact assemblagestill needs to be analysed,but much of it appears to bechunks and chips.

The amount of charcoalrecovered from the threesamples and observedalong the extension of BPTis minimal, suggesting littlefood preparation on site. Itis possible, however, thatfood was cooked on site,but that much of the char-coal was swept away bythe wind. Woody plantsneeded for cooking arepresent at BPT1, but not ina quantity that would havelasted for long. Hence,firewood might have beentaken up to the site for war-ming people during colddays or when staying over-night.

Tortoises and mammalswere the main food cat-egories in the watchmen’sdiet, as indicated by teethfragments and post-cranials (Table 2). An in-determinate ungulate andmedium bovid could beidentified among smallfragments of bone. Thepresence of microfaunaseems to be the result ofbird predators, as bothcranial and post-cranialbones were found (Dewarand Jerardino 2007). Onlya few penguin (Spheniscusdemersus) bones and asmall sea barbel otolith(Galeichthys feliceps) re-

veal the presence of these species as well. Perhapsanother fish is also represented as inferred from asmall fish tooth. With the exception of the fish, smallCape rock lobsters (indicated by small calcareousmandibles) and tortoises (carapace, plastron and limbbones were found), only body parts of mammals and apenguin were transported to BPT. Given the smallfood parcels taken up to BPT and post-depositionalfactors such as trampling and exposure to theelements, it is not surprising that BPT bones arerepresented by small and at times tiny size of bonefragments.

Even though marine shells dominate the food remainsby volume and weight, the samples are small (Table3) when compared with those recovered from nearby

Table 1: Quantities of faunal and artefactual remains from three of the samplesrecovered from Baboon Point Terrace. Rock lobster (Jasus lalandii) remains arequantified by the number of calcareous mandibles (very small in this case), andceramics by the number of shards. The remaining categories are computed by weight(grams). Asterisks indicate radiocarbon-dated samples.

Marineshell

Rocklobster

Bone OES CharcoalCeram-

ics

BPT1*

Surface 141,8 – 3,0 3,1 – 7

Spit 1 88,7 1 2,2 2,0 – 2

Spit 2 109,8 1 2,7 0,4 0,05 1

Total 340,3 2 7,9 5,5 0,05 10

BPT2*

Surface 241,0 1 2,2 – 0,38 1

Spit 1 126,4 – 1,0 – 0,16 –

Spit 2 66,8 1 1,1 – 0,18 –

Total 434,2 2 4,3 – 0,75 1

BPT3

Spit 1 142,8 – 0,9 – 1,03 –

Spit 2 144,8 – 2,5 – 0,34 –

Total 287,6 – 3,4 – 1,37 –

Table 2: Presence or absence of vertebrate categories from three of the samplesrecovered from Baboon Point Terrace. Presence of fish was identified through anotolith, possibly catfish.

Tor-toise

Un-gulate

Med-ium

bovid

Indet-ermin-

atemam-mal

Microfauna

Pen-guin

FishUn-

iden-tifi-able

BPT1

Surface X X X

Spit 1 X X

Spit 2 X X X X

BPT2

Surface X X X

Spit 1 X X X X

Spit 2 X X X

BPT3

Spit 1 X X X X X

Spit 2 X X X

Vol 29(2) August 2012 3 The Digging Stick

archaeological sites (e.g.Jerardino et al. 2009;Parkington 2008). The BPTlist of shellfish species isvery similar to that of sever-al other sites in the ElandsBay area. In terms ofpercentage weight, blackmussels (Choromytilusmeridionalis) are dominant,followed by limpets (mainlyCymbula granatina andScutellastra granularis)and smaller percentages ofwhelk species (Burnupenaspp. and Nucella spp.). In-terestingly, relative abun-dances by weight of bar-nacles at BPT are compar-atively very small. It seems,however, that barnacleswere detached from mus-sel shells before thesewere transported up to thelookout point in order to reduce the load. A similarpractice appears to have been adopted at two otherlocal sites, one situated high up and the other furtheraway from the shore, namely Spring Cave andTortoise Cave respectively (Jerardino 1997: Table 6).

Conclusions

It is unlikely that indigenous groups of hunter-gatherers, hunters with sheep and full time herdersliving during the Medieval Warm Epoch did so withoutproblems. As a marginal area today, Elands Baywould have been more arid and water supplies wouldhave been scarce and highly seasonal. Nonetheless,contrary to Khoisan groups up north in Namaqualandwho abandoned that region (Dewar 2008), ElandsBay and Lamberts Bay groups developed resilience tomore arid conditions, with the likely result of inter-group competition at some level. The need to main-tain access not only to water, but also to terrestrialresources would have required people with sharpeyes to monitor the landscape for possible com-petitors. Food remains at BPT shows that peoplewere still able to access marine and terrestrialresources despite the tense social environment inwhich they probably lived. The next step will be toevaluate this scenario in the context of other localsites dating to that period.

Acknowledgements

Many thanks to Louisa Hutten for helping with the identification ofbone remains, and to Petro Keene for securing Baboon PointTerrace material in the Iziko South African Museum store room.

References

Dewar, G. 2008. The archaeology of the coastal desert ofNamaqualand, South Africa. Oxford: British ArchaeologicalReports International Series 1761.

Dewar, G & Jerardino, A. 2007. Micromammals: when humans arethe hunters. Journal of Taphonomy 5(1): 1–14.

Jerardino, A. 1997. Changes in shellfish species composition andmean shell size from a late-Holocene record of the west coast ofsouthern Africa. Journal of Archaeological Science 24: 1031-1044.

Jerardino, A. 2010. The southern African Neolithic in the ElandsBay area: towards improved chronology and understanding ofgroup interactions. The Digging Stick 27(3): 9–12.

Jerardino, A and Maggs, T. 2007. Simon se Klip atSteenbokfontein: the settlement pattern of a built pastoralistencampment on the West Coast. South African ArchaeologicalBulletin 62(186): 104-114.

Jerardino, A, Dewar, G and Navarro, R. 2009. Opportunisticsubsistence strategies among Late Holocene coastalhunter-gatherers, Elands Bay, South Africa. Journal of Island andCoastal Archaeology 4: 37–60.

Parkington, J. 2008. Limpet sizes in Stone Age archaeologicalcontexts at the Cape, South Africa: changing environment orhuman impact? In Antczac, A & Cipriani, R (eds), Early humanimpact on mega molluscs, Oxford: British Archaeological ReportsInternational Series 266: 175–184.

Seager, R, Graham, N, Herweijer, C, Gordon, AL, Kushnir, Y andCook, E. 2007. Blueprints for Medieval hydroclimate. QuaternaryScience Reviews 26: 2322–2336.

Wanner, H, Beer, J, Bütikofer, J, Crowley, TJ, Cubasch, U,Flückiger, J, Goosse, H, Grosjean, M, Joos, F, Kaplan, JO, Küttel,M, Müller, SA, Prentice, IC, Solomina, O, Stocker, TF, Tarasov, P,Wagner, M and Widmann, M. 2008. Mid- to Late Holocene climatechange: an overview. Quaternary Science Reviews 27:1791–1828.

Ancient primate fossil. Researchers in Ugandahave unearthed the well-preserved fossil skull of a 20million-year-old primate, Ugandapithecus major. Pre-liminary analysis shows the tree-climbing herbivorewas roughly 10 years old when it died. The skull isabout the same size as that of a chimp, but its brain issmaller. BBC News 13/08/2011

Table 3: List and relative frequencies of shellfish species calculated for all threesampling locations at Baboon Point Terrace. MNI means minimum numbers ofindividuals.

BPT1 BPT2 BPT3

% MNI%

weight% MNI

%weight

% MNI%

weight

Choromytilus meridionalis 28,6 48,8 44,2 62,9 51,6 51,3

Aulacomya ater 0 0,1 3,8 0,1 0 0,1

Cymbula granatina 19,0 16,4 34,6 28,4 41,9 39,4

Scutellastra granularis 35,7 5,2 13,5 2,6 6,5 2,3

Scutellastra barbara 0 5,1 1.9 4,0 0 0,4

Scutellastra argenvillei 0 0,4 0 0,6 0 0,1

Limpets (unidentified) 0 0,2 0 0,1 0 1,2

Total limpets 58,8 27,3 50,0 35,7 48,4 43,4

Burnupena spp., Nucella spp. 16,7 11,7 0 0,4 0 1,5

Argobuccinum pustulosum 0 0 0 0,2 0 0

Oxystele spp. 0 0 0 0,1 0 0

Total whelks 16,7 11,7 0 0,7 0 1,5

Barnacles – 10,4 – 0,6 – 3,7

Venerupis corrugata 0 1,8 1,9 0,1 0 0

Totals (MNI/grams) (42) (340,5) (52) (434,2) (39) (287,6)


In this second article on the Metolong Dam (MCRMProject) – see ‘The archaeology of the Metolong Dam,Lesotho’, The Digging Stick. 29(1) April 2012 – welook beyond the mitigation work of the project andexamine its other key aim, namely to develop a lastinglegacy of archaeological practice in Lesotho. We firstdescribe the origins of the project in a country where,despite a long history of dam construction and anincredibly rich archaeological record, there has onlyever been one practising archaeologist. We then out-line our attempts at contributing to a more developedarchaeological infrastructure that will be sustainablein the long term, including initiatives put in place fortraining and community engagement. We end byreflecting on the project’s relevance to wider trans-formations in southern African archaeology.

Lessons learnt the hard way

Pioneering rock shelter excavations and surveys inLesotho from the 1960s until the mid-1980s carriedout mainly by British archaeologists and largely inremote parts of the country’s eastern highlands allow-ed little time or provided few funds for training or com-munity engagement. One exception was a two-yearrock art survey based at the National University ofLesotho (NUL) and directed by Lucas Smits, in thecourse of which Taole Tesele was trained as rock artrecorder (Smits 1983). By the time the LesothoHighlands Water Project (LHWP) was up and runningin 1986 there was, however, no archaeologicalinfrastructure to speak of (Mitchell 2005; Arthur et al.2011).

Unfortunately, the situation did not improve much inthe following 20 years, despite the construction of twovery large dams and a notable amount of fieldwork,and even though specific recommendations weremade for a field unit to be set up right at the beginningof the LHWP (Lewis-Williams and Thorp 1989).Instead, work was carried out by a variety of con-tractors and university staff from South Africa. To theircredit, Tesele was employed by the LHWP and wenton to complete an honours degree at the University ofCape Town during this period. Regrettably, however,on his return to Lesotho there was no post for him to

fill. Considering that with its five dams and a US$ 7,5billion price tag the LHWP was and can probably stillclaim to be the largest development project everundertaken in Africa, the scale of this underinvest-ment is clear.

Four other archaeologists from Lesotho have com-pleted post-graduate degrees in the last ten years, butall now work in South Africa, at least in part because ofmuch higher salaries across the border. This meansthat Lesotho‘s Department of Culture struggles toattract and retain staff. By 2008 NUL appeared tohave a brighter future (Arthur et al. 2011) following theappointment of an archaeology lecturer and foundingof the first archaeology modules as part of a broadercultural heritage course, although the archaeologicalcomponent of this course has now been suspendedbecause of financial constraints. The 2011/12 nat-ional budget also cited the upcoming development ofa national museum, but the figure was not disclosedand sceptics would say that this project has now beenin the pipeline for well over a quarter of a century(Vowles and Dugast 1985). In lieu, the privatelyfunded Morija Museum and Archives has taken onmuch of the responsibility of such an institution,having even undertaken historical landscape surveysand temporary storage of palaeontological materials.But it too is severely constrained by limited funding.

The project takes shape

Taole Tesele was still practising archaeology on apart-time basis in 2008 and took responsibility for theinitial Environmental Impact Assessment for theMetolong Dam, which included an agenda for thetraining of local archaeologists and the public

LESOTHO’S METOLONG DAM: A LASTING LEGACY?

Charles Arthur and Peter Mitchell

Charles Arthur is Senior Archaeologist on the Metolong CulturalResource Management Project and Research Associate at theSchool of Archaeology, Oxford University. [email protected]

Peter Mitchell is Professor of African Archaeology at the School ofArchaeology, Oxford University, England, and Research Associateof GAES, University of the Witwatersrand. [email protected]

Fig. 1: Rethabile Mokachane explains how to excavatean Early Holocene hearth feature to Tlaleho Maloro, a

2011 trainee (photo: Charles Arthur)


dissemination of knowledge (Tesele 2008). We thendeveloped his outline into a proposal that, in contrastto LHWP, was designed to help develop archaeo-logical infrastructure within Lesotho through sus-tained skills transfer. Perhaps the most crucial aspectwas the inclusion of a continuous 18-month fieldworkprogramme between October 2008 and August 2010.

We knew that there was an opportunity to do thingsdifferently this time and go beyond the usual arch-aeologist and labourer relationship, but exactly howwe were to make this work as a sustainable venturewas less clear. Some initiatives that later proved to bea success were planned from the start, such asprinting newsletters and donating our equipment toand recruiting interns from the Department of Culture.However, when we began the Phase 1 survey andstarted meeting villagers in the project area we soonlearnt that the true success of our project did notdepend solely on a one-way skills transfer fromarchaeologists to community members. It was equallyabout us learning from and sharing responsibility withlocal communities.

Mentorship and sharing responsibility

Almost immediately after our initial survey workcommenced in November 2008, two highly motivatedteachers realised that we needed help and attachedthemselves to us at weekends, showing a keeninterest in how to record rock art and lithic scatters.Morija Museum also played a crucial part byrecommending a young graduate to join us in the farsoutheast of the country for an excavation conductedbetween phases 1 and 2 of the MCRM Project atMoshebi’s Shelter, the first ever site to be excavatedin Lesotho (Carter 1969). Together with the teachersand another enthusiastic excavator from the localcommunity at Ha Moshebi’s, the first group of traineearchaeologists for the Metolong project had emergedof its own accord.

Phase 2 of our work at Metolong began in October2009 with a team of five professional archaeologists

from the United Kingdom (UK), Ireland, South Africaand Australia who acted as mentors for the initial threeBasotho trainees. As the project progressed, weincreasingly gave responsibilities to the trainees. Aftersix months, another community member from theMetolong area, the most enthusiastic participant in thesieving and sorting team, became our fourth trainee,and not long afterwards, the group was experiencedenough to take responsibility for running small testexcavations in rock shelters without supervision.

The 2011 and 2012 seasons saw those trained in2010 take on the mentorship role as a new crop oftrainees were intensively trained during a further fourmonths of excavation (Fig. 1). Other aspects of ourmethodology were fundamental to the success of ourtraining programme, most notable the use of thesingle context recording system developed on com-plex urban sites in the UK, which encourages everyexcavator to take charge of all aspects of the record-ing and interpretation process (Berggren and Hodder2003).

At Metolong we extended this approach to the sievingand sorting station, for which recording sheets weredesigned so that people were not passively sievingand bagging material and only interacting withexcavators when an unusual find could not beidentified, something that is sadly all too often thenorm on many archaeology projects. Instead, theywere able to record the volumes of various finds bycategory, note differences in residue content andmake notes on what this might mean for theinterpretation of the site. In this way everybody whotook part in the excavation took on an active role inconstructing the archaeological record.

Student involvement and university support

Unlike most previous archaeological work in Lesotho,the MCRM Project has taken place within easy reachof the NUL campus. To take advantage of this, aformal training day for final-year NUL students wasprovided at Ntloana Tsoana in February 2010. Twenty-four undergraduates from the NUL’s cultural heritage

Fig. 2: Rethabile Mokachane explains the excavationprocess to villagers on a site tour (photo: Adrian Stokes)

Fig. 3: Pupilsfrom Ino PrimarySchool receivetheir first taste ofexcavation on the

spoil heap at

Ntloana Tsoana(photo: Jess Meyer)


degree course were able to gain firsthand experienceof a range of archaeological field techniques, includ-ing excavation, survey and planning, sieving andsorting, and stone artefact analysis. Subsequent tothis visit, students joined us on Fridays to receivefurther training.

After excavations ended at Ntloana Tsoana and HaMakotoko, some students were able to gain furtherexperience of finds processing by helping to sortexcavated material back at the campus. Two went onto excavate at the 19th century village site of HaMakoanyane in July 2010. In addition to the final yearstudents, one graduate was recommended by DrMoleboheng Mohapi (then of the NUL) to join theMCRM Project for a four-month internship in 2010.The programme developed for her consisted of twomonths of intensive excavation training, one month offinds processing and one month of rock art tracing.This intern returned for the 2011 field season to gainanother two months experience and has now gained aplace on the 2012 honours degree course inarchaeology at Wits University.

Community engagement

Our community programme was launched at thebeginning of the second phase of our fieldwork inOctober 2009 with a short newsletter in both Sesothoand English. One thousand copies were distributed tolocal communities and as a result of this manyvillagers came to see the excavations (Fig. 2).

A number of school visits were co-ordinated from2010 to 2012, often including mock excavations onthe spoil heaps outside Ntloana Tsoana (Fig. 3). In2011 and 2012 we began a programme of villagemeetings, either organised by ourselves with the helpof the local chiefs, or, if the timing was right, tacked onto a more general pitso or village meeting (Fig. 4). Themeetings were organised to explain briefly the resultsof the project and to formally invite the village to anopen day. Three such days were held at NtloanaTsoana during which over 120 villagers passed

through the shelter with local trainees leading theguided tour (Fig. 5).

Fortunately the stratigraphy at Ntloana Tsoana isimpressive and can be seen very clearly, but we werestill surprised at the level of interest and found thatpeople were particularly drawn to the narrative ofclimate change and the flooding of the site at differenttimes in the past.

At the pitsos, villagers also expressed an acuteawareness of rock paintings as a resource that canbring tourism to an area. Questions were asked aboutthe exact number of sites that would be impacted bythe dam and whether any others exist nearby.

Media exposure to raise the profile of archaeologyamongst the wider public was co-ordinated with thehelp of the Department of Culture. This included asmall news feature on Lesotho TV about theexcavations and training programmes that markedthe first appearance for archaeology on nationaltelevision. It was followed by an interview with one ofour trainees in The Informative newspaper.

Discussion: transformation through practice

The major limitation of the Metolong project is that it is,by its very nature, contract-based and therefore has afixed lifespan. Two new archaeological fieldwork pro-jects not tied to construction deadlines are, however,underway in or close to Lesotho and we havecollaborated with the project leaders to enable ourtrainees to gain valuable employment beyond the endof our work at Metolong in mid-2012. Thus, in July2011 one member of our team joined Brian Stewartand Genevieve Dewar’s Adaptations to MarginalEnvironments in the Middle Stone Age (AMEMSA)Project digging at Sehonghong in the Lesothohighlands. Two of our senior excavation team havealso recently secured four months employment asexcavators on Sam Challis’s Matatiele ArchaeologyRock Art (MARA) Project based on South Africa’sborder with Lesotho in the Eastern Cape (http://www.marasurvey.com).

Employment of this kind on research projects is ofcourse seasonal and will not provide enough of asalary to keep our well-trained excavators and grad-uates in the archaeological profession. A graduatemay find employment in the Department of Culture orperhaps one of the few small private museums inLesotho, but there are so few posts that even thosewith an honours degree will find it difficult to remain inLesotho. The situation is even more uncertain forthree of our senior excavators who do not haveuniversity degrees, as even in South Africa there arefew, if any, positions for archaeological technicians.

Therefore, something has to change post-Metolong ifwe are going to secure longer-term employment forarchaeologists in the region. For one, we must pushfor funding arrangements so that we do not have to

Fig. 4: MCRM team member Joseph Ralimpe talks at apitso, Ha Makotoko village (photo: Charles Arthur)


wait until construction of the next big dam com-mences. Ideas for a more varied funding pool haverecently been explored elsewhere in more detail(Arthur et al. 2011). The important point here is thatthere is enough money in the many large damschemes and the industries that consume Lesotho‘swater in Gauteng to warrant a funding programme forat least another two decades.

Second and more broadly, something is needed toboost all sectors of the heritage profession. Onepossibility is a non-governmental organisation (NGO)that takes some – but, importantly, not all – of itsfunding from dams and other resource exploitationprojects, such as diamond and coal mines. The WorldBank has recently indicated that it is committed toproviding funds outside of specific projects, meaningthat an initiative such as this could be seen in afavourable light (World Bank 2006). We envisage anorganisation that can conduct cultural resourcemanagement (CRM) both in the rescue andconservation spheres, whilst serving as a capacitybuilding centre until there are more positions availableinside the state, museum and university sectors of thearchaeological community.

Such an organisation would be better placed to dealwith forthcoming dam projects in Lesotho that willundoubtedly have a political dimension. The muchlarger Polihali Dam, for instance, which forms the firstpart of Phase II of the LHWP and has just been giventhe go-ahead by the South African and Lesothogovernments, will submerge five villages (http://www.lhda.org.ls). Independence from the dam builders willbe crucial if archaeologists are to offer impartialadvice in matters relating to exhumation, loss ofancestor worship sites and other heritage resourcesthat might help manage the trauma of resettlement.As shown by impassioned testimonies that high-lighted the destruction of ash middens containinginfant burials following the poorly implemented Phase1a of the LHWP (TRC 2000), and viewpoints recentlyexpressed during the pitso at Ha Matjeke, there is areal awareness and concern about the impact ofdams on cultural heritage amongst Lesotho’s ruralpopulation.

The MCRM Project is an unusually large and long-term venture that has allowed us to implement pro-grammes of training and community engagement,some of which may not be widely replicable. Never-theless, we feel that the ideas discussed here are ofsignificance for the transformation goals outlinedrecently by the Association of Southern AfricanProfessional Archaeologists – ASAPA (Smith 2009:89). Although this charter is limited to South Africa atpresent, the movement it represents is of courserelevant for the whole of southern Africa.

Ben Smith’s 2009 paper that accompanied thepublication of ASAPA’s Transformation Charteridentified the uptake of trainees by CRM companies

as a crucial aspect of the transformation process. TheMCRM Project has trained a combination ofgraduates and technicians from local communitiesand shown this to be successful. The project has,however, been limited by the fact that it is tied to aspecific dam-building scheme, thus exposing theweakness of the contract archaeology system fortackling transformation issues. For Lesotho, we haveproposed an NGO-type organisation that couldreceive funds from varied sources and thereby pro-vide longer-term employment and act independentlyin the face of politically sensitive construction projects.The first steps towards an organisation such as thishave recently been taken by NUL graduates andtrainees from the Metolong Project who togetherformed the Lesotho Heritage Network (LHN 2012).Starting out as a platform for communication, theorganisation hopes to develop into a job creation andheritage monitoring initiative.

Other parts of southern Africa are also severelyaffected by natural resource exploitation – coal miningin Mpumalanga, for example – and perhaps arch-aeologists working in these areas could campaign forfunds outside of specific mitigation schemes. Sharingstaff members across projects has also providedsome relief in our region. A similar system could beimagined across southern Africa, with smaller arch-aeological units formally sharing experienced tech-nicians.

The success of our on-site methodology for sharingresponsibility is also something that could bereplicated. There is no reason that the supervisor-labourer model of the African construction industryshould remain a common feature of 21st centuryarchaeological practice. The benefits in terms of thetransformation of the site into a place where localcommunity members feel welcome far outweighs anyfinancial gain provided by preserving that outmodedmodel.

References

Arthur, CI, Mohapi, M & Mitchell, PJ. 2011. Archaeology and damprojects in Lesotho. Conservation and Management of Archaeo-logical Sites 13:231–252.

Berggren, A & Hodder, I. 2003. Social practices, method and someproblems of field archaeology. American Antiquity 68:421-434.

Carter, PL. 1969. Moshebi’s Shelter. Lesotho 8:13-23.

Lewis-Williams. JD & Thorp, CA. 1989. Archaeology: Lesotho High-lands Water Project environmental study. Unpublished reportsubmitted to the Lesotho Highlands Development Authority.

LHN (Lesotho Heritage Network). 2012. Basotho archaeologicaltrainees call for comprehensive impact assessment for PolihaliDam. Available at http://www.publiceye.co.ls/2012/04/16/basotho-archaeological-trainees-call-for-comprehensive-heritage-impact-assessment-for-polihali-dam-2/ [accessed 09/08/2012].

Mitchell, PJ. 2005. Managing on scarce resources: the past record,present situation and future prospects of archaeological resourcemanagement in Lesotho. In Finneran, N (ed.), SafeguardingAfrica’s past: selected papers from a workshop held at the School ofOriental and African Studies, University of London, 2001, Oxford:British Archaeological Reports 37–46.

Smith, BW. 2009. A transformation charter for South Africanarchaeology. South African Archaeological Bulletin 64:87-89.


Smits, LGA 1983. Rock paintings in Lesotho: their content andcharacteristics. South African Archaeological Bulletin 38:62–76.

Tesele, T. 2008. Metolong Dam environmental and social impactassessment: cultural heritage (archaeology) impact assessment.Unpublished report for SMEC International.

TRC (Transformation Resource Centre). 2000. Resettlers demandimprovement package, Available at http://www. Internationalrivers.org/de/africa/Lesotho-water-project/resettlers-demandimprovements-resettlement-package. [accessed 17/11/2010].

Vowles, VE & Dugast, F. 1985. National museum project. Reportprepared for the Government of the Kingdom of Lesotho byUNESCO.

World Bank. 2006. Operational Policy 4.11. Physical culturalresources. Washington: World Bank.

ARCHAEOLOGY IN BRIEF

Older dates for cave paintings in Spain. Theexquisite art in Europe caves has been thought to beproduced during the time of last glaciation by recentlyarrived modern humans, but dating the art has beenproblematic. Dr Alistair Pike from Bristol Universityhas now obtained uranium-thorium series dates onthe calcite crusts that formed over the art in 11 cavesin north-western Spain, including Altamira, El Castilloand Tito Bustillo. Three caves were found to be olderthan 35 000 years and one motif, a faint red dot, datesto nearly 41 000 years ago. The earliest art used prim-arily red and was relatively formless; animal depic-tions appeared later. Science 336 (6087) & BBC News, 06/12

Early pottery at 20 000 years ago in China. Theearliest pottery has been thought to have appeared inChina and Japan 18 000 years ago. But broken piecesof pottery from Xianrendong Cave, Jiangxi Province,China, have now been dated to 20 000 years ago.Scorch marks on many pieces imply the pottery wasused in cooking. The invention of pottery introducedfundamental shifts in human subsistence practicesand socio-symbolic behaviours. The Xianrendongdates are 2 000 to 3 000 years older than potteryfound in East Asia and elsewhere. The pottery wasproduced by mobile foragers. Science 29/06/ 2012

Fig. 5: Lineo Mothopeng and Matikoe Matsoso show findsto visitors during one of the 2012 open days (photo:

Tlalero Maloro)

The Cape Gallery seeks

to expose you to Fine Art

rooted in an African tradition

that is both eclectic

and diverse. We rotate our

exhibitions monthly,

touching your imagination

with the unique cultural

stamp that is our continent.

60 Church Street Cape Town

Gallery Hours:

Mon - Fri: 09h30 - 17h00

Sat: 10h00 - 14h00

Tel: +27 21 423 5309

Fax: +27 21 424 9063

E-mail: [email protected]

Web: www.capegallery.co.za

American Express, MasterCard, Visa and Diners

cards are accepted. Reliable arrangements can be

made to freight purchases to foreign destinations.

‘The Dream’ by Peter MidlaneEtching – 60 x 45 cm – R 4 000 unframed

Peter is an oil painter and printmaker. He has a BA in Fine Artfrom Rhodes and is particularly interested in the marks left by

man on the land.

THE CAPE

GALLERY

The Cape Gallery deals in fine art work by SA artistsand stocks a selection of paintings depicting South

African rock art.


I recently had the opportunity to visit Australia,including some time at Uluru (Ayer’s Rock). There Ispoke to a person who was directly descended fromindigenous hunter-gatherers. He described the abilityof a hunter to take advantage of ‘curiosity behaviour’among emu by simulating the behaviour andappearance of an emu (by bending forward, with thebody covered by spinifex grass). The hunter used his’killer boomerang’ to simulate the neck and head of anemu.

A ’killer boomerang’ is different from other(symmetric) boomerangs in the sense that it is longwith a ’hook’ at one end, and is thus similar in appear-ance to the long neck and head of an emu. The hunterwould stalk an emu by occasionally flicking the ’head’of the killer boomerang, to the left or to the right, tomimic the turning head of an emu. This attracted theattention of an emu. When the emu had approachedthe hunter sufficiently closely, the hunter aimed hiskiller boomerang at the emu’s neck or the legs.

The principle of taking advantage of ’curiositybehaviour’ among emu in Australia is reminiscent ofthe use of ostrich skin disguises in South Africa asdocumented by Moffat, for example, and described byThackeray (1983) with reference to the use of a stick(club) to simulate an ostrich neck. The accompanyingfigure is a South African example of the use of anostrich disguise in the context of hunting a giraffe. Thehunter appears to be holding a stick with a hookedend to represent the head of an ostrich, which is verysimilar to the use of a hooked ’killer boomerang’ in thecontext of an emu disguise as described by myinformant at Uluru.

With reference to this figure, Thackeray (1983) stated:’This engraving graphically demonstrates the ability ofthe disguised hunter to take advantage of thevulnerable posture of the giraffe, and further, it impliesa successful disguise since giraffe do not drink if theyare aware of predators’.

Among San, the ability to take advantage of ’curiositybehaviour’ of animals may have been perceived interms of ’supernatural potency’ (/num) associatedwith shamans/medicine-men who wore animal skinsin hunting contexts, but probably also in ritual (cf.Burchell’s reference to ’be-creeping caps’ made ofspringbok skin, and Bleek’s reference to the use ofskin caps by ’sorcerers’).

Incidentally, Chippindale, Smith and Tacon (2000, 83:Fig. 8) recorded a painting of a hunter and an emu inAustralia, depicting a line or dashes drawn betweenthe bird and the human who appears to be holdinggrass (spinifex), perhaps to be elusive in a grasslandcontext. They question whether such dashesrepresent what is called marr or spiritually derivedpower’. Perhaps in such cases the marr power isbased in part on the ability to take advantage ofcuriosity behaviour in emu.

Acknowledgement

I am most grateful to Marshall Weisler and Jessica Thompson at theUniversity of Queensland for the opportunity to visit Australia. Ithank the community at Uluru for the opportunity to discussAustralian hunting techniques, and I thank Ben Smith for drawingmy attention to the emu hunt represented in Australian rock art.

References

Thackeray, JF. 1983. Disguises, animal behaviour and concepts ofcontrol in relation to rock art of southern Africa. South AfricanArchaeological Society Goodwin Series 4:38-43.

Chippindale, C, Smith, B and Tacon, PSC. Visions of dynamicpower: archaic rock paintings, altered states of consciousness and’clever-men’ in Western Arnhem Land (NT), Australia. CambridgeArchaeological Journal 10(1): 63-101.

EMU HUNTING IN AUSTRALIA

A comparison with the use of ostrich disguises among the San

J Francis Thackeray

Prof. Francis Thackeray is the Director of the Institute for HumanEvolution, University of the Witwatersrand, [email protected]

The apparent use of an ostrich disguise by a hunterapproaching a giraffe drinking. The hunter appears to be

using a hooked stick to represent the head and neck of anostrich. From Thackeray (1983), based on Dora Fock’scopy of a rock engraving at Klipfontein, northern Cape.

Reproduced with permission of the South African Archaeological Society.


Numerous cultural resource management (CRM)surveys in the Swartland area north of Cape Townhave yielded archaeological artefacts, but veryseldom are they in good context because of the manyyears of ploughing that have occurred in this fertilearea. Most of these artefacts are well weathered andpertain to the Early and Middle Stone Ages, butoccasional Later Stone Age items are also found.Most farmers have at least one bored stone on theirliving room mantelpiece!

This article places on record a site recently found inthe Darling Hills at the far south-western edge of theSwartland, also during a CRM survey (Orton 2010a).In this area rocks of the Cape Granite Suite haveintruded the Malmesbury Shales to form a veryprominent area of high ground between about 6 kmand 12 km from the coast.

The Rheboksfontein 1 site

The site, an artefact scatter, was found on the farwestern edge of the Darling Hills in ploughed landaround a granite outcrop. It has been namedRheboksfontein 1 after the farm on which it is located.The outcrop forms part of a ridge overlooking the

coastal plain and is some 6,5 km from the AtlanticOcean and just less than 11 km from the nearestrocky shore at Bakoond, south of Yzerfontein (Fig. 1).The majority of artefacts were observed in a 20 mdiameter area around the outcrop, but additionalartefacts, presumably from the same site, werescattered at least 20 m to 30 m further afield. Thearchaeological survey covered extensive areas of thewestern-most high ground with ridges, outcrops andriver valleys targeted as likely locations for pre-colonial occupation. No other sites were located andrandomly occurring artefacts were generally rare(Orton 2010).

A feature unique to just two of the granite outcropsexamined was the presence of large water-filledbasins, one of which was at Rheboksfontein 1. Thelatter was some 4 m to 5 m in maximum dimensionand had at least 20 cm of water in it, possiblyrepresenting a volume of between 2 m3 and 2,5 m3

(Fig. 2). Although no site was found near the secondbasin, I believe that the presence of a temporary watersupply may well have been the reason that peoplemade use of Rheboksfontein 1.

The nature of the survey meant that the site wasrecorded rather quickly, but even so enough artefactswere found to provide some sort of characterisation ofthe scatter. My first thought while examining theartefacts was that this site was not a typical west coastsite. Near the coast, ephemeral scatters of quartzflakes, perhaps with the occasional artefact in fine-grained silcrete, and including shell are most com-mon. Rheboksfontein 1 is different; ground artefactsand broken cobble manuports dominate visually, butwith various flaked artefacts also present, amongthem a large, coarse-grained silcrete flake, severalsimilar pieces in quartzite and a core in quartzporphyry (Fig. 3). A few smaller flakes in quartz andquartzite were found but retouch was not noted.

Fig. 1: Locations of sites mentioned (dots) relativeto local towns (stars)

RHEBOKSFONTEIN 1

Do we have Khoekhoen in the Darling Hills?

Jayson Orton

Jayson Orton is with the Archaeology Contracts Office, Departmentof Archaeology, University of Cape Town. [email protected] Fig. 2: The water-filled basin at Rheboksfontein 1


Undoubtedly, many more flaked artefacts are presenton the site with larger artefacts perhaps more likely toremain visible on the surface after ploughing. Many ofthe latter actually display rusty-coloured streakswhere they have been impacted by ploughshares. Alower grindstone with a prominent groove and twofaceted upper grindstones testify to long-term use,while another less well used upper grindstonepreserves traces of ochre. With the soil being shale-derived and draped over granite, the cobble artefactsand manuports must have been brought to the sitefrom the coast.

Also present at the site was half a bifacial point of thesort commonly ascribed to the Stilbay period of theMiddle Stone Age. It is of very fine-grained, dark greysilcrete and was presumably collected as a curio (Fig.4). Three historical artefacts were also found, namelytwo fragments of Chinese coarse porcelain, one ofwhich is part of the basal rim of a bowl, and part of thebase of a wine bottle. No organic material was seenand, perhaps significantly, no pottery.

Discussion

The stone artefact assemblage at Rheboksfontein 1 isvery informal in the sense that retouch is absent andthe flaked artefacts are variable in size, shape andmaterial. Smith et al (1991) and Yates & Smith (1993)have argued that ‘informal’ assemblages, charac-terised specifically by low frequencies of retouchedformal tools and silcrete among their flaked com-ponent, indicate the presence of herders. Despite thelimited observations I am confident that this site canbe placed into the group of sites with ‘informal’assemblages and suggest that ascription to herdersseems plausible.

It should be noted that the above ‘definition’ ofinformal assemblages and their association with

herders is only applicable to sites in the south-westernpart of South Africa. Further north, in Namaqualand, asimilar pattern may prevail, but with cryptocrystallinesilica rather than silcrete, and the added complexity ofthe presence within the last 2 000 years of crystalquartz assemblages rich in backed tools (e.g. Orton etal 2005). However, the Namaqualand region is as yettoo poorly understood to make definitive statements inthis regard. The well-researched south coast and itshinterland are completely different. Here one findsassemblages strongly dominated by larger quartziteflakes. Several good examples have been publishedand it is quite clear that these assemblages firstappeared on the landscape some 3 500 to 3 200years ago, well before herders arrived in SouthernAfrica. These assemblages probably reflect the easyavailability of quartzite cobbles, particularly along thecoast, and hence represent an expedient industry withartefacts made for immediate use and discard. Thesame may well be true of strongly quartz-basedassemblages on the west coast, except that there theartefacts are substantially smaller.

Sadly, many archaeological sites on the south-western coastline have been destroyed by develop-ment. Few excavations have taken place and evenfewer are published. Although Bakoond containedsubstantial Holocene deposits, the cultural finds fromthat site seemed to indicate a hunter-gatherer occu-pation (Orton 2009). Near Melkbosstrand, some 44km to the south, the three excavated sites at AtlanticBeach seem to reflect herder occupation. Sealy et al(2004) noted the presence of sheep bones, informalstone artefact assemblages, pottery and many beadsgreater than 6 mm in diameter. On one of the threesites, sheep were the most frequent animal identifiedto species level.

Sealy et al (2004) see the Atlantic Beach sites asbeing very specifically located close to the rockyshore, fresh water and the fertile clayey soils thatprovided good grazing. The slightly higher ground inthe dune cordon afforded good views over adjacent

Fig. 3: Stone artefacts from the surface ofRheboksfontein 1 (scale: 15 cm)

Fig. 4: Both sides of the broken bifacial point fromRheboksfontein 1 (scale: 5 cm)


pasture lands. Although somewhat further from thecoast, Rheboksfontein 1 certainly has water, good soiland a great view. If herders were the responsible partythen good grazing and water must surely have takenpriority. Interestingly, no survey has ever targeted thisarea specifically to search for the Khoekhoen (ASmith, pers. comm. 2010).

The finds at Rheboksfontein 1 include a few colonialperiod items. Whether these arrived there independ-ently of the indigenous inhabitants or not is unknown,but the possibility nevertheless remains that the sitecould represent a late Khoekhoen camp. Organicmaterial (ostrich eggshell, marine shell or bone) thatcould be radiocarbon dated was not evident on thesurface and neither was any cultural material otherthan stone artefacts. Ostrich eggshell beads andpottery in particular might have been instructive. With-out a proper excavation taking place at Rheboks-fontein 1 little further can be surmised.

References

Orton, J. 2009. Hunters or herders? Evidence from the culturalassemblages at Bakoond, Western Cape, South Africa. BeforeFarming [online version] 2009/4: article 1.

Orton, J. 2010a. Heritage impact assessment for the proposedRheboksfontein Wind Energy Facility, Malmesbury MagisterialDistrict, Western Cape. Unpublished report for Savannah Environ-mental. Archaeology Contracts Office, University of Cape Town.

Sealy, J, Maggs, T, Jerardino, A, & Kaplan, J. 2004. Excavations atMelkbosstrand: variability among herder sites on Table Bay, SouthAfrica. South African Archaeological Bulletin 59:17-28.

Smith, AB, Sadr, K, Gribble, J, & Yates, R. 1991. Excavations in theSouth-Western Cape, South Africa, and the archaeological identityof prehistoric hunter-gatherers within the last 2000 years. SouthAfrican Archaeological Bulletin 46:71-91.

Yates, R, & Smith, AB. 1993. Ideology and hunter/herderarchaeology in the south western Cape. Southern African FieldArchaeology 2:96-104.

New scanner at Wits to boost discoveries

Wits University ushered in a new era of palaeo-sciences with the installation of a new micro-CTscanner in the Palaeosciences Centre in April. TheNational Research Foundation awarded a grant ofR8,2 million and the Wits Research Office madeavailable another R2 million. It is the only device of itskind in South Africa and rivals the performancecapability of any other microfocus CT systemconnected to a palaeontology research group world-wide. For several years the Bernard Price Instituteand the Institute for Human Evolution at Wits havebeen setting up a laboratory for virtual imageprocessing. Wits is the custodian of one of the largestcollections of fossils in the southern hemisphere.

Wits News, 23/04/12


There is a saying that irritates some archaeologistsbut amuses others: ‘When in doubt, categorise’.

Today, when young archaeologists confront possiblefields of research they inevitably have to deal with thework of their predecessors. First and foremost, theyinherit a set of categories that has come to define thefield. Aspiring Stone Age archaeologists, for instance,accept that they will be studying hand-axes, cleavers,scrapers, blades and so forth. As they progress withtheir work, some may question these received cat-egories, rejecting some and combining others. Havingspotted features that their predecessors missed,some may even create new sets of categoriesaltogether.

Those who feel the need for adjustments findthemselves facing a fundamental principle not just ofarchaeology but of logic. It is this: a single set ofcategories is not inherent in data. Categories are thecreations of researchers. To bring this point home tostudents, lecturers sometimes hand them a box ofassorted buttons and ask them to divide them up intocategories. Some divide the buttons up according tocolour, others according to size, still others accordingto whether they think they come from men’s orwomen’s garments, and so forth. It then becomesobvious that the categories do not come from thebuttons themselves but rather from the minds andinterests of the students. The next step is to realisethat sets of categories are created to answer specific,certainly not all, questions that researchers may wishto investigate. Students who grasp this principle areset on promising careers.

In the 1960s some archaeologists considered rock artresearch to be vague and unworthy of professionalattention. They felt that the discipline should be ‘scien-tific’ and that intuitive categories of images estab-lished on the basis of a researcher’s experience weresuspect. Categories should be defined ‘objectively’and should be subjected to statistical techniques.

Some rock art researchers responded by proposingquantitative techniques that they thought would meetthe requirements of their more scientific colleagues.The initiators of this approach were Patricia Vinni-combe and Tim Maggs. Each began by compiling alist of supposedly objective categories and thenrecording all the images in a given area according to

these categories – in other words, a database. I andothers followed them. These were monumentalresearch projects involving thousands of images andyears of fieldwork and subsequent analysis.

At first it seemed to quantifying researchers that theircategories were ‘valid’ and, above all, objective. Butthe features that they quantified were, like thestudents’ buttons, not objective ‘givens’: their cat-egories depended on ideas, no matter how vague,that were already in their minds and that derived fromwhat they thought the art was all about. Theirexplanations of the art therefore did not emergeinevitably and logically from the quantified database.Rather, explanations governed the formation of thecategories.

Some examples illustrate this point. In his unequalled1971 book Ndedema, Harald Pager listed nine majorcategories, including human beings, man-made struc-tures, mythological creatures, animals and landscapefeatures. Each of these had subdivisions. Forexample, ‘man-made structures’ comprised fence,ladder, rope bridge and so forth. Problems soonemerged. Each of these categories depended onsubjective interpretations of what was painted on therock. For instance, it is not clear why some imagesshould be listed as merely ‘animals’ when they (e.g.eland) appear in myths. Then, too, the subdivisions ofthe ‘human’ category did not recognise postures thatwere significant but at that time still unknown (e.g.arms back, hand to nose).

The situation was worse when it came to groups ofimages. Pager distinguished: hunting, dances, fight-ing, camp scenes, flight, food gathering, honey gath-ering, herding cattle, burial scene and ceremony.Underlying this set of categories is the assumptionthat the art is primarily a depiction of daily life.Examined from a more informed point of view, ‘campscenes’, for example, may turn out to depict rituals.

Problems continue when fieldwork begins. Forinstance, in a ‘procession’ of ten human figures, onemay bleed from the nose. Does this mean that onlyten per cent of the figures are related to the trancedance, or does it mean that all the figures in the groupare thus related?

The conclusion is that researchers should designcategories to deal with specific issues and that thecategories inevitably involve interpretations. The cat-egories that researchers create were not necessarilyin the minds of the image-makers. Category creation

Continued on page 16

Three issues in San rock art research: a series of short contributions

Part 3: LET’S COMPILE A DATABASE

David Lewis-Williams

Professor Emeritus David Lewis-Williams is a former director of theRock Art Research Institute at Wits University and is now a mentorin that institute. [email protected]


Many scholars are under the impression that despitetheir obvious archaeological value, shell middens aretechnically little more than ancient rubbish heaps. TheOxford Concise Dictionary of Archaeology defines ashell midden as ‘an extensive rubbish heap consistinglargely of shells discarded after the removal of the softedible body portion, the result of many years of ex-ploitation of marine resources as a main or sup-plementary food source’ (Darvill 2008). This definitionmay, in fact, be incomplete as there is strong evidencefrom many parts of the world which suggests thatsome shell middens may have been created forcultural or religious purposes (Claassen 1998). Thisarticle explores the possibility that some formerTranskei coast shell middens may also once have hadmonumental value.

Megamiddens

Archaeological evidence suggests that between2 000 and 3 000 years ago, humans living along SouthAfrica’s west coast abandoned coastal caves andrelocated inland. Unsuitable environmental conditionsduring this period may have dissuaded humans fromsettling at the coast for any extended period of time(Parkington 2006: 76). Despite the bad weather,humans still made regular visits to the coast, but nowthey preferred to set up temporary camps near theresources of exposed rocky points (Parkington 2006:71). It was these brief yet productive visits to the sameexposed rocky points year after year that eventuallyresulted in the build up of massive shell heaps knownas megamiddens.

Most middens predating 3 000 years contain rem-nants of bone, pottery, ash, charcoal and a mixedvariety of shell species. On the other hand, thecomposition of megamiddens is overwhelminglydominated by shells, mostly mussel with relatively fewlimpets or other species (Jerardino 2011: 14).Humans must have found it best to harvest and dry asmuch shellfish meat as possible (from an abundantand easily accessible species) before retreatinginland (Parkington 2006: 74). Their shell refuse wouldthen be piled into large heaps, presumably to avoidhaving it lie around. If this was the case, then why dolarge middens exist in places where there wasactually no need to pile refuse up in the first place?Below we will look at three such examples.

Mound Point

Mound Point lies about 15 km north of Kei Mouth on

what is now the former Transkei coast. The point musthave once been a favourite camp site as it boasts animpressive grass-covered midden that is visible fromseveral kilometres away. The point is more of aplatform and has steep sides nearly all the wayaround. One would assume that if people wanted todiscard their rubbish for good they would have simplywalked a few metres and thrown it over the edge of theplatform. Why pile it up in the centre and wastecamping space? This suggests that the Khoesan mayhave deliberately saved their shell refuse in order topile it up. Another similar example can be seen atMazeppa Bay, just a few kilometres north of MoundPoint.

The Mazeppa island midden

At Mazeppa Bay there is a small, predominantly rockyislet lying just off the beach. The islet can easily bereached by walking across the sand during low tide. Itis dominated by a spectacular midden that lies near itscentre. Sea-side grass grows near the centre of theislet and over the midden itself. There is no guess asto why the Khoesan would have wanted to camp here,but the islet must in ancient times have supported vastcolonies of shellfish. As in the case of Mound Point,there is no reason why the ancient campers could nothave discarded their shell refuse over the side of theislet and into the sea. Was the midden a deliberateconstruction?

The Black Beach midden

Just south of Mound Point lies a picturesque stretch ofcoast with small cliffs and narrow inlets. The sandhere contains rich deposits of black titanium ore that

OF MONUMENTS AND RUBBISH HEAPS

An alternative look at megamiddens on the former Transkei coast

Gareth Angelbeck

Gareth Angelbeck holds a degree in archaeology from Unisa and isa history teacher in East London. [email protected]

Mound Point as viewed from the south. The megamiddenis clearly visible in the centre of the photograph.


gives the beach its name. Among the cliffs there is asmall, unimpressive pillar of rock that juts out towardsthe ocean. Despite the top being flat, the rock itself isway too small to have accommodated even a smallcamping party. Right on top of this pillar of rock, andappearing to have no business there at all, lies a shellmidden. It is clear that shells must have been placedthere in the past for some reason, but why?

Why build a midden?

The motivation behind wanting to create a shellmidden on a small habitable point or islet must haveoutweighed the disadvantages. Most people willagree that it is very annoying and painful to tread on adiscarded shell, especially a broken one. Nowimagine how the chances of this happening areincreased if a camp site is littered with discardedmussel shells. Another disadvantage would havebeen the unpleasant odour of the mussel shells withina few days of being heaped in a pile. The intendedfunction of the midden must have been quiteimportant if the builders were willing to put up withthese small yet easily avoidable irritations.

Shining white beacons

There is no doubt that it took a long time for shellmiddens to reach the size of the Mazeppa Bay islandmidden, perhaps months if not years. Megamiddenswere probably never actually completed but ratherabandoned after a while. As the years would go by,the midden would eventually become covered over bygrass, thereby preserving its morphology. However, ittakes a very long time for grass to grow over amidden, even a small one. This means that for a greatdeal of its life the midden would have stood out as ahuge, spectacularly white object, not dissimilar to abeacon. Is it a coincidence or were some shellmiddens created with the intention of being seen fromfar away? If so, then what could be the reason behindthis?

One possibility is that the middens were constructedto act as a landmark so that favourite harvesting areascould easily be located. Religious reasons cannot beruled out either as many human remains have beenfound inside middens (Claassen 1998). My preferredtheory is that ancient coastal dwellers, like so manyother cultures, simply liked the idea of creatingsomething big and impressive for others to admire.

Middens elsewhere

Large middens are relatively common and can befound in many parts of the world (Parkington 2006:120-125). However, most of these middens differsubstantially from those on the former Transkei coast,mostly resembling informal dumping sites with shellsbeing scattered over a large area, almost in a hap-hazard fashion. In contrast, former Transkei mega-middens appear neat and are restricted to a limitedarea. Despite being massive, most open-air middensin the Cape and on the west coast are generally lowlying and cover a large area (Jerardino 2011, 15: Fig.2, Parkington 2006, 71: Fig. 57). Heaped middens arerare but there are a few situated near the entrance tocaves and overhangs as can be seen at De Keldersand Matjes River respectively (Parkington 2006, 65:Fig. 51). In such cases, however, they usuallyrepresent many thousands of years of build-up andoften predate the megamidden phase.

The Khoesan of this region either never botheredmuch to pile their shells in neat heaps, or the heapsthat they did make have been levelled over the yearsas a result of a lack of grasses to help hold themiddens together.

Conclusion

The Khoesan are well known for their impressive rockpaintings and engravings. Could some of these‘monumental’ middens represent another side of theircultural heritage? It just may be that South African

The Black Beach midden. Notice how close the midden isto the edge of the cliff. It would have been just as easy for

the campers to throw their shells over the edge.

Mazeppa Bay islet. The enormous shell midden can beseen in the centre.


archaeologists have focused too much on thecontents of middens and have overlooked theirstructural value altogether. Very little in-depth re-search has been undertaken on this topic, especiallyin South Africa, as is apparent from the scantiness ofmy reference list. It is an interesting time for coastalarchaeology and perhaps this article will inspirediscussion or even further research on the topic.

References

Claassen, C. 1998. Shells (Cambridge Manuals in Archaeology).Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 229-233.

Darvill, T. 2008. Oxford Concise Dictionary of Archaeology, 2nd

edition. Cape Town: Oxford University Press, 415.

Jerardino, A. 2011. Kreefbaai South: a poorly known, West Coastmegamidden near Lambert’s Bay. The Digging Stick 28 (2): 14-16.

Parkington, J. 2006. Shorelines, Strandlopers and Shell Middens.Cape Town: Creda Communications.

ARCHSOC TRANS-VAAL BRANCH

CALL FOR 2013 FUNDING PROPOSALS

The Trans-Vaal Branch of the South AfricanArchaeological Society invites applications for fundingby researchers and educators in the field of archae-ology for the 2013 year. South African archaeologicalresearch projects and educational programmes thatpromote knowledge about and an understanding ofarchaeology will be considered. The deadline forapplications is 30 November 2012.

Funding by the Trans-Vaal Branch may be split overmore than one project and the branch committee’sawards decision will be final.

Information to be included with applications

1. The archaeological research or education pro-posal, planned implementation schedule, totalbudget estimate, the grant amount applied for andthe anticipated results or benefits.

2. If the project for which funding is requested formspart of a larger programme, information on how theproject relates to the whole.

3. Resources and facilities available for implement-ing the project or programme.

4. A breakdown of the amount applied for intodiscrete expenditure categories to permit awardsto be made for specific cost items.

5. Biographical details of the applicant(s), includingacademic qualifications, experience, professionalaffiliations and publications.

6. Two references attesting to the quality andsuccess of previous archaeological or educationalproject work undertaken by the applicant(s).

7. Proposals for publication of research results.

Successful applicants will be required to providesix-monthly progress reports and a final project report.An article for The Digging Stick on the grant projectmay be requested on project completion.

Applications should be forwarded to the Secretary,Trans-Vaal Branch, South African ArchaeologicalSociety, PO Box 41050, Craighall, 2024, or by e-mailto [email protected]. Enquiries to:Reinoud Boers, [email protected], tel. 011 803 2681.

Let’s compile a database (from page 13)

and explanatory research should therefore go hand inhand. Those who wish to compile data bases onwhich other researchers can found their researchshould realise these problems.

Further reading

Lewis-Williams, JD. 1990. Documentation, analysis andinterpretation: dilemmas in rock art research. South AfricanArchaeological Bulletin 45, 126–136.

Lewis-Williams, JD & Challis, S. 2011. Deciphering Ancient Minds:the mystery of San Bushman rock art. London: Thames & Hudson.

Lewis-Williams, JD & Pearce, DG. 2004. San Spirituality: roots,expressions and social consequences. Cape Town: Double Storey.Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira.

Among the Boersin Peace and War

Ingvar Schrøder-Nielsen

224 pp, illustrations, map

Price R180 plus R10 postage

Among the many little-known stories of theAnglo-Boer War is that of a young Norwegianland surveyor who lived among the Boers inwest Transvaal and described their ways withhumour and empathy. Appalled by the des-truction of farms and the incarceration ofcivilians, he joined the Boer forces and took partin a number of battles. His descriptions of theirmilitary tactics, improvisations and onerouscircumstances vividly bring to life the peopleenmeshed in these conflicts. Nielsen was cap-tured and witnessed the tragic execution of hiscomrade Piet Schuil, a Hollander sentenced todeath on trumped-up charges. Nielsen’s accountof Piet’s execution is very moving. Very inter-esting and often amusing is his description of lifein the prisoner-of-war camps in Bermuda.

Orders: Africana Publishers & Booksellers, 5G Indian

Road, Kenilworth 7708. Tel. 021 761 8030; 083 415

7678; [email protected].


As a commercial salvor interested in historical ship-wrecks in the Western Cape during the 1980s and1990s, I thought it would be of interest to readers ofThe Digging Stick to know something of the archae-ological lessons I learned while investigating threewrecks dating to the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries. [SeeEditor’s Note below.]

The Johanna (1682)

An English East Indiaman of 550 t, 3 decks and 36guns, the Johanna left England destined for Surat inIndia on 27 February 1682 in the company of fourBengal-bound ships. The Johanna and the Welvaertapproached Cape Agulhas early on 8 June. A shift ofwind and heavy cross-winds resulted in the Johannarunning onto a reef about 60 km to the east of the capeat around 04:00. The Welvaert managed to throw heranchors and waited till morning, but then continued onher journey.

The Johanna’s principal cargo consisted of 70 chestsof pieces-of-eight and silver bullion valued at £72 000for English factories in Bengal. Ten people drownedand 104 reached Cape Town. A salvage partydispatched by Simon van der Stel and headed byEnsign Olaf Bergh of the Dutch East India Companyfound four bodies washed up on shore and besidesbottles and casks of wine, brandy and beer, andvarious ship’s items, recovered from the shallows achest containing 613 Spanish reals and 15 bags ofSpanish dollars, the total value of which came to 28302 gulden. After that, the Johanna lay untouched for300 years until we discovered her remains on theouter reefs of ‘Die Dam’, east of Quoin Point, inNovember 1982. Most of the shallow site lay undersand and after trial and error with a range ofequipment the site was excavated with a prop-washvessel.

When the National Monuments Council (NMC), nowthe South African Heritage Resources Agency

(SAHRA), adopted new legislation pertaining tohistorical shipwrecks in the early 1980s, the Johannabecame the second wreck to resort under the new act.A salvor, or permit holder, had to find his own way tocomply with the archaeological requirements. Frombook knowledge and excavation techniques seen inIsrael, I designed a 3x3 m grid system of reinforcingrods. The grid system over the Johanna worked wellfor a couple of weeks until the first strong seadestroyed it, and with it all referencing. The differentconditions along our coastand those of a shelteredarea of the Mediterraneanbecame very apparent.Apart from over 23 000 cobcoins and a few hundredkilograms of silver bullion inthe form of disc ingots, theonly other complete arte-facts found were 44 ironcannon, a grindstone, a leadcontainer, a sharpeningstone and a wine bottle.

The Colebrooke (1778)

An English East Indiaman of 739 t, the three-deck,137 ft long Colebrooke was on her third voyage.Loaded with lead ingot, shot, copper, gunpowder,wine, guns, corn and livestock, she stopped atMadeira to load wine and on 26 May set sail forBombay with 212 people on board. On rounding CapePoint at 11:30 on 24 August, she struck hard upon asubmerged reef known as Anvil Rock. She took waterrapidly and at 16:00 the vessel ran ashore in KogelBay. Seven people drowned in the surf when theirpinnace capsized. The vessel broke up on the sixthday and no cargo was saved.

The wreck was located in 1984 on the basis of cluesobtained from charts in the Dutch Archives in CapeTown. Since its discovery I have only seen the sitenaturally exposed once for seven days. At other timesthe sand cover varies between 1 m and 4 m. Sand-covered sites pose many difficulties as only a smallsection can be opened at any one time. Each openedhole is documented sep-arately and only whensomething is recognisedfrom a previous hole canone start joining one’splans together. At thetime the site was uncov-ered I managed to jotdown the rough layout ofthe exposed objects.

THE SALVOR AND MARITIME ARCHAEOLOGY

Charles Shapiro

Charles (Charlie) Shapiro is a salvor based in Cape Town. He is amember of the Nautical Archaeology Society (NAS) and the SAArchaeology Society. [email protected]

Editor’s noteThere is an obvious conflict of interest between the work ofmarine archaeologists and salvors. Readers who wish to gainmore insight into the debate are referred to a report entitled‘When is marine salvage “archaeology”?’ by Andrew B Smith,Department of Archaeology, University of Cape Town, in theSouth African Archaeological Bulletin 43(148) December1988, 122-123, as well as the paper ‘Practice and policy inmaritime archaeology’ by HJ Deacon, Department of Archae-ology, University of Stellenbosch, which appeared in the sameissue (123-125).

A cob coin from theJohanna

A coil of rope from theColebrooke site


Salvors with an hydraulic blower and 6-inch airliftsopening an excavation hole

The Colebrooke was where I started to develop andemploy the technique of triangulation, using fixedpoints such as anchors or cannons. Fixed points areusually objects that remain in place throughout theexcavation, while baselines are created by measuringthe length of any long object. This procedure isrepeated from one fixed point to the next until allrelevant fixed points have been measured in, Thisnetwork of triangles allows objects to be placedaccurately relative to each other. The techniqueproved successful on all the sites I excavated.

While still excavating the Colebrooke, a task yet to becompleted, the SA Cultural and Maritime Museumemployed archaeologist Jaco Boshoff. He had aninterest in diving and we invited him to join us on site.The museum provided him with his own restorationlaboratory to take charge of its share of artefacts. Asthe years went by, the NMC also employed anarchaeologist, John Gribble, and he became involvedas well. The three of us had many discussions aboutsite measuring and archaeology. It was John whotaught me how to make plastic tags to number theColebrooke hull ribs as they were exposed.

Over the years, Jaco, John and I worked welltogether, but the elaboration of the UNESCOConvention on the Protection of the UnderwaterCultural Heritage in 2001 ended this relationship. [Itsguidelines stipulate that signatories to the conventionmay not approve permits for salvage of historicalwrecks if the material recovered from the wrecks is tobe sold commercially. In South Africa this area isgoverned by the South African Heritage ResourcesAct of 1999 as the country has not yet signed theUNESCO convention. The act classifies shipwrecksas archaeological sites – ed.]

The Birkenhead 1852

A British paddle-wheel iron frigate of 1 400 t, theBirkenhead was built in 1845 and converted to atroopship in 1848. In December 1851 she sailed fromIreland under the command of Captain RobertSalmond. Leaving Simon’s Town on the morning of 25February 1852 after loading coal and provisions, hercompliment of 638 people included 20 women andchildren, 138 crew and 480 army officers and draftedmen who were to join Lieutenant-General Sir HarrySmith at the Cape’s Eighth Frontier War. At around02:00 that night she struck a submerged rock offDanger Point and the lower deck flooded rapidly,drowning many men in their bunks. The survivingmen, officers, women and children gathered on deck.Lieutenant-Colonel Seton of the 74th Foot took chargeof the military personnel. Apart from about 60 mensent to man the pumps, the rest were commanded tostand in line and await orders.

Captain Salmond made a grave mistake by orderingthe Birkenhead to be put astern, which caused the hullto rip open further. The sudden inrush of waterswamped the boiler fires and the vessel began tobreak up. The funnel crushed the paddle-wheellifeboat, killing the men who were trying to launch it.Thick layers of paint frustrated the men who weretrying to launch the boats. Eventually two cutters anda gig managed to leave the ship with all the womenand children who all survived. The horses were cutloose and then Salmond shouted that everyone whocould swim should save himself by jumping overboardand making for the boats. But Seton countermandedthis order to prevent the boats from being swamped.Because of the great gallantry of her men in standingfast, the Birkenhead has secured a place in history.Their action became known as ‘The Birkenhead drill –women and children first!’ The ship broke up rapidly;25 minutes after she had struck the rock only thetopmast and topsail yard were visible above thewater, with about 50 men clinging to these. The bowbroke off after 12 minutes and then the vessel broke intwo abaft the engine-room, whereafter the stern sank.Of the 638 people on board, 445 lost their lives.

The wreck of the Birkenhead lies in 32 m of water. Itwas my main learning ground as an amateur maritimearchaeologist. Initially without the possibility of assis-


tance from maritime archaeologists, we neverthelesshad to follow the regulations of the NationalMonuments Act. Mike Keulemans and I sharedresponsibility for the archaeological aspects of theproject, with Mike overseeing the preservation inparticular. The Birkenhead was a high-profile projectlaying us open to criticism and the technique I hademployed on the Johanna and the Colebrooke wasstill in its infancy. Dr Allan Kayle, Italo Martinengo andI had numerous discussions about the archaeologicalaspects of the excavation. We decided to try out a

‘triangulation ring’ as shown in Keith Muckelroy’sbook, Archaeology under Water. However, the 1 mdiameter ring standing on a four-legged stand wasabandoned on the very first day. I realised theshortcomings of this and other proposed systemsbecause of either poor visibility, a strong surge orcurrent, or the varied terrain of rocks, reefs and sand.For the development of a site plan I decided the onlyviable and practical system was what I had been usingon the Colebrooke, namely triangulation.

Site plan of theBirkenhead with the

artefacts’ gridreference

Site plan of theBirkenhead showingthe triangulation grid


With our system it eventually only required one diverto make the triangulation measurements as long asthe end of the tape could be tied to an object. Diverswere then instructed to work next to this baseline inthe target area and to note the marking on the linebefore removing any artefact. This made it possible toplot the location of a particular artefact accurately.Artefacts were numbered upon being brought tosurface, given a grid reference, placed into wetcontainers for stabilisation and stored until bad-weather days when they were entered into the mainartefacts register along with the date of recovery.Between 31 January 1986 and 25 April 1988 a total of827 artefacts were registered.

Plotting of the artefacts

The plotting of artefacts proved to be uncannilyaccurate when I correlated my ever-increasing siteplan with the Birkenhead deck plans. For example,when I targeted Seton’s cabin by overlaying a plan ofthe ship on the site plan it fell over an area where I hadplotted in a huge boulder. Over the years the hull hadrusted away on top of the boulder and the remainsnow lay neatly around its foot. Here I found the finestidentification tag I could wish for – a piece of leatherwith Seton’s brass nametag riveted to it. It hadobviously once been part of Seton’s leather suitcase.The next target was the purser’s cabin and here wefound 40 gold sovereigns. In the area of Dr Culhane’scabin we found 20 gold sovereigns, medical instru-ments and bottles containing various medicines,including mercury.

We also found some very confusing artefacts on thesite. They made no sense at all until we correlated ourplans with the various deck levels of the ship plans.For example, we found brass rudder pintles, almostas good as new, and wondered how the rudder couldhave ended up near the bows of the vessel, especiallyas we had no reports of the rudder being torn off. Weeventually discovered that the pintles were spares,lying where the engineer’s stores had been located. Inanother instance I came upon a heavy conglomerateof what looked like a ball of little half-moon-shaped

brass objects. To our amazement this turned out to bea conglomerated mass of cap badges from the 43rd

Regiment of Foot. Nearby we also found leathershoes in conglomerate. We identified this area as theship’s slop store. The bottom piece of a drinking glasswith the letters CP etched into it led me to checkthrough the list of officers to discover who CP mighthave been, but I could only find an unranked soldierby the name of Charles Prince. A private wouldcertainly not have been in the stern area, which wasreserved for officers, women and children. Thenanother glass marked CP from the same area wasbrought up. Correlating the site plans with the originaldeck plans solved the mystery: the area matched thelocale of the commander’s pantry.

The site plans revealed where all the breaks were inthe ship and where the bows eventually ended up. Wecould clearly define the whole saga of her wreckingand breaking up, and piece together some of thetragedies that took place. One such case was a horsehalter strapped around a horse bone, which wasobviously from a horse that was unable to be set free.The two most prominent items mentioned in ourresearch of the Birkenhead that seem to have left notrace were the 120 boxes of specie and the 350 rifledcarbines of a ‘new pattern’ that used percussion capsfor the use of the 12th Lancers. We did, however, find anumber of double-barrelled shotguns packed in boxesthat also contained ramrods, powder measures, finelead shot, percussion caps and a cleaning brush.Could these have been the ‘new’ carbines? Althoughthe specie was not found, we did retrieve a total of 145gold sovereigns and a few silver and copper coins,which were obviously from private purses.

One day, when the sea was exceptionally calm andclean, two of us decided to check out the rock from itscrest down to where it met the sand. Not far below thetop of the rock we began finding brass fittings andsmall depth-sounding weights. Slowly drifting downthe rock, I sank into a crevice and found scores ofbrass buckles from horses’ halters and various itemsof soldiers’ uniforms. Then I saw a gold pendant that

View of the Causeway Adventurer at the Birkenheadexcavation in 1986

Assorted artefacts found at the Birkenhead wreck site


at one time would have had a family seal clasped in it.As it turned out, this crevice would be the mostimportant and significant recovery area. It yieldednumerous personal artefacts consisting of hair,shaving and tooth brushes, and regimental buttons.The brushes were made of bone and all of them wereengraved with their owner’s regimental numbers andsometimes their names.

A strange, almost eerie feeling came over us when westarted recovering these personal items. It made thetragedy of the sinking come alive and more personal.We had the roll of honour listing every soldier’s nameand regimental number, and were able to identifyeach and every marked artefact. It was impossible notto escape the vicarious sensation of reliving the terror,the anguish, the bravery and the sacrifice that werewitnessed on that fateful night.

Some time after we had completed the excavationand finally bid the Birkenhead farewell, we returned tohold a memorial service at Danger Point during whichAllan Kayle dropped a wreath over the site from ahelicopter and three of us took it down and placed itwith due solemnity on the actual wreck. The date was26 February 1990, the 138th anniversary of hersinking.

After placing the wreath, I spent the rest of my dive onthe stern section. I came to the area of the slopsstores where we had removed large sections of hullplating, which had left a smooth, hard conglomeratedimprint. A pothole had been scoured out in this con-glomerate and to my surprise I could make out anearthenware jar in perfect condition stuck in the hole.

My immediate thought was, ‘How did this mustard jarend up under the hull?’ Mulling over this and takinginto account the fact that we never came upon thekeel of the vessel has led me to a possible answerabout the location of the missing treasure: thesections of iron plate removed by us were sidesections that had collapsed and fallen over the bottomsection of the hull, thus covering the lower part of thevessel and its contents. I believe that the total con-signment of 120 boxes of silver and gold lie together,buried under rubble/conglomerate down by the keelwe never reached.

To date the Birkenhead is the largest and deepestarchaeological site excavated by any salvor or aca-demic in South Africa. Basic and practical measuringtechniques were used to such accuracy that we wereable to identify and target any desired area anddetermine why certain artefacts turned up in pre-carious places. In three seasons of excavations, withan average of 10 divers on site per day and 90-minutebottom times, we averaged 15 hours per day on thebottom and overall spent more than 6 000 hours onthe site.

Sequence of the Birkenhead break-up

After I had written up my findings on the sinking of theBirkenhead and on discussing these with Italo, anastute engineer, we agreed on the sequence of theship’s break-up on the night of 26 February 1852.Everything could be pieced together from our under-water observations and the position of archaeologicalartefacts.

Site plan showingthe suggested

break-upsequence of the

Birkenhead


In our opinion the ship had broken into four sectionsby the time she settled on the ocean floor. All thereports by survivors stated that the Birkenhead brokeinto three, but this was from surface observation. Thestern, the fourth section, broke off almost completely,but did not drift away as has been presumed. It settledon the bottom with a widening gap on the starboardside as it was tearing itself open and was about tobreak off on the port side. Furthermore, because ofthe way parts such as the engine, anchor chains,capstan, fairleads and the Grant’s condenser brokeoff and were deposited in their present positions, wewere able to ascertain that the bow must have brokenopen and split into two, allowing these heavy pieces ofnautical equipment to fall out. The two bow sectionswere so badly damaged that only parts of themremain; most of the hull plating has long sincedisintegrated or been carried away by tide and time.

The Birkenhead struck the rock on her starboard side.The fact that the impact gouged open the lower troopdeck, which lay between 13 and 20 ft above the keel,clearly indicates that she struck the rock near the top.When giving the order to drop one bow anchor directlyonto the rock, Captain Salmond must have thoughtthat this would stabilise the ship. However, when hebecame aware that the continuous grinding andthumping of the vessel on the rock would causefurther structural damage and lead to her breaking up,he gave the order to turn full astern. As theBirkenhead started to free herself the bow anchormust have taken up the slack and swung the ship hardonto the rock again, this time opening the hull underthe bilge plating in the engine compartment. This isless than 6 ft from the keel, indicating that she hadnow struck a lower ledge of the rock.

Our assumption is that these two gashes in the hullcaused two serious weak points that resulted in twobreaks or tears in the forward section, one behind theforemast and the other between the capstan and thepaddle-wheel boxes. These two closely relatedbreaks caused the vessel to buckle upwards at boththe bow and stern. While these sections were at thisacute angle, the massive engine unit broke free andplummeted through the already damaged bulkhead,ripping itself away from the mass of pipes connectedto various parts of the ship, including the heavycondenser. It thudded onto the steep rock and cameto rest at its base. Then the condenser was wrenchedoff its mountings and dropped to the seabed as thestern and mid-section sheared away from the bows.At the same time, the lowered anchor chain pulled tautand ripped the capstan unit and chain-locking devicesoff their mountings.

At this point the vessel broke apart behind theforemast and the bows cracked open in two places.The capstan, along with two piles of chain in the chainlockers directly below it fell to the seabed. Both chainswere connected to the torn-off capstan and from there

the one chain led up along the floating bow section,held aloft by trapped air, through the fairlead to thedropped starboard anchor. The other chain led upfrom the capstan along the bow section, through thefairlead and to the port bow anchor still in place.

As the bow section drifted with the current, theanchored starboard chain pulled taut and both portand starboard anchors dragged the capstan towardsthe rock. When it reached the base of the rock itsnagged and at this point the starboard anchor chainfreed itself from the capstan and the bows continueddrifting towards the shore. The starboard chain ranitself completely out and slipped out of its fairlead,while the port chain was dragged in a parallel pathuntil it took up the slack between the snagged capstanand the port anchor on the bow section, which washeld in place until it lost its

KEEPING THE WATCHMEN WATCHING...2015/12/27 · Dewar, G. 2008. The archaeology of the coastal...

Documents

Transcript of KEEPING THE WATCHMEN WATCHING...2015/12/27 · Dewar, G. 2008. The archaeology of the coastal...