Professional Documents
Culture Documents
oj Archeological
Keyworrfs:
Introduction
n some earlier papers Parkington (1972, 1976,
1977, 1981) suggested that through much of the
Holocene period, hunter-gatherer groups visited
the western Cape coast seasonally, most likely in the
winter or early spring. Part of the evidence offered was
the age at death of seals represented in the fauna1
assemblages at coastal sites. He compared measurements of archaeological mandibles with modern bones
to estimate the month of death of the seals and by
implication the timing of the coastal visits.
Stable carbon isotope readings from archaeological
human skeletons appeared to contradict this suggestion (Sealy & van der Merwe, 1985, 1986, 1988; Sealy,
1986). Marine and terrestrial foods have very different
isotopic signals, reflected with minor modifications in
the skeletons of consumers. People who mostly lived
inland and made relatively short, seasonal visits to the
coast would have consumed similar amounts of marine
and terrestrial foods during their lifetimes wherever
they died and were buried. The expectation was clearly
that inland and coastal skeletons would show similar
readings if seasonal settlement shifts occurred. The
differences that emerged between coastal and inland
skeleton samples have convinced some, but not others
(Parkington,
1986, 1991), that the hypothesis of
seasonal mobility is unfounded.
0305~4403/95/060727+14
$12.00/O
728
et al.
S. Woodborne
28
Port Nolloth
\
30
tStrandfontein
Cape
Province
pt.
Elands Bay
\n
Cave
Atlantic
Ocean
32
\
Great Paternoster
Duie Field
Midden
2km-
Pt.
Figure 1. Map showing the present distribution of breeding and non-breeding seal colonies along the coast of South Africa (after David, 1989).
(0): Breeding colonies; (0): non-breeding colonies. The map insert shows the position of major archaeological sites near Elands Bay.
729
30
22 25
;Ei 20
P 15
dp-A---
10
5
45
Figure 2. Buccal view of left seal mandible indicating the dimensions
measured in this study. We use the relation between the short length
and the age of the animal to predict the age at death of archaeological specimens.
50
_________ ----__-.
60
65
55
Short length (mm)
70
-.
I5
Figure 3. For the tagged sample of male seals the variability in size
with age for the first cohort is best described by the equation
AGE= IO MONTHS (- - -), but this model misrepresents the seddnd
and third cohorts. A simple regression based on the first three
cohorts is also influenced by the variability within the first cohort
and the age of second and third year animals is underestimated. A
regression technique that models the variability between, and not
within, groups of points is required.
730
S. Woodborne
et al.
Table I. Calculation
of the ontogenic age of each seal in the DFM and DFM Estension
assemblages from the mandible short length using equations
(5a) and (56). The values are used to generate age profiles.
Where the age is less tharr 3 years. n~ontlr of dearll (Monrh)
is calculated
using
equations
(6a) and (66)
Provenance
DFM
Seals
Cohort
1
Tom
Tom
Ann
Pet
Ber
Ela
Ela
78
78-13
13
9
50
80
85
Kir 70
Ela 98-l
Ela 85
Cohort
Ela
Ela
Ela
Ber
Tom
Tom
Kir
Nit
Tom
Ela
Ela
Kir
Ber
1
2
52
77
86
58
99-17
99
70
15
90-30
85
59
92
18
Age
Males
(64
55.5
55.5
54.8
54.6
54.45
53.4
50.8
10.9
10.9
10.1
Females
(6b)
54.6
54.4
54.4
10.7
10.4
10.4
Males
@a)
63.3
63.2
62.85
62.73
62.3
61.7
59.2
58.1
57.8
21.7
21.5
20.9
20.7
20.0
19.0
15.3
13.9
13.5
Females
(6b)
;f
8.8
6.6
60.8
58.3
56.5
55.7
23.6
17.5
13.9
12.5
Males
(64
54.6
54.7
55.9
z66.9
9.4
9.5
10.7
10.8
11.8
Females
(6b)
52.6
53.1
55.7
56
56.2
6.6
7.2
10.9
11.4
11.8
Males
(64
58
13
46
61
82
61
96
62DP
62
62DP
57.3
57.8
58.3
59.5
59.5
12.3
12.9
13.6
15.3
15.3
21.3
21.5
21.8
21.8
22.4
DFM Extension
Cohort
1
Dfm
Fra
Fra
Sha
Sha
4
58
72
41
l/14
Sha
Sha
Fra
Fra
Fra
62DP
62DP
65
66
85
Cohort
Fra
Sha
Fra
Fra
Fra
Fra
Fra
Sha
Fra
Sha
SL
z.1
63.2
63.2
63.5
Month
uL*
LL*
IS.8
18.8
17.6
17.3
17.0
15.4
11.8
6.0
6.0
5.6
5.5
5.4
4.8
3.4
Age
(54
10.9
10.9
10.1
9.9
9.8
8.8
6.6
10.6
10.6
10.0
9.8
9.7
8.8
6.8
(5b)
10.7
10.4
10.4
29.7
28.9
28.9
3.3
3.2
3.2
9.4
9.1
9.1
(5a)
;::
8.9
;:;
;I;
1.9
1.5
36.6
36.3
35.3
35.0
33.8
32.2
26.1
23.7
23.1
12.6
12.5
12.1
12.0
11.6
11.0
8.7
7.9
7.6
19.8
19.6
19.1
19.0
18.4
17.6
14.5
13.2
12.9
(5b)
11.6
5.5
1.9
12.5
63.0
47.0
37.8
34.2
9.4
9.5
10.7
10.8
11.8
17.7
17.9
20.1
20.2
22.1
;I;
4.6
4.0
19.7
14.9
12.0
10.8
(5a)
4.6
4.7
5.4
2:;
;:;
11.0
11.1
12.0
(5b)
6.6
1i.Z
11.4
11.8
28.2
30.4
44.3
46.3
47.6
;:;
1.9
5:;
7.1
7.6
10.8
11.2
11.5
(54
12.3
12.9
1.6
;::
;:;
;:;
10.4
22.9
24.1
25.2
28.3
28.3
39.3
39.7
40.1
40.1
41.2
;:;
;1:;
8.0
11.5
11.6
11.7
11.7
12.1
12.4
12.9
13.4
14.8
14.8
19.3
19.5
19.6
19.6
20.0
Tuble
Provenance
Fra
Fra
Sha
Fra
86
96
52
86
Cohort 3
Sha 4
>Cohort 3
Sha 52
Sha 3
SL
Age
Females
(6b)
58.7
56.8
57.6
57.7
17.2
12.9
14.6
14.8
Males
(64
66.3
29.1
Males
(64
74.2
60.1
Females
(6b)
68.7
72.3
Month
uL*
LL*
4.;
68.2
51.9
58.2
59.1
;:;
Age
(5b)
;:;
2.9
3.0
15.6
12.4
13.7
13.8
G-4
5.1
53.6
15.9
24.4
(54
12.1
111.7
33.3
40.5
Gb)
12.3
283.6
18.7
43.9
*The UL and LL columns represent the upper and lower limit of the 95% error associated with each of these age predictions.
732
S. Woodborne
et
al.
EBC Upper
Cohort
I
Eddi
Eddi
Doll
Jech
Doll
Surf
Barn
G5
G5
El0
G7
El
Y6
FIO
Geob G4
Doll E9
Eddi G4
Geob G4
Cohort
Clgs
Ckee
Doll
Do12
Jech
Eddi
2
H2
F8
FIO
G9
G6
F8
Age
Males
(64
50.7
$7
5%
52.6
55.1
56.1
6.5
6.1
7.7
8.0
8.1
10.4
1 I.5
Females
(6b)
51.4
51.6
2:
6.7
6.9
9.9
Il.4
Males
(W
57.2
58
58.9
63.4
63.7
63.8
12.8
13.8
14.9
21.8
22.4
22.6
Month
UL
hits
LL
X6
Cohort
Eddi E6
Geob ES
Eddi G7
Kohort
Doll FlO
Jech G6
EBC Lower
Cohort
I
Bsbl
Bsbp
Clgs
Bsbb
C6
D5
F4
56.1
13.2
Females
(6b)
61.1
61.2
64.5
24.5
24.8
35.8
Females
(6b)
iA.
69.3
298.2
Males
(64
49.3
54.8
5.5
IO.1
Females
(6b)
48.8
54.5
4.3
IO.6
used
Age
(W
6.5
6.7
7.7
8.0
8.1
IO.4
II.5
I I.7
12.0
13.6
14.1
14.2
IS.1
19.8
3.4
3.5
4.1
4.3
4.3
21:
6.7
6.9
I.8
8.0
8.1
IO.2
II.2
(5b)
6.7
g:;
11.4
19.2
19.8
27.4
31.2
I.7
1.8
21.9
23.5
25.5
36.9
37.8
38.1
7.2
I.8
8.5
12.7
13.0
13.1
;:;
6.0
;::,
9.9
(54
12.8
I.8
;:;
IO.4
IO.6
(6b)
Neto
on he age prediction
12.3
13.1
14.1
19.9
20.3
20.5
(5b)
I.2
35.9
4.3
Il.4
(5b)
12.5
12.8
11.8
65.2
65.9
94.8
8.8
8.9
13.2
9.3
IO.2
183.8
811.1
26.4
114.2
20.4
20.6
29.2
(5b)
54.3
212.3
(W
I;.:
IO.0
17.6
2.8
5.6
5.8
IO.0
(5b)
13.1
29.3
0.8
3.3
3.9
9.2
Conrincted
explanation and description of this statistical approach. Resolving the comparative data in this way
transforms the clusters of points that make up each
cohort into several groups This reduces the bias
described earlier.
The method requires that groups have exactly the
same value for the independant variable. This is not
strictly the case in the seal data. We cannot assume that
animals that were killed on the same day and that were
bon in the same season are the same age since we do
not know that they were born on exactly the same day.
This problem technically invalidates the use of the
technique to predict age at death, but it must be noted
that our prime objective is to predict season of death.
The analysis could be executed in such a way that age
does not play a role. If the age that we have attributed
to the comparative seals is not considered as age in the
normal sense of the word, but instead as the duration of
time between I December and the death of the animal,
2. Continued
Provenance
SL
Cohort 2
Males
Brne A3
Gban F4
Bsbp D3
Bsbl C4
Bsb2 C3
Nept A4
Bsbl E5
Bsb2 C6
Gban F4
Bsbp E3
Bsbp C2
Bene Y2
Nept 23
Nept A5
Nept A3
Bsb2 C4
Bene Y3
Nept A3
Bsb2 C6
Bsb2 C4
Bsbp D5
Jime E5
51.7
58.7
58.9
59.2
59.5
59.5
59.6
59.1
60.3
61.4
61.4
61.4
61.7
61.9
61.9
62.4
62.4
62.5
62.6
62.9
64.2
64.2
Age
Month
UL
LL
Age
64
;:;
14.9
2.9
3.9
4.0
;:;
18.5
19.0
19.3
19.3
20.1
20.1
20.3
20.5
21.0
23.3
23.3
6.5
6.5
7.0
7.3
;::
8.1
8.3
8.5
9.0
11.3
11.3
22.9
25.0
25.5
26.1
26.8
26.8
21.0
27.3
28.7
31.4
31.4
31.4
32.2
32.7
32.1
34.1
12.8
13.9
14.1
14-5
14.8
14.8
14.9
15.0
15.8
17.2
17,2
17.2
17.6
17-8
17.8
18.5
18.5
18.6
10.7
10.7
Il.0
11.2
11.2
11.7
11.7
11.8
11.9
12.2
13.6
13.6
34.1
34.4
34.6
35.5
39.3
39.3
18.8
19.2
21.1
21.1
(6b)
Bsbl C4
Bsbp E4
Bsbp E4
Dece B4
Bsbp E3
Bsbp D4
Bspb D4
Nept 24
Bsbpl C5
56.6
56.7
57.1
57.4
58.9
59.1
59.2
60.2
60.3
19.3
19.5
22.0
22,3
Cohort 3
Males
(64
Nept A3
Bsbp ES
Bsbp E4
Bsbl C5
Bsbp D4
14.1
2.1
14.3
15.0
15.6
2.3
18.8
10.0
10.3
38.2
38.1
40.7
42.2
50.5
51.7
52.3
58.8
59.5
24.8
26.2
12.8
2.2
41.8
61
24.2
12.2
zi.6
27.1
32.4
;:;
64.5
72.2
86.1
>Cohort 3
Bum A2
(5b)
5.0
5.3
6.5
6.7
6.8
7.8
7.9
12.1
12.2
12.9
13.3
15.9
16.3
16.5
18.5
18.7
145
15.3
22.3
23.4
;:;
20.2
22.5
26.6
4:;
44.1
11.9
(5b)
(6b)
78.9
141.9
9.9
379.6
545
106.1
Model Selection
Using this technique
regression relations:
we tested
four
SL=a+P(AGE);
log(SL) = a+ P(AGE);
SL=a+P(log(AGE+15));
log(SL)=a+
where a, P=population
P(log(AGE+ l-5));
parameters.
alternative
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
734
S. Woodborne
et
al.
(a)
120,
80
- 100
3
g 80
8
iz
2
cn
60
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Age (months)
100
-_
Age (months)
_---
20
40
60
80
120
---
140
80
-_
0
10
20
30
40
Age (months)
Age (months)
Figure 4. From the short length of a seal mandible it is possible to predict the age at death of the animal and the 95% error associated with
the prediction. Graphs (a) and (c) show regressions based on all the known aged animals available for analysis. Graphs (b) and (d) reflect
regressions based on the known aged animals that were less than three years old at death. (a): males (all animals); (b): males ~36 months;
(c): females (all animals); (d): females <36 months.
0
100
_---
AGE = 10
(Log(SL)I - 0.2331-
AGE = 10 (
492
Log(sL)-o~l6l
I.571
) - 1.5
W
5b)
Confidence Limits
It is clear from the modern observations that all the
animals that achieve a particular size do not necessarily
do so at the same age. Thus it is inaccurate to associate
a single age with the SL measurement from any
archaeological mandible. The age predicted by the
equation is the most likely age at death for an animal.
The real age could have been older or younger, but the
probability of this being the case decreases as one
moves away from the prediction. The range that expresses the probable age of death is calculated using
10 3
B-
4
;
6-
42O-
JFMAMJJASOND
I
12 24 36 46 60 72 64 96 108 120 132 144 166 168 160192204 216 9.16
Month
Age (months)
(b)
DFM EXT.
3
10B- -
ales
4m
12 24 96 46 60 72 64 96 106120132144 166168160192204216>216
42Om
I
I
JFMAMJJASOND
Month
Age (months)
Figure 5. (a) Sealing at DFM peaks in October when it is easy to find first year pups, weak after being weaned, dead or dying on the shore.
Although seals grow to ages in excess of IO years, the DFM age profiles show that the sample consists entirely of first and second year animals.
(b) The DFM Extension sample includes animals killed during the DFM occupation. The spring (September) seasonal signature from this site
is similar to that of DFM which suggests that the occupation of the other two sites that constitute the sample was at approximately the same
time of the year as DFM, although several centuries separate the occupations. The sample includes some third and fourth year animals, but
frst and second year animals still predominate. (m): cohort 1; (II): cohort 2; @I): cohort 3.
equation
for inverse
Log(SL)-0.209
I.516
Log(SL)-0.161
1.514
1 - I.5
(males n = 90)
Pa)
(6b)
tb,
I
E
-2
=
%
JFMAMJJ
MO&l
Fi-m
6. la) The EBC Upper seaI asseaxb!aa+
accumulated
OWF a Ion-m
period of time than hose in the DFiU
and DFSl
Extension
asmblages.
It is also the result of many more Gsits to &e site. The seasonal si-gamre
is that of spring
and &rsx and secwnd >-ear anin&
domiuare
&e sampk.
This suggests a coherent
strategy ofseasonzl
occupation
and xrt[ exploitation
in the he Holocene.
(b) The expkviratioo
of seaIs prior to !BXlO BP does not appear to be seasonal at Elands Bay Cave. Tbe age pro6la
show that the eariu Holocene
inhabitants
of
the cave obtained
mosUy second year animals, probabiy
from a hauling out coolony. -fbe lack of tint yeas anin&
idkites
tit
a breeding
colony did not es& in the Gzinity
during this tie
when SW Ievels were considerably
lower than at present.(1): cohort
I: (E): cohort
2:
(ET): cohoii
3.
Conversely, the clustering of observations from animals a&& 9 months in the modern sample does not
impose a tendency to predict ases of 9 months for
unknown animals. We can also calculate the confidence limits for any age prediction.
Archaeological Results
Lhnefelcl
i&&&n
Conclusions
The seasonal signature that characterizes the DFM
and EBC Upper seal assemblages appears to support,
in principle, Parkingtons notion of highly seasonal
occupation at the coast. The patterning indicates a
distinctly seasonal culling practice that contrasts
sharply with the EBC Lower assemblage. The late
winter, spring and early summer exploitation of seals
do not agree entirely with Parkingtons original prediction of winter occupation of the coast, nor do they
contradict it. At both the cave site and the open sites
the exploitation includes a high proportion of first year
animals that presumably reflects the availability of
tired or sick weaned pups foraging for themselves
during rough winter and spring seas. Regular monitoring of the beaches would have produced a consistent
supply of these animals as they washed ashore. During
excavations at the DFM site in early December 1990
we encountered 14 seals either still alive or very recently washed ashore along the 2 km stretch between
the Verlorenvlei river mouth and DFM. The evidence
Acknowledgements
The fieldwork at DFM and EBC has been supported
by the Centre for Science Development, the University
of Cape Town Research Committee and the Swan
Fund. We thank Graham Avery of the South African
Museum for permission to examine and measure both
modern and archaeological seal bones in his care, and
Jeremy David, Herman Oosthuizen and Mike Meyer
of the Division of Sea Fisheries for access to tagged
seal mandibles. We are also grateful to members of
the Department of Mathematical
Statistics at the
31, 223-243.
Arclmolvgical
S&m
of llw solrth-wsrcrn
NII mrdysis
oJsecrso~w/ify
Cfipe, Chpe Proviiice,
Soirtlt
irr r/w
Aflico.
18, 33 l-342.
err
Sy dgeuwtrc
kennwrke
or verhring.
Dcpcrrtcnwnl
wn
t~)werlreicl:
uJ&ling
visserye ondersoek
verlug No. 21,
References
Ajhrrr
Cup
Province.
Sorrth
3, 314.
Prehistoric
Diets in the
AjiYccl. Cmnbridge
Mono-
or~d
grq1lr.s br Ajhwrr
ArchncologJ~
15. Oxford: BAR International
Series.
Scaly, J. & van der Merwe, N. J. (1985). Isotope assessment of
Holocene human diets in lhc south-western Cape, South Africa.
Ntrfrrre 315, 138-140.
Scaly. J. & van der Merwe, N. J. (1986). Isotope assessment and the
seasonal mobility hypothesis in the south-western Cape of South
Africa. Current Anrhropology
27, 135-l 50.
Scaly, J. d van der Merwe, N. J. (1988). Social, spatial and
chronological patterning in marine food use as determined by 6C
measurements of Holocene human skeletons from the southwestern Cape, South Africa. World Archeology
20, 87-102.
Sokal, R. R. & Rohlf, F. J. (1981). Bionw/ry.
San Francisco:
Freeman Press.
Zar, J. H. (1984). Biosrufisricd
mmlysis,
2nd Edition. London:
Prentice-Hall.
T&l1
llW7Qh
ss
368.6
23013.4
25.45
4.58
67
I
0.0161
I .0449
0.0005
0.0003
67
I
119
fiz
121
~36 months
43
118.8
4:
4377.06
17.39
46
4.61
89
~36 months
43
118.8
1
4778.1
7.84
ti
4.61
89
~36 months
43
0.0076
I
0.2568
0.0016
tz
0.0003
89
~36 months
43
0.0076
1
0.3087
0.0004
ti
0.0003
6:
54
I21
0.0161
0.8573
0.0033
0.0003
67
E
121
1::
6:
368.6
21717.9
45.08
4.58
MS
67
d.f.
Males
n&A79
064007
0,6l I48
0.0286
0.00783
26.79
798.7
1.37
8393.25
7695.5
697.5
87.7
8481
25.75
-609.5
I.7
064007
0.57142
0.06865
0.00783
06479
8393.3
7860.3
532.9
87.7
17875.7
25.75
251.7
3.77
26.79
158.6
5.74
I.1361 I
1.08723
0.04889
0.01063
I.14675
I.1361 I
0.71376
0.42235
0.01063
I.14675
17714.5
16159
155.4
161.2
17875.7
17714.5
12484
5230.5
161.2
17875,7
SS
61.72
2154
1,863
61.72
257.6
12.78
80.5
904.2
5.56
80.5
481.8
9.85
Fs
::
6-2
38
1
::
63
38
I
1:
63
38
I
i:
3:
38
:i
82
54
1
;i
82
54
1
;i
82
54
1
5:
82
54
1
d.f.
0.0168
0.61215
0.0008
0.0003
0.0168
0.5714
0.0019
0~0003
220.9
7695.5
18.86
3.51
220.9
7860.3
14.4
3.51
0.021
0.0872
0~0009
0.0004
0.02 I
0.7138
0.008
0.0004
328
16159
29.4
5.8
328
12484
98.68
5.76
MS
Females
53.79
791.17
2.47
53.79
308
5.93
62.96
408
5.38
62.96
545.7
4.11
55.4
I 178.7
2.43
55.4
89.57
20.98
56.98
550.6
5.1
56.98
126.5
17.14
Fs
n.rcrMo
0.13855
0,12413
0.01442
0.01 I94
0.13855
0.12154
0~01701
0.01 I94
0.15049
2669.3
2409
260.3
199.2
2869.2
2669.3
2396.3
273.9
199.9
2869. I
0.74627
0.71886
0.02741
0.01303
0.7593
0.74627
064058
0.1057
0.01303
0.74627
19440.8
18366.7
1074. I
235
19675.8
19440.8
17592
1848.4
234.9
19675.8
ss
58
I
d.f.
711
3:
44
34
ii
78
34
I
3:
44
78
34
i.i
78
34
I
::
II0
58
I
::
II0
58
I
2:
II0
58
I
0.0041
0.1241
0~0004
0~0003
0.0041
0.1215
0~0005
0~0003
78.51
2409
7.89
4.54
78.51
2396.3
8.27
4.54
0.0129
0,7189
0.0005
0.0003
0.0129
06406
0.0019
0.0003
335.2
18366.7
18.84
4.519
335.2
17592
32.43
4.52
MS
Males
15.021
284.03
I.61
15.02
235.81
I.9
17.28
305.4
I .74
17.28
289.7
I .82
51.37
I494,7
I.9199
51.37
345.5
7.4
74.18
974.6
4.17
74.18
542.5
7.18
Fs
n.ini2
0.09837
0.08979
0.00859
0.00292
0.09837
0.09232
0.00605
0.00292
0.1013
1850.2
1679.8
170.4
52
1902,2
1850.2
1743.1
107.1
52
1902.2
0.27069
0.24764
0.02305
0.00573
0.27669
0.27069
0.17857
0.09212
0.00573
0.27642
5923.4
5434.7
488.7
125.5
6048.9
5923.4
4149.3
1774.1
l25,5
6048,9
ss
7Q
2:
II
27
:;
2:
27
:i
2:
27
:i
2:
27
4:
14
57
43
::
41
43
4:.
I4
57
43
43
1
42
I4
57
d.f.
0.0036
0.0898
0.0003
0.0003
0.0036
0.0923
0.0002
0.0003
68.53
1679.7
6.56
4.73
68.53
1743.1
4.12
4.73
0.0063
0.2475
0.0005
0~0004
0.0063
0.1786
0.0022
0.0004
137.8
5434.6
1164
8.06
l37,8
4149
42.2
8.93
MS
Females
13.72
271.8
1.24
13.72
396.6
0.878
l4,5
256.2
1.387
14.5
423.3
0.87
15.39
451.2
I .34
15.39
81,42
5.36
15.37
467
I.3
15,37
98.23
4,713
Fs
2:
I10
Appendix 1
Analysis
of variance
(AN0 VA) to choose between the regressions
based on d@erent mathematical
the regression.
The most significant
regressions
are those based on model (4) using ah the comparative
on the sub-3-year-old
animals
s
8
9
2
w
2
%
-9
o2