THE EVALUATION OF THE SUPERPOSITIONING SEQUENCE OF PAINTED IMAGES TO INFER

RELATIVE CHRONOLOGY

DIEPKLOOF KRAAL SHELTER AS A CASE STUDY

A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A BACHELOR OF ARTS (HONOURS) DEGREE IN THE DEPARTMENT OF

ARCHAEOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF CAPE TOWN SIYAKHA MGUNI

NOVEMBER 1997

i

Dedication

This is dedicated to my late grandfather, Msombuluko Jim Mguni whom I never met during

his lifetime, to my parents, Susan and Jacob and to my two brothers, Bhekinhlanhla and

Banele for all their love and support.

ii

Acknowledgements

I am very grateful to a number of people who contributed to the success of this project. I

would especially like to thank Professor John Parkington for suggesting the project and for

his constant guidance throughout the project. Dr Christopher Chippindale, Dr Justin Hyland

and Anthony Manhire made insightful contributions on our visit to Diepkloof. Great thanks

are also extended to Dawn Fourie for the preparation of the document and to Royden Yates

who assisted me with the Harris programme.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Dedication (i)

Acknowledgements (ii)

Table of contents (iii)

1. INTRODUCTION Motivation and Objectives 1 - 5 A Survey of Previous research 5 - 12 2. DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA The Choice of Diepkloof Kraal Shelter 13 - 14 Environmental context of DKS 14 - 16 General research context of DKS 16 - 19 3. METHODOLOGY Background to the Harris Matrix System 20 Application to DKS rock art analysis 21 - 24 Fieldwork at DKS site 24 - 27 4. ANALYSIS OF THE SUPERPOSITIONING SEQUENCE 28 - 34 5. DISCUSSION 35 - 42 6. CONCLUSION 45 - 44 7. REFERENCES 45 - 48

iv

8. ILLUSTRATIONS Page Figure 1: Diagram showing panel 2 superposition in 3 layers at Tandjesberg, Orange 8-9

Free State (from Loubser 1993). Figure 2: The Harris matrix method. Three recognized relationships (A, B and C) 19-20

between stratification units. I, II and III show how the diagram is generated. Figure 3: Shaded areas are red ochre and stippled images are brick red ochre. No case 30-31

of sequence could be resolved between images 164 and 106. Figure 4: Multiple superposition from four different sets. Stippled images (63) and (46) 31-32 are in black and brick red ochre respectively. Solid areas are red ochre and unshaded area is white. Figure 5: The Harris matrix diagram showing the sequence of DKS painted images 32-33 (overleaf). Figure 6: Finely stippled areas denote white, solid areas red and areas in large dots and 32-33 stipples indicate superposition. Unshaded areas are either faded or never had paints applied to them. Figure 7: Solid areas indicate red ochre. Unshaded geometric is brick red ochre. The 33-34 stippled image 77 is white; stippled image 78 is in red, but has been contrasted with red handprint 209 underneath. Map 1: The Elands Bay area in the west coast showing the location of DKS. 12-13 Matrix Diagram: The Harris matrices for Diepkloof Kraal Shelter sequence. 33-34 9. APPENDIX Table 1: The list of images at Diepkloof Kraal Shelter and relations of and equivalence. 49-56 Table 2: The observed 65 cases of superpositions at Diepkloof Kraal Shelter site. 57 Table 3: The summary of information on sets and subsets of images at Diepkloof. 58 Table 4: Proportions in percentage terms of imagery involved in superpositions. 59

1

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

Motivation and objectives

Three main points form the basis upon which this project largely draws its impetus and

they are:

a.) the general lack of a systematic dating method for rock art, b.) the observations from

previous research in the southwestern Cape, and c.) the need for rock art preservation. As

will be explained below, these points have, for convenience, been condensed to the

following two main objectives of the project:

1. To carry out a systematic evaluation of the superpositioning of images at

Diepkloof Kraal Shelter site;

2. To map out the pattern of sequence of the paintings with a view to inferring

relative chronology; and,

3. To relate superpositioning to other general and compositional attributes.

The determination of the antiquity or age of rock art still remains largely a matter of

conjecture and circumstance. A chronometric method has yet to be developed which

would be regularly and widely utilised to accurately and reliably secure absolute or direct

dates for rock art, specifically rock paintings. The emphasis here is particularly on the rock

paintings because some progress in the dating of the other category of prehistoric rock art,

petroglyphs, has been made in the last few years (Bednarik 1979, 1992; Dorn 1990). The

difficulties with absolute chronology have been variously expressed in recent literature

(Thackeray 1983; Yates et al. 1993, 1994). Chaloupka notes that the dating of rock

paintings is problematic because the residual pigments as [Page 1 End]

2

[Page 2 Top]

found on the painted rock surfaces retain very tiny quantities of organic substances upon

which most conventional dating procedures are based (Chaloupka 1993).

Lorblanchet and his co-workers (1990) and McDonald and colleagues (1990) who have

worked in European and Australian contexts respectively, expressed reservations

regarding the accuracy in the application of AMS techniques on the direct dating of

organic materials in the pigments (Yates et al. 1993). In 1987, van der Merwe and his

colleagues reported the only radiocarbon date on an authentic rock painting, at that time,

in the Southern African context. A charcoal finger-painted human at Sonia’s upper (Site

Number BTJ 30) in the Boontjieskloof area was dated by radiocarbon AMS to an age of

500 + 140 years B.P. (OxA―515) (van der Merwe et al. 1987). This painting, being a

carbon residue, favourably lent itself to a dating procedure which requires tiny quantities

of sample material. Gillespie (1997) has argued that charcoal is a favoured material due to

desirable properties in it such as high carbon content and chemical stability. Regarding the

confidence in the above date the research authors caution that, being a single

determination it means very little by itself. The demonstration that rock paintings can be

dated in itself is quite significant. Support for this date, however, from more such

determinations is required to provide a more reliable body of evidence. In the same vein,

as science demands, the procedure should be replicable. As Bednarik (1992) notes there is

preference for techniques that could be standardized.

More recently dates have been obtained from paintings in the French Palaeolithic art from

suitable sample material. Jean Clottes and co-workers obtained dates for the Cosquer Cave

near Marseilles in France. Twelve determinations in 1992 (5 from charcoal in the cave

deposits and 7 from the paintings themselves) gave a range of 18, 500 BP to 27, 500 BP.

Ten more determinations are reported ranging from 14.050 + 180 (Gifa―96101) to 28,

370 + 440 (Gifa-96074) at the same site (Clottes et al. 1997). More determinations are

apparently in press.

This research project, therefore, seeks to investigate the Diepkloof Kraal Shelter site

(hereafter referred to as DKS) as a case study for the establishment of a temporal sequence

and relative age of the images at the site. This is necessary especially with the [Page 2

End]

3

[Page 3 Top]

above mentioned absence of direct dating methods for paintings. Analysis of the

succession of image-making at DKS with due consideration given to the compositional

associations of images (superpositions and juxtapositions) and a preliminary statement on

the different pigments is the major focus of this study. The use of Harris matrices, perhaps

better described as diagrams, in this study will not only permit the integration and

interrogation of different genres or assemblages of images at DKS, but will also allow for

the details of sequence of the panorama to be presented graphically. The stratigraphic

sequence of paintings at the site will show which images are earlier and which ones are

later in the succession, albeit with uncertainties of intervals between painting episodes, or

the nature of the temporal overlaps.

Various prehistoric research projects have been carried out in the southwestern Cape since

the 1950s (Johnson et al. 1959, 1963; Parkington 1976, 1981; Manhire and Parkington

1983; van Rijssen 1984; Yates et al. 1993, 1994). Particularly interesting for this study is

Parkington and colleagues frequent observation that in the southwestern Cape rock art,

sites where detailed fine-line paintings occur on the same panel with handprints (decorated

and/or undecorated), the former are always overlain by the latter, where preservation

allows superpositions to be detected and resolved. This observation is also attested by

separate research by Anthony Manhire (1981). Gavin Anderson (1991, 1996), on his

analysis of Andriesgrond paintings where there are also handprints, came to the same

conclusion. John Parkington and his colleagues, therefore, contrary to some opinions of

earlier investigators (Willcox 1959) concluded that handprints, always the uppermost in the

sequence, post-date the fine-line painting tradition (Yates et al. 1993). The point of

departure for this project, therefore, is this observation used here as the fundamental

working hypothesis. The project sets out to systematically test its applicability at DKS and

to build on it. Also important will be to map out the pattern of sequence of superpositions

of different painted images at the site with a possibility of using the outcome as a key

sequence for the southwestern Cape.

The field of rock art studies has a long history in southern Africa, presumably because of

the occurrence of this ancient San/Bushman art in great profusion and ubiquity in the sub-

region. South of the Limpopo River into South Africa, the first written/published reports

on the subject seem to be those by Ensign Beutler in the 1750s [Page 3 End]

4

[Page 4 Top]

(Deacon 1993) while in Zimbabwe the earliest reports were published in the 1890s

(Willcox 1984). Of particular note is that these early investigations tended to delve much

into the motivation and possible meaning of rock art to the extent that it tended to exclude

other interests. In keeping with this was (and still is) the investigation of the belief systems,

mythology and symbolism of the past San societies who are believed to have executed the

art, with of course the aid of ethnographic parallels from the extant San people within (in

recent years) the framework of the shamanistic hypothesis (Lewis-Williams 1981, 1984;

Lewis-Williams and Dowson 1989; Vinnicombe 1976; Parkington 1989). Recently some

rock art studies have focused attention on interpreting the paintings in terms of gender

and power relations deduced from sexual symbolism and related metaphors (Solomon

1989, 1994). A very impressive depth of knowledge is reflected in the extensive corpus of

information which has accumulated over the years on the subject. While rock art

researchers have for a long time realised the need for the conservation of the art their

analyses, however, have largely concentrated on developing methodological frameworks

for its interpretation rather than for its preservation.

Comparing rock paintings with engravings Rosenfeld (1987) concluded that the former are

generally more susceptible to weathering than the latter. Very early in this century

researchers in South Africa commented on the vulnerability of the rock paintings in the

wake of various deterioration factors (Stow 1905; Bleek 1932a). Since then, there has

gradually been a growing concern for rock art preservation (Rudner 1989).

Notwithstanding, only few isolated cases can be illustrated where that concern was really

transformed into practice. One such case was the removal of paintings from Linton and

sent to the South African Museum in 1910 (Deacon 1993) arguably for better preservation

there. Similar actions have been taken on a few sites near the Lesotho border in

northeastern Cape (Parkington: Pers. Comm.). Surface coatings and silicone preparations

have been used experimentally on paintings in South Africa, albeit unsuccessfully (Rudner

1989). Presumably, out of sheer ignorance and misguided efforts, some attempts elsewhere

aimed at conservation have culminated in total destruction of the paintings. The

Pomongwe site in Zimbabwe is a case in point where the total spalling and fading of the

pigments was initiated by the coating of paintings [Page 4 End]

5

[Page 5 Top]

with varnish in the 1960s (Garlake 1987). In recent years studies have accelerated in the

field of rock art preservation and management with pioneering work done in Australia

(Rosenfeld 1987). Janette Deacon has contributed a great deal in the conservation of rock

art in South Africa. In the early 1990s she worked with a team on a

recording/documentation programme of rock paintings in the Cedarberg area of the

southwestern Cape region and drew up guidelines for their long term conservation

(Deacon 1993). More work is still on-going under the National Monuments Council,

particularly in the area of graffiti removal from painted panels.

It has become an axiom in rock art conservation studies that the biogeochemical processes

acting on the painted rock surfaces need to be understood before preservation measures

can be undertaken. In the same vein, this study is partially a step in that direction with the

assessment of superpositioning and the implication on the preservation of pigments,

which will help understand the “paint-on-wall” situation.

A survey of previous research

The idea of analysing superpositions and manner of depiction of rock paintings and

formulating temporal sequences is not new. Superpositions have been variously

interpreted in past researches. David Lewis-Williams (1974) analysed superpositioning

from a different perspective from the present one of determining relative chronology, and

demonstrated that it was not a random phenomenon but a significant element of

shamanistic and ritualistic symbolism. In his quantitative study of the 2, 361 rock paintings

from thirty eight shelters in the Barkly East District, he used a card system, to record

superpositions with each case on a card, paying particular attention to the aspects of:

species, sex, techniques, dress, preservation, head type, weapons and equipment, elevation,

size and colour.

In his study, superpositioning meant a case where the upper painting is executed directly

and substantially on top of the lower painting while in cases where a small portion of a

painting marginally merges onto another it was construed as overlapping and therefore not

recorded. The reason for this was that the latter could easily result [Page 5 End]

6

[Page 6 Top]

from chance whereas superpositioning had to be an intentional or deliberate phenomenon,

in keeping with his interpretive methodological framework. The present study considers

overlapping as important cases of superpositioning, because regardless of whether they

were produced as a matter of chance or intention they bear chronological signatures

necessary for the construction of a temporal sequence. Lewis-Williams, however, has later

tended to dismiss such quantitative approaches which were initially thought to be the

answer in the elimination of subjectivity in analyses. He argues that the frequency of

occurrence of a motif “is no clue to its meaning’’ (Lewis-Williams 1990). As cited in

Anderson (1996), Lewis-Williams (1983, 1984a) also argues that rock art quantification can

result in downplaying metaphors in those representations.

Chains of superpositions were treated as thematic cases in contrast to Pager’s (1976)

scheme where such chains would be broken down into binary cases. Pager regarded chains

such as “eland on man on eland” as a binary case of “eland on man” and “man on eland”

and a composition of “one eland on three men” as three cases of “eland on man”. Lewis-

Williams’ scheme would treat the same as two thematic cases of “eland on man” and “man

on eland” and “eland on man” respectively (Lewis-Williams 1974: 94). Various categories

of subject matter were defined as well as recording the observed frequency of occurrence

in superpositions. Sixty-nine cases of two element superpositions were established with the

theme of “eland on eland” having the highest frequency of 25 cases, followed by “eland on

human figure” with 20 cases and 6 cases of “the buck on human figure”. In the final

analysis, it was observed that there were certain favoured combinations while others were

ignored. It was concluded, therefore, that superposition was an element deriving from a set

of rules, to be viewed not in instrumental terms ( as was previously common place) but as

a rendition of a value statement about the preferred subjects (e.g., eland and its “social and

economic significance” (Lewis-Williams 1974). This shows that his approach emphasizes

meaning more than chronology which can be deduced from superpositioning.

Vinnicombe (1976) analysed the Underberg paintings and attempted to reconstruct the

relative chronological sequence based on colour schemes, and techniques used in the

[Page 6 End]

7

[Page 7 Top]

execution of the images. Four phases were recognized from a large sample comprising 77

rock art sites. Here Phase One is dominated by animals as subject matter with no clear-cut

and definitive deduction of any colour scheme due to deterioration. Phase two comprises

animals and humans in mostly bichromes ― red ochre and white sometimes. Phase three is

represented by shaded polychromes of both animals and humans. The final phase was

observed as showing regression from earlier finely rendered depictions to colonial imagery

with a noted increase in the utilization of black and yellow ochre pigments (Vinnicombe

1976).

In the Southern African context, rock paintings have been studied and superpositions

analysed in attempts to determine periods in the development of the art and to build up

regional sequences, some based on colour schemes while some on technique and on

subject matter and manner (Stow 1905; Battiss 1939, Breuil 1930; Pager 1971, 1976;

Vinnicombe 1976, Cooke 1963). Replicability has been one of the major problems, with

some sequences only applicable to small localities. Schemes based on the subject-matter

and technique to establish clear-cut rock art developmental phases have been marred by

considerably overlaps between established categories.

In the 1970s and 1980s Chaloupka (1977, 1985) proposed a chronological sequence of the

Arnhem Land plateau rock art in Australia. From a survey of 1 400 sites various individual

art manners were identified and an attempt was made to establish the sequence of

superpositions. The identified manners were arranged into distinctive groupings which

were assigned to art periods and phases defined from known climatological,

geomorphological, archaeological and historical data and by zoological and botanical

evidence (Chaloupka 1985). Four art periods; the “Pre-Estuarine”, “Estuarine”,

“Freshwater” and “Contact” were established from the analysis. In defining his various

styles, Chaloupka drew from McCarthy (1958, 1962) and Maynard’s (1979) characteristics

of technique, form, colour, subject matter and size which they had used in their

classificatory schemes for recording and analysis of Australian rock art (Chaloupka

1985).[Page 7 End]

Figure 1: Diagram showing panel 2 superposition in 3 layers at Tandjesberg, Orange Free State (Loubser 1993).

8

[Page 8 Top]

Chaloupka’s chronological sequence has been subjected to critical review. Particularly

queried was whether his manners of depiction are indeed distinctive entities occurring in

the putative order he proposed (Lewis 1988, quoted in Chippindale and Tacon 1993).

Lewis is also cited as having expressed reservations on the possibility of constructing

chronology from superpositions due to the multiplicity of obstacles involved in observing

sequence. In recent years, Chippindale and Tacon (1993) analysed the sequence of

superpositions of the Kungurrul and Brockman panels in the Arnhem Land, which

together comprise of over 300 individual images. While their study is an extension of the

existing large corpus of information on the Arnhem Land paintings which has

accumulated over several decades, it is particularly pioneering and significant in the

considerable creativity shown in their methodological approach.

In the synthesis of the superpositioning sequence, Harris Matrices were utilised for the

first time to order sequence in rock art (Chippindale and Tacon 1994). Two broad

divisions of art were defined ― the “old” and “new”, where the former encompasses

Chaloupka’s manners of depiction in the Pre-Estuarine period while the latter entails

manners in the Estuarine, Freshwater, and Contact periods. Various classes of images were

established from analysing the characteristics of technique, manner and pigment used for

individual paintings. A chronostratigraphic sequence was constructed based on observed

patterns of superpositions between images in different classes.

In South Africa in the Orange Free State, Johannes Loubser (1993) analysed the rock art

of a shelter in the Tandjesberg farm. A total of 530 motifs was analysed 407 of which were

superimposed. Similar observations to Lewis-Williams’s (1974) conclusions were drawn.

Human figures and eland are argued to have been “undoubtedly superimposed according

to some prescriptions and rules” (Loubser 1993: 350). Individual images were assigned

numbers and panel 2 of the eleven panels he defined had a diagrammatic representation of

stratigraphic relationship of motifs because it is the most detailed panel in the shelter.

Loubser constructed a “generalized” three tiered sequence of motifs (Fig. 1). [Page 8

End]

9

[Page 9 Top]

The earliest generalised motifs at the bottom of the sequence consisted of faint red

remains of a ‘bovid’ (antelope) covered by a maroon painting of a human figure with the

back of a bovid-like animal” (Loubser 1993: 354). Three shaded red ochre and white eland

followed immediately above in the sequence. The top or latest layer has “three elephants

and shaded ochre or red human figures with bows and arrows” (Loubser 1993). He argues

that the time lapse between the layers is uncertain but that they all could have been

produced by the same individual on the basis of similarities exhibited. Some associated

white figures are thought to be of later artists. The whole sample of images is in the fine

line manner. The observed layers of paintings are interpreted in the framework of the

shamanistic hypothesis. Some animal motifs are interpreted as rain animals being

controlled by associated human figures.

In the southwestern Cape superpositions have been dealt with and commented upon

(Yates et al. 1993, 1994, Manhire 1981; Anderson 1991, 1996) but have not received

treatment in great depth. Observations, however, contrary to Lewis-Williams’s (1974)

conclusions on superpositions in the Drakensberg region, show that the south western

Cape superpositions of handprints on detailed fine-line images “do not appear to be the

result of ritual determination rather than chronology of production per se” (Yates et al.

1993: 61). There is no definitive evidence to suggest ritual symbolism although the

possibility can not be discounted. This in part reflects a difference in approach. Three

broad categories of rock paintings have been tentatively established (Yates et al. 1993,

1994). These sets appear to fall within different temporal frames. This project will, it is

hoped, show if these are really distinct categories representing coherent blocks of time

rather than having certain images occurring in and out of given sets.

The detailed fine line paintings are clearly in the majority of the rock art in the

southwestern Cape region (Yates et al. 1993). This set is rendered in great detail with finer

definition of outlines, and usually infilled with ochreous wash. The skilful rendition of

images in this set suggests the use of a brush or some similar fine instrument as applicator.

A range of ochreous reds and yellows were used, while fugitive pigments like white and

black which appear to have been used quite often have largely succumbed to deterioration

agencies. It is believed that this set is linked to a [Page 9 End]

10

[Page 10 Top]

predominantly hunter-gatherer life-style and that this shows evidence of shamanistic ritual

symbolism because of the depicted subject matter (animals and humans shown in various

scenes and activities) (Yates et al. 1993). In most sites in the southwestern Cape, fine-line

paintings are overlain by all subsequent sets, suggesting that it is the earliest rock art

category in the region.

Handprints, technically not paintings in the true sense of the term, but which are positive

images of hands (left and right) are another set occurring widely in the study area as

decorated (usually nested curves or U-shapes) or undecorated (plain) forms (Figs 3 & 7).

On visiting the DKS site, Chippindale suggested these could be paintings of hands or

palms rather than prints, which is plausible enough. On closer examination of most

individual images of hands, however, there appears to be persuasive evidence to suggest

that they really are prints. A substantial number of these images have in sufficient detail

the inner architecture of the hand, with finer lines or prints of the skin clearly visible.

Suffice it to say that they are handprints, probably produced by dipping or placing the

hand into the wet pigment and then pressing it against the rock surface. The decorated

forms appear to have been produced by scraping off a desired pattern on an already paint

smeared palm/hand prior to imprinting (Yates et al. 1994). Alternatively, a design may have

been painted on the hand prior to offsetting or imprinting it on the rock face (Chippindale

1997). Handprints are almost always executed in ochreous reds, although in other sites like

the Elands Bay Cave yellow pigment was used. There is perhaps one recorded exception

of a black handprint although the site details and location are not provided (Yates et al.

1994). The spatial distribution of handprints was earlier shown to be concentrated in the

sandveld (sand country), but recent investigations show that similar proportions also occur

in the mountains (Manhire: Pers. Comm.).

The third category comprises images of colonial character. While they are commonly of

cruder rendition, possibly produced using the finger, at other sites like Stompiesfontein

(Site Number STK1) some appear in the form of refined and detailed representations.

Technically, crudeness distinguishes this set from the detailed fine line [Page 10 End]

11

[Page 11 Top]

representational paintings, as well as the colonially-related subject matter. Images of

colonial material culture include wide brimmed hats, high-heeled shoes, smoking pipes

(DKS Site), ships (Heidedal) wagons, mounted men, women in dresses, rifles/muskets

(Stompiesfontein) and quite often indeterminate animal species. There are, however, few

sites with paintings representing this set. With the exception of Diepkloof Kraal Shelter,

Porterville ‘galleon’, Klipfonteinrand, and Putslaagte 44 (Anderson 1996) sites with

paintings depicting colonial material culture are restricted to the Bokkeveld (Yates et al.

1993). Occurring in association with this category are a variety of geometric designs

ranging from gridded rectangular and squared forms to circular images usually with a cross

inside. They are largely finger painted in the Sandveld and the Bokkeveld, but at

Stompiesfontein and in some sites in the Cedarberg more finely rendered examples are

found (Anderson 1996).

Another interesting category can be added onto the above three sets. It consists of names

or signatures of individuals and/or dates and single continuous sinuous and looped lines

sometimes forming recursive circular shapes. These are also schematic representation and

imitative paintings and/or drawings of the earlier fine-line representational images. A

variety of media were used in the execution of images in this set. Unlike for prehistoric

rock art where it is not often possible to distinguish paintings (use of wet pigments) from

drawings (pigment applied dry) (Bednarik 1992), drawings in this set can be easily

identified from the media used like charcoal crayons, commercial paint, scratching

ochreous rocks on the cave/shelter face and other such materials. While these lines and

images were initially considered to be vandalism, their consistency does not warrant the

lumping them together under the term “graffiti” which is defined in chapter five. They are

part of a painting tradition (Anderson 1996).

The different categories of images discussed above can be tentatively assigned to a broad

chronological frame. Congruity between the observed categories and the temporal frame is

dependent, though not tightly, upon subject matter, technique, pigments/media and the

correlative relationship which some genres appear to have with entities that have been

established in the archaeological sequence and by environmental evidence. The category

with names and signatures of individuals is self-evident as it is [Page 11 End]

12

[Page 12 Top]

mostly accompanied by dates. Within a range of media used in this category commercial

paint and pencils can be easily identified and all this attests to them having been produced

in recent years. Colonial era imagery points to a terminus post quem for its development, by

which time the western material culture, such as depicted, began to infiltrate into the

southwestern Cape and indeed the whole of South Africa.

The detailed fine line representational set discussed above as having been mainly produced

by hunter-gatherer societies is argued to be the earliest to develop (Yates et al. 1993). It

must be realised that there could have been substantial overlaps in terms of chronology of

production between different sets, which complicates the possibility of inferring clear-cut

developmental stages and duration of intervals, if indeed they were any between painting

episodes. The Harris matrices as an analysis tool enables us to interactively check such

complexities usually manifested in the form of inconsistent or contradictory relations,

where superpositions can be detected.

As a relevant study Anderson (1996) analysed a sample from the Bokkeveld paintings and

attempted to demonstrate that finger paintings (colonial imagery, finger smears, dots)

differ in context and manner from fine line images. Three categories of images; fine line

images, finger paintings and colonial images were isolated and analysed. Using a statistical

procedure (Chi-squared test) specific depictions were compared in order to show which

images were often reused more than others and to demonstrate differences between the

fine line and finger painted images. Superpositioning, smearing, repainting, and rubbing

considered to be categories of reuse are suggested to also reveal the authorship of the art.

The relationship between the three image categories can be understood from their relative

time sequence (Anderson 1996). Chronology of image production is extended to

demonstrate differences between the paintings done by the San hunter-gatherers and those

by the Khoe herders. The chronology that Anderson observed will be briefly discussed in

Chapter Five. [Page 12 End]

Map 1: The Eland Bay area in the west coast of South Africa showing the location of DKS (Diepkloof Kraal Shelter) site near the Verlorenvlei marshes.

13

CHAPTER TWO

ENVIRONMENTAL AND RESEARCH CONTEXT

Diepkloof Kraal Shelter (DKS)

Diepkloof is a high and freestanding sandstone kopje on the southern bank of the

Verlorenvlei, a coastal estuarine lake, river and reed-swamp system (Meadows et al. 1996).

This landform stands about 120 metres above the Verlorenvlei stream level (Parkington

1977b). Diepkloof comprises two large overhangs next to one another. The one facing the

northeast has deep occupation deposits covering an area approximately 200 m2

(Parkington and Poggenpoel 1987). In this shelter there are few paintings. The other

shelter facing the southeast, which is the study site for this project, is approximately 20

metres wide, + 15 metres high at the front and the sandy deposit is deep in parts (Site

record forms 1981). The front of this shelter has small to medium sized quartzite boulders.

The two shelters are also known as DK1 and DK2 respectively but the present study uses

the acronym DKS for the latter. This shelter is substantially decorated from side to side

with numerous paintings of various manners executed mostly in ochreous reds, although

this is not immediately obvious on arrival at the site. The Diepkloof site commands a

superb panoramic view across the Verlorenvlei and its precincts towards the visible

horizon of the sandveld landscape. The site is 18 Km southeast of Elands Bay or Cape

Deseada (Parkington 1977b) and around 180 Km from Cape Town.

The DKS site (Map 1) is chosen in this project as a case study for the following three

reasons:

a.) The site has paintings of various manners ranging from detailed fine line images,

through handprints to images of colonial character and names or signatures of people.

[Page 13 End]

14

[Page 14 Top]

b.) The site exhibits a fairly good number of images in different sets which are involved in

a sequence of superpositioning particularly between handprints and fine line imagery.

c.) The site provides an enormous potential for the establishment of relative chronology as

a key sequence for the area, and,

d.) The paintings are structured in a manner that makes the analysis easy (lines of

handprints and eland).

The southwestern Cape and indeed everywhere else in South Africa suffers the dearth of

sites bearing colonial imagery which, where they occur, are often dispersed. The

occurrence and distributions of colonial imagery and hand-printing, unlike the fine line set

and signatures, are spatially restricted to certain isolated geographical locations (Anderson

1996) and these two sets do not always coincide in a single panel. DKS, therefore, presents

an opportunity to construct a temporal sequence of the development of the art, involving

various sets which exhibit a fairly reasonable stylistic variation of imagery. It is hoped that

the DKS sample is sufficient to enable the establishment of meaningful superpositional

and juxtapositional patterns from which to draw a relative chronological sequence.

Superpositioning between various sets is recognisable at the site, which is an advantage.

Environmental context of DKS

Geologically, the Diepkloof site lies within an expanse of lowland coastal plain called the

Strandveld or sandveld. The sandveld consists of the Tertiary and Quaternary white to

slightly red sands capping a gently undulating landscape with large stretches of the area

having elevations of less than 70 metres. While most sandhills and ridges have been

stabilised by the vegetation cover, the tenacious dunal topography has encroached upon

large expanses of the terrain. The monotony of the sandveld landscape is interrupted

intermittently by angular quartzite geomorphological landforms, ‘outliers of the mountain

system to the east’ (Talbot 1947, in Parkington 1977b), such as the Table Mountain

sandstone outcrops along the Verlorenvlei. [Page 14 End]

15

[Page 15 Top]

The Cape Fold Belt forms the eastern boundary to the sandveld. This mountainous belt is

made up of a quartzite rocks, other fine-grained rocks of the Malmesbury Group and

shales of the Klipheuwel Formation (Verlorenvlei (BW 13) 1986). The geological process

of folding and the subsequent fluvial etching transformed this Cape system into a very

irregular and steep topography of parallel, north-south aligned rocks with highest peaks

attaining attitudes of over 2000 metres in parts. To the west, the colossal water body of the

Atlantic Ocean forms the boundary. The drainage of the area comprises an 87 Km long

catchment from the coast towards the inland “aligned along a north-west/south east

structural trend” (Miller 1987, in Meadows et al. 1996).

The Verlorenvlei catchment area originates in the Piketberg and the Olifants River

Mountains and covers an area of 1 890 Km2 (Meadows et al. 1996). The system has many

watercourses and streams traversing east-west across the coastal foreland. The

Verlorenvlei river which culminates in an open water lake that extends for 13 Km and

attains a maximum width of 1, 5 Km, linking the former with the sea. Water flows during

the wet season in winter roughly between April and September and the water courses dry

up in summer. The Verlorenvlei forms a sand-bar during reduced water flow in the dry

season and is only occasionally broken by winter flooding or high spring tides (Meadows et

al. 1996). This pattern has led to the formation of an estuary, largely freshwater in nature;

but with salinity increasing towards the mouth (Parkington 1977b). West of Diepkloof, the

Verlorenvlei is reed-laden, forming an estuarine ecology supporting a diverse marine

(aquatic) avian fauna. A variety of other aquatic floral species occur in this reed-swamp

system, which is part of the Cape Floristic Region (Meadows et al. 1996) which is part of

the strandveld.

The climate of the sandveld presents a semi-arid to sub-arid image with very little rainfall, a

situation exacerbated by the porous surface sediments which allow for rapid surface water

drainage. While the frequency and intensity of precipitation can be quite variable from year

to year, annual average rainfall figures range below 300 mm yr-1, of which between 70-80%

is received during winter in this Mediterranean type of climate. Temperatures in the

summer season are very high subsequently leading to high [Page 15 End]

16

[Page 16 Top]

evaporative losses from the watercourses and inland basins like the Verlorenvlei system

which induce saline conditions. The Cape Fold Belt in the east forms a zone of high

precipitation with rivers that flow for most of the year.

The semi-arid climate of the Sandveld supports a remarkably diverse flora of

predominantly drought deciduous vegetation of typically hardy shrubs ‘with leathery

leaves, often containing resin or oil’ (Parkington 1977b), geophytes and grasses and,

especially succulents such as Euphorbiaceae and Mesembryanthemaceae (Meadows et al.

1996). This is known as strandveld but also referred to as the sandveld fynbos, xeric

fynbos, in places. The Lowland fynbos, adapted to the deep and sour sandy soils deriving

from the rocks of the Cape system is dominated by Restionaceae, drought-resistant

Proteaceae and other sclerophyllous fynbos shrubs, such as Ericaceae, Iridaceae and

Gramineae. Also present is the dry mountain fynbos typified by small-leaved Cape macchia

favouring sandstone outcrops such as the Diepkloof. Forest vegetation is circumscribed in

deeper valleys and protacted revines towards the mountains (Wicht 1945, quoted in

Parkington 1977b), where elements comprising Olea europaea africana subspecies, Maytenus

oleoides and Podocorpus elongatus can be identified (Meadows et al. 1996)

General research context of DKS

In a research programme designed to investigate the large Diepkloof shelter in order to

infer seasonal patterns of resource utilization in the Western Cape, Parkington and

Poggenpoel excavated the site in 1973. The Middle Stone Age was demonstrated to be

deep and dating of charcoal from near the base of the test excavations gave an age of

about 45, 270 years (Pta 1, 054). Carbon dates were obtained for various levels within the

deposit with the youngest being around 390 + 30 (Pta 1, 055) for grass bedding towards

the top of the sequence from the rear of the shelter. The MSA lithic assemblages which are

characteristic of the Howieson’s Poort were found and mostly utilizing silcrete (Parkington

and Poggenpoel 1987). A note is made that Diepkloof exhibited very few LSA (Later

Stone Age) formal lithic tools. Finely polished and shaped bone points were recovered.

[Page 16 End]

17

[Page 17 Top]

The faunal assemblage is represented by micro-faunal material from moles and rodents

argued to be non-human in origin, the domestic sheep bones (teeth and post-cranial

material) indicating considerable access to herded stock. Two charred sheep bones were

associated with the 1, 590 + 85 BP carbon date (Parkington and Poggenpoel 1987). Small

ground game comprising tortoise, dassie (rock hyrax), grysbok, steenbok and some small

carnivores were recovered in significant proportions. A range of marine resources

(animals) recovered from the deposits suggested substantial utilization of marine foods.

Plant remains, well preserved within the grass bedding, were quite variable and substantial

although the sampling and interpretation of the modes through which these were

accumulated has presented problems (Parkington and Poggenpoel 1987). While the

Diepkloof Shelter sample has been argued to demonstrate reliance on both animal and

plant foods, the problem has been in the assessment of the relative contribution of each of

these sources. Evidence of settlement suggests there was repeated occupation at Diepkloof

with a hiatus of about 30, 000 years until the last 2, 000 years of the Holocene when

occupation resumed. The site is argued to have been visited by the San hunter-gatherers

who had a close relationship with herders or pastoralists.

In the past few years there has been a significant development in the study of the late

Quaternary palaeo-environments of the southwestern Cape region. Multidisciplinary

approaches are being applied in the reconstruction and interpretation of palaeo-ecological

information of the late Pleistocene and Holocene periods (Meadows et al. 1996).

Consequently, there has been intensification of the search for sites bearing undisturbed

and suitable fossil pollen sediments in the lowlands of the sandveld area. For many years

this focus has been at the backwaters in such palaeo-environmental studies. The focus of

attention has been the mountains where relatively humid climates have ensured the

accumulation of substantial sequences of organic sediments. Also to be noted, perhaps, are

the analyses of wood charcoal evidence (Cartwright and Parkington 1997) and micro-

mammalian remains (Avery 1990) in reconstructing and interpreting palaeo-environments

and results of more such applications are apparently in press. [Page 17 End]

18

[Page 18 Top]

Grootdrift farm site, on the lower south-eastern tip of the Verlorenvlei estuarine-lake has

been sampled for fossil pollen preserved in the sediments (Meadows et al. 1996).

Investigations included palynology, sedimentology, and geochemistry of the accumulated

organic sediments retrieved from several cores of varying depths. Considerable

information has been gleaned from the above analyses despite the evidence of either the

cessation of sedimentation or subsequent erosion of sediments which had accumulated,

after 4, 300 BP in the sample area. The environment/ecology of the Verlorenvlei and its

immediate precincts is shown to have been largely influenced at different stages in the

Holocene by a “complex interplay of changes in moisture availability, sea-level

(fluctuations) and degree of anthropogenic activity” (Meadows et al. 1996: 93)

Fossil pollen analysis of three cores (GDV1, GDV2, and GDV4), anticipated to produce

reliable models of past vegetation conditions demonstrated a significant influence of sea-

level fluctuation on sedimentation and fossil pollen accumulation in the latter part of the

Holocene (Meadows et. al, 1996). The Verlorenvlei hydrological shifts were between the

fresh-water/terrestrial and hypersaline-estuarine/marine conditions. The mid-Holocene

coincided with the rise in sea-levels of about 2.8 metres (c. 4, 000 BP) and 3 metres (c. 5,

000 BP) (Meadows et al. 1996; Miller et al 1993; Yates et al. 1986). The pollen spectra in

these areas indicates the abundance and dominance of Poaceae (grasses) more than the

present distributions suggest, as well as significant proportions of Chenopodiaceae and

Amaranthaceae pollen in the sequence. The species decrease significantly upwards the

sequence more visible especially in core GDV4 where a 50% decline is indicated. The

decrease is suggested to be a consequence of human impact on the landscape by way of

overgrazing in the much latter periods of the Holocene (Meadows et al. 1996).

Anthropogenic influences on the Verlorenvlei environs are also indicated by the presence

of alien floral species in the sediments. Included are the Pinus spp. and annual or weedy

elements like the Scrophulariaceae, Oxalidaceae and Stoebe - type” (Meadows et al. 1996),

while the GVD4 core representing the period circa 1, 600 AD to the present is marked by

an increase of Asteraceae, Acacia as well as Pinus spp. toward the top. [Page 18 End]

19

[Page 19 Top]

Human disturbance on the landscape increased significantly in this period by way of agro-

pastoralism; overgrazing impact, altered fire regime and large scale agricultural clearing of

the indigenous vegetation.

Several cave sites including Diepkloof in the vicinity of Verlorenvlei and Elands Bay Cave

further afield to the north are argued to have been occupied sporadically by hunter-

gatherer communities who had access to domesticated stock, in the Holocene (Parkington

1977b). This episodic occupation of sites in the sandveld biome was consistent with their

seasonal food procurement strategies, themselves partially dictated by the periodic pulsing

of the Verlorenvlei environments between high sea-level saline estuarine conditions and

the open fresh water/lacustrine hydrology. The palynology studies of the sedimentary

sequence at Grootdrift provide a background against which successive modes of human

occupation of the area have occurred (Meadows et al. 1996). The high sea-level during the

mid-Holocene possibly induced unpalatable habitation conditions in the Verlorenvlei

environs which were not particularly attractive to human occupation. This period is

marked at Elands Bay Cave by a hiatus in the sequence and a remarkable absence of

evidence of human occupation in the area. [Page 19 End]

Figure 2: The Harris matrix method. Three recognised relationships (A, B and C) between stratification units. I, II, and III show how the diagram is generated (Harris 1989).

20

CHAPTER THREE

METHODOLOGY

Background to the Harris matrix system

The Harris matrix system was developed to resolve complex stratigraphic relationships of

depositional units in archaeological sites into relative sequential order. It has only been

recently applied to the analysis and recording of superpositioning sequences in the rock art

(Chippindale and Tacon 1993, Loubser 1993; Anderson 1996). The Harris matrices can be

better described as a diagrammatic format for expressing stratigraphic sequences and their

relationships. The term “Harris matrices” does not carry any mathematical connotations

whatsoever. It is important to note that the Harris matrix methodology is applicable to any

units of stratification whatever their thickness, from larger units of several meters deep in

archaeological sites to densely overpainted rock faces with pigments therein measuring to

only a few microns or millimetres thick.

The Harris matrix formalism recognises three possible relationships between two given

strata (Harris 1989). Two strata may not have any direct stratigraphic relationship or may

be in superposition (above/below relationship) or finally, may only be correlated (equated

by the “=” sign) as separate parts of a once whole deposit or image (Fig. 2). The Harris

diagram, therefore, was devised to show such superpositional and juxtapositional

relationships schematically. Regarding relations of equivalence, instead of correlating

separate parts of a once whole unit in that relation, for rock art analysis single and discrete

images are equated with one another on the basis of defined criteria discussed below.

Separated portions of a once whole image, where it can be established, are identified as a

single motif. [Page 20 End]

21

[Page 21 Top]

Application to DKS rock art analysis

The underlying tenet in the analysis of superpositional sequences in rock art is that images,

as seen today, accumulated on the rock substrate in phases. It is hoped that the Harris

matrix methodology will provide the means with which to isolate the phases that are there.

The hypothesis is that every observed set in the sequence represents a new phase in the

development of the painting tradition through time.

The DKS study shows some deviations from earlier studies in the manner in which

relations between different imagery are analysed. DKS exhibits sets and subsets of imagery

(Table 3) which are categories of images exhibiting certain common compositional and

individual attributes. As shown in Chapter one, there are signatures and dates, colonial era

imagery, hand prints and fine line imagery. There are some groups of depictions which can

be regarded as a single composition. A line of 12 eland at DKS can be argued to be a

single composition on the basis of very similar, if not the same, pigments same scale, in a

single file or procession, same manner of depiction and technique. On the analysis of

sequence using the Harris matrix method, Chippindale and Tacon argue that:

“When distinct figures appear to belong together, as in a pair of images

which make up a set of macropod footprints, or as in a line of adjacent

human figures closely similar in subject, manner of depiction and

pigment, we have allocated them different numbers. These affinities

need to be taken note of. To indicate they are equivalent to each other

in the Harris matrix formalism, we have added relations of

equivalence.” (Chippindale & Tacon: 1993: 35)

There seems to be emphasis on deducing equivalence in those circumstances where images

form a single composition. At DKS this can easily be applied to the line of eland as shown

above some portions in the different lines of handprints. This approach seems to exclude

those images which are not adjacent or juxtaposed with one another, or not in the same

line or procession but showing common attributes. At DKS, the colonial [Page 21 End]

22

[Page 22 Top]

era imagery is characterised by mostly individual or separate images scattered across the

painted surface. Despite their placement on different parts of the painted area, they form a

good coherent set on the basis of pigment, manner of depiction and technique and

humans in this set are not significantly different in scale. There is no evidence to suggest

that these images form a single composition. This study construes these to be sufficiently

involved in relations of equivalence. However, motifs are regarded as equivalent if they

depict the same subject matter; that is, humans, geometrics and animals. This is not to say

there is anything wrong with focusing on compositional groups, but it is to expand the

approach in order to accommodate certain circumstances. Regarding signatures and dates,

I assigned them single numbers, whatever their length, if they appear in the same material

and colour and same manner of writing. Similarly, crayon lines which are often disjointed

or discontinuous, but on the basis of colour and size of line, have been assigned a single

number.

The various sets discussed in Chapter One into which various distinctive images are

classified appear to be coherent categories. The criteria according to which the different

sets were defined include; pigment/colour, subject/motif, technique, manner of depiction,

size/scale, and for some sets of images I included their placement in relation to one

another as when in a procession or in the same line. An individual image does not

necessarily have to satisfy all the listed criteria, but it must satisfy at least three in order to

qualify into a given set. These are not water tight divisions or groupings. Images may have

been executed in different pigments or may have varying shades of the same pigment

(either an intended effect by the ancient artist or due to differential preservation), but on

the basis other criteria like technique, manner, scale, motif and placement can be

reasonably related, under a single category.

In this study, relations involving a painting executed on top of another or marginally

impinging upon another (overlapping) define superposition. The correspondence between

such images is expressed in the form of “relations of equivalence” and are therefore

equated by the “=” sign in the Harris diagram. This entails establishing contemporaneity

between various images and demonstrates if indeed they are a coherent category to be

placed in a single developmental episode. The images that are [Page 22 End]

23

[Page 23 Top]

not involved in stratigraphical associations with others tell very little in terms of the

sequential order of the paintings and establishment of relative chronology. Their position

in the sequence, however, can be established from assumptions derived from those they

are in equivalence with, themselves involved in superposition with images of other sets.

That is, their temporal frame is inferred from those in the set which have clear

superpositional associations with images in other sets. This is the situation with colonial

imagery at DKS which has only one case of superposition with a handprint and occurs

spatially sparse across the rock substrate.

Intriguing in the context of this study is how superposition can be approached within a

single set like the fine line imagery or handprints. I am inclined to believe that at DKS

these superpositions within sets have limited potential in constructing relative chronology

partly due to the very small nature of the sample. An eland in a procession or handprint in

a line may partially impinge upon another in the succession; this merely being incidental or

the result of chance as, may be, the artist, possibly, was not worried about precision in the

placement of the images in relation to one another. Earlier reconstructions of art

sequences appealed to stylistic variations in the motifs in addition to colour schemes. But

if the motifs happen to be the same while occurring in observable superpositions this

limits the possibility of reconstructing a revealing chronological sequence. Rosenfeld and

Smith (1997: 408) have argued elsewhere that a stylistic analysis directed at chronology

requires the isolation of traits that can be given temporal value. Conceivably, within a

single set that exhibits a high degree of stylistic coherence one may have problems in

trying to isolate traits that have chronological signatures. Where good preservation allows,

there could be temporal patterns within individual sets, like the fine line tradition, and the

Harris matrix method may be very useful in revealing such relations.

In keeping with the methodology adopted in this study, such compositional associations

will have each image assigned a number as an identifier and subsequently receiving

separate consideration in the Harris matrix diagram. It seems very unlikely that any

meaningful temporal sequential phases could be discerned from within-set

superpositionings. Temporal sequences and phases of the development of the art have

[Page 23 End]

24

[Page 24 Top]

been approached elsewhere (Vinnicombe 1976) within the fine line tradition by definition

and isolation of distinctive colour schemes and style. As hinted above, however, this would

require a substantial sample; large enough to demonstrate repetitive frequencies of certain

associations and patterns on which to construct meaningful chronological patterns.

Fieldwork at DKS site

Three separate field trips were conducted to the DKS site, the first of which was to

introduce myself to the site and the paintings therein. While many colour slide

photographs were taken of the panel during the trip, only a few were scaled which meant

that they were not very useful for reproduction purposes. My trial exercise on tracing and

construction of the painting sequence using Harris matrices was based on those slides. The

line of eland superimposed by handprints on the far left section of the panel (Fig. 6) was

traced and all the images were numbered. It was apparent that the more one scrutinised

the slides during tracing, the more one recognised the details not seen at the site. It must

be stressed though that it is only after the second or better still, the third close examination

of the actual paintings on site that further meaningful details can be discovered. The copies

of tracings were taken back to the site for the verification of their correctness as a trial

attempt. It was clear that this is a tiresome task which exerts considerable physical stress

on the body and eyes.

On the second field trip, a series of scaled colour slide photographs was systematically

taken from side-to-side of the DKS panel. As a result of poor lighting conditions at the

time of the day they were taken, most slides did not come out clearly. They were usable;

however, as the reproduction exercise was based on this collection of slides. In the

workroom at the university, the tracings were reproduced from slides at 40% of the

original size onto 1.3 metre wide soft newsprint paper roll cut into 2-metre lengths for

manageability. On transferring the photographic mosaic capturing the DKS images onto

paper, sufficient overlaps were created in order to allow for accurate overlay of images

from one slide to the next in the successive order they were taken. This enabled [Page 24

End]

25

[Page 25 Top]

the construction of a continuous mosaic of tracings showing varying compositional

associations of the DKS images from side to side of the whole site.

The rationale behind using tracing as a method was that a near accurate reproduction of

the paintings would allow for an almost accurate integration and investigation of

superpositional and juxtapositional relationships between various distinctive images in the

panel in an exhaustive way. In the analysis of the old Arnhem Land art, Chippindale and

Tacon (1993) used soft pencil and soft drawing paper to draw the paintings from colour

slide photographs; they made use of field sketches and notes to ensure a reasonable and

acceptable level of accuracy. Varying strengths of pigment and discernible differences

within areas of overlap were indicated using a range of pencil tone. I believe that my

tracing method is a “soft technique” sufficient to convey varying tones and strengths of

pigments if carefully and skilfully executed. Tracings also allow the tracer to closely and

actively interact with the paintings thereby enhancing greater understanding of their

production in the past and to discover what was painted.

Areas of superpositioning and other meaningful detail are not always immediately obvious

the first time at the site. A closer examination of the slides during tracing enables their

detection, and can then be verified on the subsequent re-examination of the panel. As has

been discussed elsewhere, the importance of tracing as a method cannot be

overemphasised:

Far from being a mechanical documentation of ‘facts’, tracing is a form of analysis that is more than merely descriptive. (Lewis-Williams 1990: 127)

Admittedly, tracing is an arduous task which places considerable strain on the eyes; it

demands patience and painstakingness. Tracing has shortcomings in the form of human

and instrumental imperfections always at play in reducing the level of accuracy. Even a

skilled, meticulous and experienced tracer cannot completely eliminate the inaccuracies,

but can only keep them to a minimum. To begin with, photography on which tracing or

drawing can be based is not a ‘complete and objective’ documentation method from [Page

25 End]

26

[Page 26 Top]

which to make reproductions. I will not labour to discuss the limitations of photography as

this has been discussed exhaustively over the years regarding photographic recording of

rock art (Vinnicombe 1960; Schoonraad 1965, in Lewis-Williams 1990). Colour

photography is ineffective in cases where the deterioration agencies have left us very faint

silhouettes of this formerly radiant ancient art. It has been argued elsewhere that, “colour

photography, however good, does not convey the faint markings that are part of any

palimpsest on a much-painted panel” (Chippindale and Tacon 1993: 34). In the same vein,

Vinnicombe (1960) notes the impossibility to tell whether a colour in the photograph is

faded paint or a natural rock discoloration. The principal advantages of photography

cannot be underestimated, however, and despite its inevitable compacting effect on any

relationships within painted images, it has been quite useful in the identification of all

those areas of the site where overlapping images occurred. Even tracing from the rock face

is no way ‘complete and objective’ reproduction as it involves reducing a surface

characterised, in almost all instances, by irregularities, unevenness and convolutions onto a

flat sheet of paper.

One mechanical problem encountered during the tracing exercise was that the slide

projector was constantly altering the scale of images each time the slides were run through.

This introduced discrepancies of varying magnitudes in matching up overlaps from one

side to the next. The images meant for overlap to ensure continuity in the mosaic from

side to side of the panel could not directly overlie one another. As a solution to this

problem, the projector was constantly adjusted and shifted forwards, backwards, and

sideways so that images meant for overlap finally had their edges within, at most, between

20-25 mm of each other. This method of distributing the error proved effective in

ensuring continuity, without much distortion. Close-up slides of some important

compositional associations of the panel were traced to scale in the addition of finer details

to those sections of the mosaic they represented.

All the reproduced images were numbered for identification purposes in the analysis. For

practical purposes, as Loubser (1993) notes this ensures that motifs are not counted more

than once or left out and also simplifies the generation of Harris diagrams. No particular

order in the numbering was followed, although images in a procession or a [Page 26 End]

27

[Page 27 Top]

line could easily be assigned numbers in some continuous fashion in their successive order.

This was the case with the only line of eland in the site and the handprints. The names and

signatures as well as their related dates are assigned single numbers rather than having each

and every letter or numerical character given a number. The crayon lines, whether

continuous or discontinuous, are encompassed into a single image with a single number on

the basis of colour, material used, style, and manner. In cases where images have been

rendered discontinuous due to weathering processes they are assigned a single number, if

indeed it can be established that the two or more disjointed parts originally formed one

whole image.

This study also involved tabulation of the DKS information. Three tables were produced;

one showing all the recorded images at DKS, their relations of sequence and of

equivalence and other attributes (Table 1). Table 2 was generated as a summary of the

relations of sequence at DKS which has been useful in the reconstruction of the sequence.

The final Table 3 also gives summary information on the sets and subsets of imagery at

DKS. All the fine line images are designated as Set “A”, handprints as Set “B”, colonial era

imagery as Set “C” and finally, signatures and plates as Set “D”. Some of these sets are

further broken down into subsets. [Page 27 End]

28

CHAPTER FOUR

RESULTS AND ANALYSIS OF THE SUPERPOSITIONING SEQUENCE

Altogether 219 images including smudges and smears (10 in number) and 1 splash were

recorded and analysed at DKS (Table 1). Many more faded ochre images and later

crayon markings and drawings were excluded from the analysis because they are not

involved in superpositioning in any recognisable or useful way. Adopting a scheme used

by Chippindale and Tacon (1993) for the Kungurrul and Brockman panels in Arnhem

Land, I have characterised each individual image in terms of traits such as: manner in

which it was depicted, technique and pigments used. These are particularly important

diagnostic features which facilitate the grouping of discrete motifs or images into

distinctive sets which, at DKS, reveal interesting temporal patterns. As shown above in

Chapter One, the painted images at DKS lend themselves to straightforward

categoriazation.

Manner of depiction

Three manners of depiction have been identified at DKS and are recognizable in

different sets of images which have been defined in chapter one from observations

made by Yates, Manhire and Parkington (1993, 1994). These are images which are

rendered in the fine-line manner (some of these are detailed), some images are in offset

print manner and others in crude finger-painted manner. The other image types have

been classified as having no defined manner, and they include crayon lines, writings,

drawings, smears and smudges, and a splash. In terms of numbers, there are 34 images

in the fine-line manner, which include animals and humans, 133 plain and decorated

handprints in offset print manner, 19 images of colonial character depicting humans

with European material cultural objects and geometrics (grids) as well as animals and all

are rendered in crude finger-painted manner. The remaining 34 motifs are of no

definable style of execution. [Page 28 End]

29

[Page 29 Top]

Techniques used in making images

DKS has two recognisable techniques which were utilized in the production of images.

The predominant technique is the conventional wet technique which involved mixing

powdered pigment with a liquid binder before application on to the rock substrate. A

total of 203 images/motifs are in this wet technique. The remaining 16 motifs were

produced using the dry technique in which crayons of charcoal, ochreous material and

commercial chalk (i.e., yellow line 58) were scratched or rubbed on the rock substrate to

make the images.

Pigment used for imagery

The red ochre pigment which occurs in various shades or hues is the dominant colour at

DKS rock paintings. All the colonial era images appear in monochrome brick red ochre

pigment. It is tempting to associate this pigment with the ochreous material which

derives from the seams at the bottom of the DKS rock shelter. Research is necessary to

determine if indeed the pigment for colonial imagery was obtained ad hoc on site. All the

handprints in the analysed sample are in red ochre of varying shades, mainly near brown

to near purple or maroon. Overall, they are barely distinguishable and differential

preservation could be the main reason for the observable slight variations in hue of

pigmentation within this set. The 10 smudges and smears appear in the same colour as

handprints. All the 13 eland are rendered in tri-chrome pigments of red (torsos), white

(head, neck, belly and the limbs) where preservation permits and black (fine outline)

which is barely visible in some images due to fading. Some of the fine line images were

executed in black (4 humans and 1 animal), yellow ochre (2 animals) and white (2

animals and 1 identified peculiar splash). Signatures and dates, crayon lines and

drawings are in black (charcoal), brick red ochreous material and one instance of

commercial yellow colour. One noteworthy material which was used in writing

signatures and dates is a pitch black substance crudely and thickly applied on the rock.

It has not been established yet what it really is, nor its possible source. [Page 29 End]

30

[Page 30 Top]

Defining colours or pigmentation of various images is a difficult process particularly

where preservation is poor, as is invariably the case with many sites. At DKS fading is a

limiting factor and is compounded by the presence of a white to off-white or creamish

layer/coat which masks most of the images especially in the middle sections of the site.

This coating apparently emanates from the ledges above the shelter where the overhang

projects outwards and is possibly associated with urine from dassies (Procavia capensis)/or

birds.

Evidence of co-variation in manner, technique and pigment

There is evidence in the sequence of DKS of the close relatedness of the attributes of

manner, technique and pigment. All the colonial era images are in the crude finger-

painting manner, wet technique and brick red ochre pigment. All the handprints are in

offset print manner, wet technique and red ochre pigment. While the earliest set of

imagery at DKS is in fine line manner and wet technique, the pigments used vary from

shades of red ochre, yellow ochre, black and white colours between the individual

monochrome, bichrome and trichrome images. There is also variation within the latest

set comprising signatures, dates, crayon lines and drawings where various materials of

different colours were utilized as crayons, and all except three cases share the same

attributes of no defined manner and dry technique. The other three cases are in the

crude finger painting manner, wet technique and black pigment which are the signatures

and dates executed in a thick black substance.

The sequence at DKS

Discerning superpositioning at DKS has been in part affected by preservation problems

of paintings. There is ample evidence that images/motifs here, especially handprints do,

in fact, overlap onto one another in many instances, but the difficulty is in attempting to

deduce with certainty which image overlies or underlies which. In this study, such

doubtful relationships have been excluded from analysis and attention was placed on

these images where the sequence is clearly resolvable. This study [Page 30 End]

Figure 3: Shaded areas are red ochre and stippled images are brick red ochre different from the red pigment used for other images. No sequence could be resolved between images 164 and 106.

31

[Page 31 Top]

focused on as much images as could be recorded within the main painted area primarily

to get the important relationships of superposition and equivalence and secondarily their

general spatial associations. Images occurring above or below the main painted area

have not been taken into account because they are mainly widely separate and not

involved in chronologically useful relations. For the purposes of reconstructing relative

chronology, only the relations of sequence and of equivalence are essential.

Of the 219 recorded images, 24 are floating or not involved in any relation of sequence

or equivalence with other images, they were initially thought to be, then discarded. From

this number, two images that would have increased the reliability and confidence of the

sample, involving a fine line animal (no. 149) with a handprint (no. 99) and a crude

finger-painted bird (no. 143) with a charcoal drawing (no. 142) (chicken?) and a

potentially useful relation of colonial era human (involved only in equivalence relation

with the other humans in the set) with a handprint have been excluded from the analysis

due to their unclear sequence (Fig. 3). The other 195 images in the sample are either in

the relations of equivalence, or sequence or both. The dominant image type is the

handprint totaling 133 in number with also the largest chain of equivalence relations

involving 101 handprints. This is the main line of handprints which occupies the site

from side-to-side.

Overall, 65 relations of sequence have been identified at DKS (Table 2). They are

mostly of two-element superpositioning (i.e. one to one relation of sequence) which is

one image above or below another image. Multiple-element superpositions have also

been identified; those images overlapping with two or more other figures. The largest

one of these involves a single crayon line motif which overlies 9 other individual images.

In this study such a relation is construed as nine instances of crayon line motif (No. 58)

over those respective images which it overlies (i.e. 6 handprints, 2 eland and 1

geometric). Another long chain is that of a signature (No. 200) which overlies 7 other

images (i.e. 4 handprints, 2 fine line animals, and 1 fine line human). Three instances of

three-element superpositioning and five cases of four-element (Fig. 4) superpositioning

have been recorded. The occurrence of multiple [Page 31 End]

Figure 4: Multiple superposition from four different sets. Stippled images (63) and (46) are in black and brick red ochre respectively. Solid areas are the red ochre pigment and the unshaded area represents white.

32

[Page 32 Top]

superpositions becomes inevitable in situations where over-painted and a composite

number of images exist in a restricted or small area.

The Harris matrix diagram (Fig. 5) has revealed that there are four or five layers/tiers of

superimposed motifs on which some confidence can be placed in the building up of a

chronological sequence. It has also related different image types into distinct sets in the

relative chronology at DKS by virtue of their superpositionings. The diagram has been

generated from the images that are involved in relations of sequence within the stratified

sets at DKS. This is because only these relations can inform us on the relative

chronology of the painting traditions. The observed sequence from top (latest set) to the

bottom (earliest set) is as follows:

1. In the upper layer, the observed motifs include; signatures (names), dates crayon

lines and charcoal drawings which seem to mimic images from earlier painting

traditions. There is no instance where images in this set are overlain by other images

from other distinctive sets. Conversely, some motifs from all other sets are

superimposed by images from this layer. This set is involved in 38 relations and

sequence; 15 instances of it overlying the set of fine line imagery, 18 instances above

handprints, 2 cases above smudges/smears and 3 cases of it superimposed on colonial

era imagery (Table 2).

2. The second layer comprises the colonial era imagery which includes; humans,

animals (also birds) and geometric designs. All images in this layer are in monochrome

brick-red ochre pigment. There are three instances of the upper layer set of signatures

and crayon lines overlying colonial images. They are 63/46 (Fig. 4), 142/144 which are

described as crude finger-painting manner, wet technique, brick red pigment (colonial

images) overlain by no defined manner, dry technique, black (charcoal drawings). The

third is crayon line motif 58 over geometric (no.59). Images which are overlain by this

set include 3 handprints, 1 fine line animal and 1 smudge. [Page 32 End]

FIG 5: The Harris matrix diagram showing the sequence of DKS painted images

(overleaf).

Key to the Harris matrix diagram:

SD = signatures and dates DR = charcoal drawings CR = crayon line motifs CA = colonial era animals CH = colonial era humans CG = colonial era geometrics SM = smudges/smears HP = Handprints SP = Splash FE = fine line eland FA = fine line animals FH = fine line humans

Figure 6: Finely stippled areas denote white, solid areas are red and areas in large dots/stipples indicate superposition. Unshaded areas are either faded or never had paints applied to them.

33

[Page 33 Top]

3. The third layer is made up of smudges and smears all of which are in red ochre

pigment similar to that used for handprints. This set occurs immediately above the

handprints, overlying them in 5 instances. The fine line images are overlain

superimposed by this set in 3 instances.

4. Handprints (decorated and undecorated) are found in this layer and appear in

varying shades of red ochre pigment. This set forms a useful datum as it is a continuous

line across the painted area of the site. Other image sets in the DKS sequence are either

above or below this datum. Handprints are overlain on 15 instances by various images

from the distinctive sets described above. The handprints overlie fine line eland 12 times

(Fig. 6), and on 4 instances occur above other fine line images. One case of a handprint

has been recorded overlying a peculiar white splash (Fig. 7).

5. The bottom-most layer comprises the earliest fine line image set which includes;

eland, other animals (black, shaded red ochre, shaded yellow ochre and white pigment)

and humans (shaded red ochre and black pigment). There is no observable case where

an image from this set overlies any image from other defined sets. The observed pattern

is that of other images from the top layers in the DKS stratified sequence overlying the

fine line imagery. Fine line images are 16 times overlain by handprints, 3 by

smudges/smears, once by a colonial era image and 14 times by motifs from the topmost

layer.

What I have presented above are the different layers in the sequence into which the

defined image sets seem to fit well. The Harris matrix diagram has shown that the

different image sets are internally coherent and can be used to deduce a chronological

sequence from DKS. These image sets, however, should not be taken to mean a kind of

single coherent compositions. There is a probability of the existence of sub-sequences

within these distinctive image sets defined above. The small nature of the sample,

however, does not allow a finer resolution of sequence beyond the categories which this

study has defined. A bigger sample from a number of sites where sequence [Page 33

End]

Figure 7: Solid areas indicate red achreous pigment. Unshaded geometric is brick red ochre. Stippled image 77 is white; stippled image 78 is in red, but has been contrasted with red handprint 209 underneath.

34

[Page 34 Top]

is observable and resolvable is necessary if one requires high resolution information

about sequence within the level of a single distinctive set of imagery.

The Harris matrix proves to be a powerful tool in sorting out and analysing

relationships of imagery in overpainted panels. It pays particular attention to discrete

images as units of stratification in the sequence, if indeed they are involved in above or

below relations. Images belonging together in one stratum are represented at different

levels within the final diagrammatic layout of the sequence. Relations of equivalence,

signified by=sign; do not appear in the diagram. These relations were numerous and

tended to complicate the diagram and hence I decided to exclude them. The

manipulated images are only those involved in relations of sequence (Table 2), which are

essential in relative chronology reconstruction. [Page 34 End]

35

CHAPTER FIVE

DISCUSSION OF THE RESULTS

The working hypothesis presented in this study is that the fine line imagery is earliest in

the sequence and that handprinting emerged later than this tradition. Whether

handprinting emerges when it had ceased completely or not is uncertain. The defined

stratified sets of images discussed above represent phases in the production of paintings

throughout the sequence at DKS. This study, therefore, tested the idea that the sets:

signatures and crayon lines, colonial era imagery, handprints and fine line imagery are

indeed distinctive entities with strong temporal coherence. The Harris matrix

methodology was applied to resolve the images in the sample which are involved in

relations of sequence into a single successive order. It has also helped to check if there

are any inconsistencies in the form of contradictory relations.

Of importance in this study is the nature of relations between the defined stratified sets

of imagery. On the use of the Harris matrices, Chippindale and Tacon have pointed out

that:

“Figures of class A are always stratified over figures of class B, then classes A and B may

indeed be distinct entities in a chronological sequence. If figures in class A are

sometimes over and sometimes under figures of class B, then something is amiss: the

superpositions may have been mis-read or the classes A and B ― if entities at all ― are

not chronologically distinct” (1993:3:39).

Regarding DKS paintings, the evidence provided by the Harris matrices is that the

defined image sets are cohesive entities, occurring within different chronological phases.

The temporal lapse between the different sets is uncertain. There could also have been

temporal overlaps which are not discernible because of the small nature of the sample.

What can be established are broad generalized time frames, some of which can be linked

to historical evidence with absolute time depths. [Page 35 End]

36

[Page 36 Top]

The fine line imagery occurring at the bottommost layer is the earliest painting tradition

phase. This argument that the fine line imagery set predates all the other defined sets is

supported by the absence of any motif from other image sets shown to be overlain by

fine line images. This set, also referred to as the detailed representational art (Yates et al.

1993) utilizes a range of ochreous reds and yellow, black and white pigments. It is the

detailed fine line manner of execution which sets apart this category from other image

sets. The time depth of this painting tradition still remains unknown due, largely, to the

present lack of appropriate absolute dating procedures or methods for rock paintings as

discussed in chapter one.

The depictions of fat-tailed sheep in fine line representational manner in the south-

western Cape is argued to be evidence of the persistence of this tradition until the

period around 1, 900―1, 600 BP when pastoralism was introduced in the region (Yates

et al. 1993). One fine line image at DKS is arguably identified as a sheep painted in black

pigment. If indeed this image is a sheep, one could make an argument that the period

around 1, 900―1, 600 BP provides a terminus ante quem for the disappearance of fine line

tradition at DKS. It should be noted, however, that Manhire and his colleagues (1986)

reported that no definitive examples of fat-tailed sheep were located from searches

within the coastal foreland.

Another coherent set of imagery which occurs above the fine line images in the DKS

sequence is that of handprints. The absence of evidence of handprints overlain by fine

line images and the occurrence of instances where the latter are overprinted is clear

proof that the handprinting tradition was practised when the fine line tradition had

ceased, and therefore later in the sequence. Otherwise, fine line images would be

expected to be sometimes overprinted by and at other time superimposed on the hand

prints. An argument against this inference could be presented that the two sets of

imagery fall within the same broad coherent time frame. The observed pattern of

sequence then argued as being, for one reason or the other, a question of avoidance to

superimpose fine line images on handprints while at the same time the reverse being

encouraged. This is not a preferred argument in this study and can be refuted by the

[Page 36 End]

37

[Page 37 Top]

observed absence of superpositionings in some sites where these two sets of imagery

exist side-by-side (Yates et al. 1993).

Handprinting, while largely controversial, has variously been associated with pastoralists,

people of Khoi or Khoisan stock (Van Rijssen 1994; Anderson 1996), particularly Khoe

females during their initiation rites to womanhood in the context of the latter study.

Yates and co-workers (1993) suggested circumstantial association of handprints with

pastoralism, mainly due to the existence of high frequencies of occurrence of this image

type at the coastal areas where, then, evidence of pastoralism was argued to be earliest,

most intensive and its impact greater than in the mountains within the region. Recent

observations show that the distribution of sites with handprints is in almost equal

proportions in the sandveld and mountains (Manhire: Pers. Comm.).

Smudges and smears appear in the Harris diagram to be the next set of imagery above

the handprints. These images are not artistic representations of anything. They occur in

the form of amorphous shapes or red ochre stains of various sizes. They have been

identified overlying handprints (5 times) and sometimes fine line imagery (3 times). They

are themselves overlain by signatures and dates (3 times) and once by a colonial era

geometric. While at some sites finger smears have been found to overlie colonial era

imagery this is not so with the analysed sample at DKS. As noted above, this set of

imagery uses a similar pigment to the one used for handprints―red ochre. It is not clear

whether it is a significant and chronologically distinct entity. It is difficult to draw

meaningful inferences of this nature from such a small sample.

The other stratified set in the sequence is the colonial era imagery, which at DKS is only

rendered in the crude finger painting manner. Examples of colonial era subject matter

depicted in fine line manner have been identified at Stompiesfontein 1 (STF1) and other

localities in the southwestern Cape (Anderson 1996). The colonial era in the

southwestern Cape is taken to mean the period from 1652 to the 1850s AD when

sustained contact occurred between the Europeans and the local indigenes (Yates et al.

1993). The subject matter depicted in this set of imagery is self-evident of this period

[Page 37 End]

38

[Page 38 Top]

as it invariably shows Europeans (farmers?) with western material culture such as

brimmed hats, smoking pipes, rifles or muskets and high-heeled shoes. At DKS, also

associated with colonial era humans are exaggerated genitalia and inanimate depictions

like geometrics (rectangular, square and circular in shape with grids and crosses inside)

and one fork-like design (Fig. 4) and a likely unfinished motif.

The colonial era imagery set is distinctive and temporally coherent in terms of both the

attributes of manner, technique and pigment and the subject matter. A distinctive brick

red ochre pigment was used with the crude finger painting manner of depiction and wet

technique which have all necessitated connections or linkages to be established between

these otherwise spatially separate or isolated images. They have been merged into a

single contemporary stratum and chronologically self-contained in the position they

occupy within the DKS sequence. This should not be equated with a single

compositional group, but an image-making tradition within a given time frame as

defined above.

The uppermost stratum which succeeds, if indeed it can be so defined, the colonial era

imagery in the sequence of DKS as revealed by the Harris diagram is the signatures,

dates, crayon lines and charcoal drawings. There is no evidence of any other image set

overlying this set, an observation also made by Anderson (1996) from a number of sites

he studied. This is the latest phase of image-making at DKS and appears to be active

even in modern times. There are dates of 1832, 1910, 1930 or 1932 and another date is

not clear whether it is 1917 or 1.9.17 and whatever such numerical notation would

mean.

This last set of imagery is interesting and Anderson notes that it is often thought to be

“graffiti” or “modern art” or often considered to be scratching by recent young herders

or shepherds and thus not art per se (1996:71). He argues that there is same internal

consistency within this imagery set, which considering it idle scratching would be

improper. This view that this set should be regarded as part of an image-making

tradition worthy of study is adopted in this present analysis. This is especially true in

attempting the establishment of relative chronology of the painting traditions. The

[Page 38 End]

39

[Page 39 Top]

Dictionary of Art (1996) gives a definition of graffiti as “an arrangement of

institutionally illicit marks in which there has been an attempt to establish some sort of

coherent composition.” While this phenomenon in all its various forms is viewed as an

illegitimate art form or vandalism there is growing interest in its study from different

perspectives. In this study I have avoided the use of the term “graffiti” because of the

connotations embedded in it. A preferred reference to it is particularly descriptive of the

nature of the subject matter and form of the imagery in this set.

The results presented in this study are in agreement with Anderson’s (1996)

observations and conclusions from the Bokkeveld sample. He argued that the fine line

images from his sample are superimposed by all other image sets. Where fine line

images were observed superimposed on other images, those images were themselves

depicted in the fine line manner. Above this set in the sequence that he deduced were

handprints which he divided into small and medium size (earlier) and large handprints

(later) in their production. This is predictable from his interpretive framework which

addressed the question of authorship and pastoralists, particularly the female Khoe

populations are implicated. The present study is cautious about this subject which has

been a matter of constant debate, albeit with less information based on definitive

evidence forthcoming. Results from recent investigations, contrary to earlier

suggestions, show that the distribution of sites with handprints is almost in equal

proportions in the sandveld and the mountains (Manhire: Pers. Comm.). Earlier

suggestions were that these sites occur in superabundance in the sandveld, particularly

along the coast where pastoralist activities had a great impact.

Anderson (1996) suggests that smearing occurred after the fine line tradition had ceased,

which has also been demonstrated by the Harris matrix diagram generated for the DKS

sample. From the present study, smears occur above the handprints, although this

forms a tiny sample to be very reliable. Anderson argues that smears are in fact in the

same phase with the small and medium handprints, finger painting and certain colonial

imagery, but not with the later large handprints. His most recent phase comprises large

handprints and some colonial imagery and black charcoal drawings. [Page 39 End]

40

[Page 40 Top]

The Harris matrix has shown that image sets at DKS are distinct and self-contained

categories. While Anderson’s (1996) sequence shows some image sets like the

handprints and colonial imagery to have some of their individual members (images)

occurring in different chronological phases, the present study demonstrates that all the

identified image sets are chronological coherent entities. These sets occur in those

positions in the sequence such as revealed by the Harris matrix diagram. This means

that, for DKS, one does not find some images from a given set in a given position

within the sequence also occurring in other different stratigraphic levels associated with

other sets.

One notable difference in approach which could, in part, be responsible for the

difference in our results is the definition of categories/sets. The present study attempts

to simplify the image type categories for practical reasons. Anderson’s (1996) study

tends to give a complex breakdown of image sets; the handprint set has been sub-

divided on the basis of size measurements. Fine line images are sub-divided into those

that are finger-smeared and those that are not ― and the same distinction is carried over

to the colonial imagery.

Handprints are here regarded as a single coherent set. A fairly reasonable interpretation

on the authorship is that the descendants of the former San hunter-gatherer groups who

produced the fine line images are probably the ones who made the handprints. Size

measurements have shown a wide range of variation including handprints of children at

other sites (Manhire: Pers. Comm.). It appears, therefore, that this tradition was a

communal activity, perhaps associated with some sort of ritual or otherwise, where

different age groups seem to have partaken in the production of this set. Regarding

whether females or only males were involved, Manhire (Pers. Comm.) is very cautious

due to the present lack of any definitive evidence on the differences, based on sex, of

the handprints in rock shelters. From a small sample experimental approach involving

female and male students at UCT, differences in the prints they produced were noted.

For obvious reasons, this cannot [Page 40 End]

41

[Page 41 Top]

be translated onto the handprint images in rock shelters. This area of rock art studies

definitely requires more attention than it has previously received.

A general statement can be made about the pigments at DKS. There seems to be a shift

in the range and nature of pigments utilized through time and reflected throughout the

DKS sequence. In the earliest fine line image making tradition, a good range of

pigments comprising various shades of red ochre, yellow ochre, black and white

pigments was employed in the execution of images. This is in keeping with the finesse

with which these images were depicted. In the second level, that of handprints, the only

pigment utilized is red ochre with slight variations in hue which, as shown above, could

be due to differential preservation, while at other sites, yellow ochre (Elands Bay Cave),

has been used ― with one black print and white handprints identified elsewhere

(Manhire: Pers. Comm.). DKS has only handprints executed in red ochre. The reason

for this is uncertain and needs investigation. Smears and smudges above the handprints

utilize the same kind of red ochre pigment. Interestingly, the colonial imagery set utilizes

a distinctive brick red ochre pigment which can not, in all probability, be associated with

the sources from which other red ochre pigments discussed were obtained. The seams

of the bottom of the DKS shelter sandstone produce soft ochreous material which is

the same colour as that used for colonial imagery. One is tempted to assume that this

was the source of the material used for colonial era imagery. It is uncertain why the

earlier image sets did not utilize this source of pigment, available right at the rock

substrate suitable for painting? Perhaps this may be explained in terms of logistical

considerations and the cognitive realms within which these earlier societies operated.

As I have said above, this is another area that needs more detailed attention. The final

set at the top of the sequence is that of signatures, dates and crayon lines as well as

charcoal drawings. A variety of media are utilized in the execution of the motifs in this

set. These include charcoal crayons, ochreous crayons with the same colour as the

material deriving from the seams at the bottom of DKS shelter, commercial chalk and

an unknown distinctive thickly applied black substance. [Page 41 End]

42

[Page 42 Top]

Conservation of paintings at DKS

The paintings at DKS appear to have endured through time but signs of deterioration

are showing up. While the shelter is generally protected from the direct impact of the

elements, the paintings are mostly faded. The microclimate within the shelter appears to

be largely influenced by the air flow and draughts generated in the process. The fauna

(dassies) and avian fauna (raptors) habiting the ledges and cleavages above the shelter

also have a negative impact on the preservation of the DKS paintings as evidenced by a

white or creamish coating that is over the middle section of the site. These are general

observations not based on any specific investigations.

The superposition phenomenon discussed above undoubtedly has an effect on the

preservation of paintings, although the scale cannot be immediately demonstrated or

established. Some handprints at DKS appear to have flaked off from the rock surface as

a result of the detachment of pigments constituting the underlying images of eland. This

is a two-way process. The execution of the handprint superimposed on earlier fine line

eland could have weakened their bonding on the rock and initiated a gradual process of

decay. On finally flaking off the rock substrate ― the earlier pigments come off with

portions of pigment of images superimposed above them. In some cases the pigment of

later images applied on earlier images were not successful in penetrating the pigment of

these images to form a strong bond with the rock substrate. In this way the later

paintings or their portions are, therefore, in a weakened position right from the time of

execution, and at the same inducing the deterioration of earlier superimposed images

which have stronger bonds with the rock below them.

Overall, the red ochre pigments appear to be strongly bonded to these quartzite

sandstones which form a good host rock matrix for the absorption and stabilization of

ochreous pigments. I believe that DKS also offers some revealing sets of circumstances

which, when properly investigated, will inform rock art conservation studies. [Page 42

End]

43

[Page 43 Top]

CONCLUSION

The sequence of the painting tradition at DKS confirms the early observations that

handprinting post-dates the fine line imagery (Yates et al. 1993, 1994). It has also

demonstrated that there is an observable shift through time from one image set to

another. The succession of image production phases is from the fine line images (some

of which are detailed) through the handprints and smears/smudges to colonial era

imagery and finally the signatures, dates and crayon line motifs and charcoal imitative

drawings of earlier motifs at the top. The Harris matrix diagram demonstrates that these

are coherent sets or categories of images. The cohesive nature of these sets is strongly

supported by the lack of inconsistencies in terms of reversed sequence or any

contradictions in the relationship structure in the sequence. More importantly, these

distinctive image sets are also chronologically coherent; they have been produced in

different phases although these should not necessarily be tight time frames. While these

broad temporal phases can be envisaged, through such innovative methodological

approaches like the Harris matrix analysis, the nature of the intervals from one episode

of image-set production to another, cannot be demonstrated. The possibility that cannot

be discounted is that there were temporal overlaps from one image set to another. This

sort of overlap is attested by cases where some colonial era images are rendered in fine

line manner ― which is evidence that the fine line tradition endured until the Colonial

period. Similarly cases where fat-tailed sheep are rendered in fine line manner suggest

that this painting tradition continued until the time when pastoralism was introduced.

The chronology presented in this study did not take into account overlapping within

single distinctive sets identified above. That is, no deduction of sequence was attempted

within the fine line image set or the handprint set or any other set at DKS. This is

because there were no obvious or observable instances of stratification within individual

sets such as the fine line image sets for example; a good number of overlaps could be

observed in the handprint set but due to fading no clear sequence could be resolved.

Overall, regarding this, the sample is too small to provide any meaningful chronological

information from the level of a single set (intra-set stratification or sub- [Page 43 End]

44

[Page 44 Top]

sequence). The analysis of this nature can be productive at inter-site level where larger

and reliable samples can be obtained.

45

[Page 45 Top] REFERENCES Anderson, G.C. 1996. Andriesgrond revisited: material culture, ideology and social change.

Unpublished B.A. (Hons) Thesis: University of Cape Town. Anderson, G.C. 1996. The social and gender identity of gatherer-hunters and herders in

the southwestern Cape. Unpublished MPhil. Thesis: University of Cape Town. Battis, W.W. 1939. The amazing Bushman. Pretoria, Red Fawn Press. Bednarik, R.G. 1979. The potential of rock patination analysis in Australian Archaeology-

art 1. The Artifact 4: 14-38. Bednarik, R.G. 1992. A new method to date petroglyphs. Archaeometry 34: 279-291. Bleek, D.F. 1932a. A survey of our present knowledge of rock paintings. South African

Journal of Science 29: 72-83. Cartwright, C. and Parkington, J.E. 1997. The wood charcoal assemblages from Elands

Bay Cave, southwestern Cape: principles, procedures and preliminary interpretation. South African Archaeological Bulletin 52: 59-72

Chaloupka, G. 1983. Kakadu rock art: its cultural, historic and prehistoric significance.

In Gillespie, D. (ed.), The rock art sites of Kakadu National Park: pp. 3-33. Canberra: Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service.

Chaloupka, G. 1985. Chronological sequence of Arnhem Land Plateau rock art. In

Jones, R. (ed.), Archaeological research in Kakadu National Park: pp. 269-280. Canberra: Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service.

Chaloupka, G. 1993. Journey in time. Sydney: Reed Books. Chippindale, C. and Tacon, P.S.C. 1993. Two old painted panels from Kakadu: variation

and sequence in Arnhem Land rock art. In Steinbring, J., Watchman, A., Faulstich, P. & Tacon, P.S.C. (eds.), Time and Space: dating and spatial considerations in rock art research: pp. 32-56. Melbourne: Australian Rock Art Research Association.

Clottes, J., Courtin, J., Collina-Girard, J., Arnold, M. and Vallaclas, H. 1997. News from

Cosquer Cave: climatic studies, recording, sampling, dates. Antiquity 71: 321-326. Cooke, C.K. 1963. The painting sequence in rock art of Southern Rhodesia. South African

Archaeological Bulletin 18: 172-175. [Page 45 End]

46

[Page 46 Top] Deacon, J. 1993. Management guidelines for rock art sites in two wilderness areas in the

Western Cape. Cape Town: Project Report, National Monuments Council. Dorn, R.I. 1990. Rock varnish dating of rock art: state of the art perspective. La Pintura 7:

49-73. Garlake, P. 1987. The Painted Caves: an introduction to prehistoric rock art of Zimbabwe. Harare:

Modus Publications. Gillespie, R. 1997. On human blood, rock art and calcium oxalate: further studies on

organic carbon content and radiocarbon age of materials relating to Australian rock art. Antiquity 71: 430-437.

Harris, E.C. 1989. Principles of archaeological stratigraphy (2nd edition). London: Academic

Press. Heydorn, A.E.F., and Morant, P.D. 1986. Estuaries of the Cape: Verlorenvlei. Stellenbosch:

University of Stellenbosch. Lewis-Williams, J.D. 1974. Superpositioning in a sample of rock paintings from the

Barkley East District. South African Archaeological Bulletin 29: 93-103. Lewis-Williams, J.D. 1981. Believing and seeing: symbolic meanings in southern San rock paintings.

London: Academic Press. Lewis-Williams, J.D. 1984. The empiricist impasse in southern African rock art studies.

South African Archaeological Bulletin 39: 58-66. Lewis-Williams, J.D. and Dawson, T.A. 1989. Images of power: understanding Bushman rock art.

Johannesburg: Southern Book Publishers. Lewis-Williams, J.D. 1990. Documentation, analysis and interpretation: dilemmas in rock

art research. South African Archaeological Bulletin 45: 126-136. Loubser, J.H.N. A guide to the rock paintings of Tandjesberg. National Museum,

Bloemfontein 9(2): 346-384. Manhire, A.H. 1981. Rock art of the Sandveld. Unpublished BSc. (Hons) Thesis:

University of Cape Town. Manhire, A.H. and Parkington, J.E. 1983. A distributional approach to the interpretation

of rock art in the southwestern Cape. South African Archaeological Society Goodwin Series 4: 29-33.

[Page 46 End]

47

[Page 47 Top] Manhire, A.H., Parkington, J.E., Mazel, A.D. & Maggs, T.O’C. 1986. Cattle, sheep and

horses: a review of domestic animals in the rock art of southern Africa. South African Archaeological Society Goodwin Series 5: 22-30.

Meadows M.E., Baxter, A.J. and Parkington, J.E. 1996. Late Holocene environments at.

Verlorenvlei, Western Cape Province, South Africa. Quaternary International 33: 81-95.

Miller, D.E., Yates, R.J., Parkington, J.E. and Vogel, J.C. 1993. Radiocarbon dated

evidence relating to a mid-Holocene relatie high sea level on the southwestern Cape coast, South Africa. South African Journal of Science 89: 35-44.

Pager, H. 1971. Ndedema. Graz. Akademische Druck. Pager, H. 1976. The rating of superimposed rock paintings. Almagoren 5: 205-218. Parkington, J.E. and Poggenpoel, C. 1987. Diepkloof rock shelter. In Parkington, J.E. and

Hall, M. (eds.). Papers in the prehistory of the Western Cape, South Africa: 269-293. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Parkington, J.E. 1989. Interpreting paintings without a commentary. Antiquity 63: 13- 26. Parkington, J.E. 1977b. Follow the San. Unpublished PhD Thesis: University of

Cambridge. Philips, S.A.(In press). The Dictionary of Art. London: Macmillan Publishers. Rosenfeld, A. 1987. Rock art conservation in Australia. Australian Government Publishing

Service. Rosenfeld, A. and Smith, C. 1997. Recent developments in radiocarbon and stylistic

methods of dating rock art. Antiquity 71: 405-411. Rudner, I. 1989. The conservation of rock art in South Africa. Cape Town: National

Monuments Council. Solomon, A. 1989. Division of the earth: Gender, symbolism and the archaeology of

Southern San. Unpublished MA Thesis: University of Cape Town. Solomon, A. 1994. ‘Mythic women: a study in variability in San rock art and narrative. In

Dowson, T.A. and Lewis-Williams, J.D. (eds.), Contested Images: pp. 331-371. Johannesburg: University of the Witwatersrand Press.

Stow, G.W. 1905. The native races of South Africa. London: Swan Sonnenschein. [Page 47 End]

48

[Page 48 Top] Thackeray, A.I. 1983. Dating the rock art of southern Africa. South African Archaeological

Society Goodwin Series 4: 21-26. Van der Merwe, N.J., Sealy, J. and Yates, R.J. 1987. First accelerator carbon-14 date for

pigment from a rock painting. South African Journal of Science 83: 56-57. Van Rijssen, W.J. 1984. South-western Cape rock art-who painted what? South

African Archaeological Bulletin 39: 125-129. Van Rijssen, W.J. 1994. Rock art: the question of authorship. In Dowson, T.A. and Lewis-

Williams, J.D. (eds.), Contested Images: pp. 159-175. Johannesburg: University of the Witwatersrand University Press.

Vinnicombe, P. 1960. The recording of rock paintings in the Upper reaches of Umkomaas,

Umzimkhulu and Umzimvubu rivers. South African Journal of Science 56: 11-14. Vinnicombe, P. 1976. People of the eland. Pietermaritzburg: Natal University Press. Willcox, A.R. 1959. Hand imprints in rock paintings. South African Journal of Science 55: 292-

298. Willcox, A.R. 1984. The Rock Art of Africa. Johannesburg: Macmillan. Yates, R.J., Manhire, A.H. and Parkington, J.E. 1993. Colonial era paintings in the rock art

of the southwestern Cape: some preliminary observations. South African Archaeological Society Goodwin Series 7: 59-70.

Yates, R.J., Manhire, A.H. and Parkington, J.E. 1994. Rock painting and history in the

southwestern Cape. In Dawson, J.A. and Lewis-Williams, J.D. (eds.), Contested Images: pp.29-60. Johannesburg: University of the Witwatersrand Press.

[Page 48 End]

Siyakha Mguni

Typewritten Text

49

Siyakha Mguni

Typewritten Text

50

Siyakha Mguni

Typewritten Text

51

Siyakha Mguni

Typewritten Text

52

Siyakha Mguni

Typewritten Text

53

Siyakha Mguni

Typewritten Text

54

Siyakha Mguni

Typewritten Text

55

Siyakha Mguni

Typewritten Text

56

58

Table 3: The data is a list of sets and subsets of imagery at Diepkloof Kraal Shelter (DKS) and the

attributes that define each layer.

Summary data on imagery sets at Diepkloof Kraal Shelter siteSet Numbers Criteria

SET A All images in fine line manner (some are detailed) and are representational

Subset A1: 1-12 & 148 All are eland; same pigments (red, white, and black), All are eland; same pigments (red, white, black), procession - unidirectional.

Subset A2: 48, 49, 83, 202, 203, 210, 215, 218 All are humans (partial and complete); same technique (red ochre and black pigments).

Subset A3: 45, 47, 147, 149, 150, 173, 193, 201, 207, 213, 219

Animals (most are indeterminate species) similar in all respects. Pigments include yellow and white.

SET B 13-44, 65, 66, 68-75, 79-82, 89, 90, 94-108, 110-139, 153-168, 177-192, 195-199, 205, 209, 214

All are handprints (decorated and plain) in a line, with the same techniqe and manner, and are all in red ochre.

SET C Colonial era images in crude finger painting manner, same techniqe and pigment

Subset C1: 140,141, 144, 145, 171, 172, 174, 206 European farmers have exaggerated genitals, same scale, brimmed hats, smoking pipes, rifles or muskets and high heeled shoes.

Subset C2: 46, 143, 146, 152 Animals (birds included) - horned bovidsSubset C3: 59, 76, 169, 170, 175, 193 Geometrics (square, rectangular and circular designs) with

grids and crosses inside.

SET D Signatures, dates, crayon line motifs and charcoal drawings

Subset D1: 50, 55-57, 64, 87, 88, 91, 151 Signatures and dates51-54, 200, 204 Executed in thick pitch black substance crudely applied

on rock Subset D2: 58, 67, 85, 86, 92 Charcoal crayons of brick red ochre and yellow chalk

Subset D3: 63 & 142 Imitative drawings of earlier motifs in charcoal

59

Table 4: The diagrams below show proportions in percentage terms of individual images involved in superpositions at DKS.

NB: The vertical axis shows the imagery type in a relative order they occur in the sequence and in relation to each other, on the horizontal axis are the frequencies as percentages of the total number of imagery analysed.