Southern African Humanities
Vol. 17
Pages 57–79
Pietermaritzburg
December, 2005
The stylistic origin of Bambata and the spread of mixed farming
in southern Africa
by
Thomas N. Huffman
School of Geography, Archaeology and Environmental Studies, University of the
Witwatersrand, 2050 Johannesburg; [email protected]
ABSTRACT
Bambata pottery, and its role in the spread of food production, requires two explanations. The style
probably originated somewhere in Angola, among farming communities which belonged to the KALUNDU
TRADITION, but it first spread into south-eastern Africa with hunter-gatherer groups at about AD 200. Only
later, at about AD 350, were the Bantu-speaking, mixed farming communities, responsible for the style,
present in eastern Botswana and western Zimbabwe.
KEY WORDS: Southern Africa, Early Iron Age, Kalundu Tradition, Bambata, hunter-gatherers, pastoralists,
farmers.
INTRODUCTION
The spread of mixed farming into southern Africa has been of interest for several
decades. We now know that some of the first Bantu-speaking people to enter the subcontinent brought with them a complete ‘Iron Age package’ (e.g. Phillipson 1985).
Evidence for this package includes the physical remains of settled village life (storage
pits, burnt daga houses/grain bins and enormous ceramic vessels), domestic animals
(dung, bones and teeth), domestic crops (grindstones, soil casts, occasional carbonised
grains and phytoliths) and metallurgy (slag, blowpipes and furnace/forge bases). The
association between this package and Early Iron Age ceramics is no longer a major
issue (Mitchell 2002).
Another debate involving cattle and pottery, however, is still current. Archaeologists
have not yet resolved the role of Bambata pottery in the spread of pastoralism and
mixed farming. Over the years, Africanists have considered the pottery in terms of
three logical possibilities.
Hypothesis I: that Bambata pottery represents the vanguard of the Iron Age—either
with a full mixed-farming economy, or primarily as pastoralists.
Hypothesis II: that hunter-gatherers acquired Bambata pottery through trade—either
as whole vessels, when farming villages were nearby, and/or as fragments passed
along hunter-gatherer networks for use by shamans. Some of these people acquired
domestic animals along with the pottery and became hunter-gatherers with cattle,
rather than full pastoralists.
Hypothesis III: that the pottery represents full pastoralists, or sedentary Later Stone
Age with domestic stock, who had their own ceramic tradition.
BAMBATA POTTERY
To assess these three hypotheses, we must first separate the stylistic origins of the
pottery from its use. The pottery itself was initially found in Bambata Cave (Fig. 1) in
http://www.sahumanities.org.za
57
58
SOUTHERN AFRICAN HUMANITIES, VOL. 17, 2005
Fig. 1. Bambata cave in the Matopos.
Fig. 2. Bambata pottery from Bambata Cave. Scale in inches.
HUFFMAN: BAMBATA AND THE SPREAD OF FARMING
Fig. 3. Spatial range of Bambata sites.
59
SOUTHERN AFRICAN HUMANITIES, VOL. 17, 2005
Fig. 4. Bambata decoration key.
60
HUFFMAN: BAMBATA AND THE SPREAD OF FARMING
Fig. 5. Bambata stylistic types. Rec – reconstruction, F – fragment.
61
62
SOUTHERN AFRICAN HUMANITIES, VOL. 17, 2005
the Matopos (Arnold & Jones 1919) and then later described after a second excavation
(Schofield 1941). From the beginning, archaeologists emphasised a few special features,
such as thinness, spouts, decorated lips, punctates, concave rims and colour infilling
(Fig. 2). This kind of pottery is now known from many small samples and a few large
assemblages spread over a wide area (Fig. 3). These larger assemblages, including
Bambata Cave and Toteng, are important because they include a variety of motifs and
techniques on the same vessel and on different vessels that occur together. The
contemporaneity of only one vessel at Bambata Cave (Schofield 1941: 372, no. 13), for
example, has ever been questioned. We can therefore use these larger assemblages as a
datum to assess the affinity of samples with questionable associations. This approach
makes it possible to shift attention away from fragments and key features, such as
thinness, to decoration themes and stylistic types.
At this point, one should remember that in an experimental test of different analytical
procedures (Huffman 1980), stylistic types formed by the combinations of profile, layout
and motif categories were able to assign all samples to the correct control groups. They
were successful because they characterised the stylistic structure of a ceramic unit.
Procedures that emphasised function (shape) or technology (e.g. decoration technique),
on the other hand, were not successful. Here, to avoid repetition and the effect of function,
I use mostly jars.
Another point is also worth noting. I use the standard characteristics of thinness and
dense decoration (especially stamping) to identify Bambata samples, but these key
features do not constitute a definition. Such an approach in fact would exclude many
specimens from the type assemblage at Bambata Cave. Only a complete list of
multidimensional, stylistic types defines a ceramic unit. Once stylistic types have been
determined from the standard samples, we can incorporate other vessels that have the
same profile, layout and motif combinations, but not the technological features.
In the case of Bambata, the range of decoration techniques includes incision, stamping
and punctates (or stylus impressions), as well as colour, while motifs include simple
hatched bands, crosshatching, herringbone, multiple bands, triangles and alternating
blocks of lines (Fig. 4). Next, the decoration positions (i.e. layout) include both a long
and short rim, as well as a lip, neck and shoulder. Much of these data, incidentally, are
available in existing literature (e.g. Cooke 1963; Schofield 1941; Walker 1983) and in
this paper (Fig. 2). These decoration positions, once combined with motif categories
and vessel profile, generate some 14 stylistic types (Fig. 5); the following eight are
noteworthy:
Lip
Short 1
Type 1
incision
oblique incision
Type 2
2/3
alternating blocks
stamping or incision
rolled on to lip
empty
Lip
Short 1
2
Type 5
stamping
herringbone
multiple bands
Type 6
stamping
oblique stamping or
parallel lines
[
Type 3
incision
multiple bands
empty
stamping
crosshatching
alternating blocks
63
HUFFMAN: BAMBATA AND THE SPREAD OF FARMING
Lip
Long 1
2
Type 4
stamping
multiple bands or blocks
or vertical lines
empty
[
Type 7
stamping
alternating
blocks
Short 1
Type 12
empty
empty
multiple bands
There could be objections to Type 12 because the Toteng example illustrated in
Figure 5 was an isolated vessel found some distance from the midden. While the
association of this specific example could be questioned, the concept of the type is
solid because multiple bands occur on the rim in Type 3 and in the neck in Types 4
and 5. Fragmentary examples of multiple bands in the neck also occur at Hippo Tooth
and Toromoja. Furthermore, multiple bands as a motif category are common in the
Bambata Cave assemblage.
There could also be objections to the first example of Type 6 in Figure 5 because it is
common in the Gokomere and Ziwa facies. That it is also part of Bambata is shown by
its presence at Bambata Cave and Toteng, and its co-occurrence with Type 7 in the
Tswapong Hills. Furthermore, both Type 12 and this Type 6 variant occur together in
the sample from Whitewater Shelter. Figure 5, then, is a fair representation of the stylistic
structure of Bambata.
Although some types are fragmentary, the available profiles, layouts and motif
categories show that Bambata belongs to CHIFUMBAZE, rather than a separate
complex. This point, by the way, has been known for many years (e.g. Robinson
1966; Summers 1961). On present evidence, Bambata appears closely related to
Benfica (Dos Santos Jnr & Ervedosa 1970; De Sousa Martins 1976), the earliest
facies of the KALUNDU TRADITION in Angola (Huffman 1989). Among other attributes,
Benfica includes rims with both a long and short position decorated with
crosshatching, stamping, herringbone, parallel lines and multiple bands; along with
parallel lines in the neck; and alternating blocks of lines both in the neck and on
the shoulder (Fig. 6). Significantly, Bambata does not directly resemble facies in
the Nkope or Kwale Branch of UREWE (Huffman 1989): multiple facets, for
example, dominate Kwale, while wavy lines on the neck and shoulder are common
in Nkope—both lack multiple bands in the neck. So, even if future research provides
a better source than Benfica, the precise facies will still be related. Whatever the
specific facies, the analysis shows that the style originated within KALUNDU
communities.
If the KALUNDU identification is correct, the Iron Age origin eliminates the possibility
that hunter-gatherers created the style. Other, different data further support this
conclusion. Smithfield pottery in the Seacow valley (Sampson 1988: 41–3, 48–9)
provides an important example because it was probably made by hunter-gatherers after
pastoralists introduced the concept. First, only one shape category is common: a short,
vertical-sided, asymmetrical flat-bottomed bowl. A second wide-mouthed open dish is
also probably present. Although the main shape is somewhat variable, and sizes also
vary, there do not appear to be other discrete conceptual categories (Sampson & Sadr
1999). According to ethnographic data (cited by Sampson 1988), hunter-gatherers used
the one shape category for multiple purposes, such as cooking meat, broth and a grassseed porridge.
64
SOUTHERN AFRICAN HUMANITIES, VOL. 17, 2005
Fig. 6. Benfica stylistic types.
HUFFMAN: BAMBATA AND THE SPREAD OF FARMING
65
In contrast, Bambata includes several separate shapes, including jars with curved
necks, jars with straight necks, necked bowls, constricted bowls and open bowls. This
range of discrete vessel shapes is a common feature of agricultural communities
throughout southern Africa, where different shapes and sizes, with different names,
serve different functions, such as brewing beer, drinking beer, storing water, carrying
water, cooking meat, cooking porridge and serving relish (e.g. Lindahl & Matenga
1995). Thus, while Smithfield pottery has one main category for multiple purposes,
farming pottery has multiple categories for specific purposes.
Secondly, Smithfield decoration is irregular and highly variable (Sampson 1988).
Generally, stamp impressions made with different shaped styluses used in several
different ways cover the vertical sides, which are sometimes divided into three zones
(Bollong & Sampson 1999, fig. 4). Normally, only one technique occurs on a vessel. In
terms of identity, this wide variability and marked idiosyncrasy produces a small scale,
if not individual, identity. In contrast, the repeated combinations of different motifs in
different positions produce a group identity statement for Bambata, as they do for other
Iron Age ceramic units. A group statement, one should remember, was part of the nature
of precolonial farming societies in southern Africa. Traditional African societies were
fairly homogenous and communally oriented (Hammond-Tooke 1974). Potters were
bound to the community through a network of social responsibilities where individuals
were accountable to each other. Potters did not therefore stand-alone; rather, in order to
distribute their work, they had to please the community. As a consequence, repetition
was normal.
For similar reasons, the CHIFUMBAZE identification also eliminates the other possibility
that Bambata represents a separate pastoral tradition. In particular, a bag-shaped vessel
appropriate for transport and dairy products characterises pastoral pottery. In comparison
to farming assemblages, there are few motifs, and combinations, and therefore few
stylistic types (see also Sadr & Smith 1991 and Reid et al. 1998 for a comparison of
Bambata and pastoral pottery in the Cape). These differences in shapes and functions,
repetition and identity statements strengthen the conclusion that the Bambata style
derives from a farming context.
Contrary to some opinion, then, assessing the pottery in terms of known traditions
has not hampered interpretation; it has helped to narrow the range of possibilities by
eliminating Hypothesis III. Interpretation has been hampered instead by the conflation
of key technological features with a stylistic definition.
An Iron Age stylistic origin, it should be noted, does not exclude the possibility that
some hunter-gatherers, or pastoralists, may have copied the style. One vessel at Toteng
(Huffman 1994, fig. 3 top), for example, is thicker than the others, and the decoration is
irregular. Occasional exceptions strengthen the original identification.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXT
Bambata A
The use of Bambata, reflected in its distribution, is the second important aspect of
the debate. On the one hand, investigations have found Bambata pottery in rock shelters
throughout the Matopos (e.g. Cooke 1963, 1970; Robinson 1966; Walker 1983), the
Limpopo region (Robinson 1964; Walker 1994), the Makabeng (Van Schalkwyk pers.
66
SOUTHERN AFRICAN HUMANITIES, VOL. 17, 2005
Fig. 7. Makgadikgadi Pans, typical open location of Bambata A pottery.
comm.), the Waterberg (Van der Ryst pers. comm.), the Magaliesberg (Wadley 1987),
and near Gaborone (Robbins 1985), as well as open sites (Fig. 7) around the
Makgadikgadi Pans (Denbow & Campbell 1980, 1986) and Lake Ngami (Campbell
1992; Huffman 1994; Robbins et al. 1998).
In many of these situations, the small collections do not represent typical farming
assemblages. Indeed, sometimes only a few fragments are present, each from a different
vessel. In other cases, such as Bambata Cave and Toteng, complete vessels had to have
been present. In all these situations the pottery occurs together with Wilton-related
Later Stone Age tool assemblages. The pottery always represents a ‘trait intrusion’, in
that the stone tool sequence continues with little or no modification, while the pottery
itself lacks any antecedent whatsoever. For convenience, I call the pottery in this context
Bambata A (Fig. 8). This pottery occurs throughout an enormous area, far greater than
that of any other Iron Age ceramic unit on record, and therefore its use, as opposed to its
stylistic origins, was not associated with a typical set of farming communities. The
enormous distribution of fragments, and occasional vessels, supports the probability
that some hunter-gatherers acquired the pottery through trade.
The cluster of sites at Toteng requires further comment. I originally thought Toteng I
and III had been settled villages because discrete midden deposits were there, in contrast
to the widespread distribution of debris on pastoral sites such as Kasteelberg (Smith et
al. 1991). I am no longer sure about the significance of this point. While the middens
suggest some degree of sedentism, they are not conclusive evidence of settled village
life. Furthermore, stone tools occurred underneath and throughout the Bambata midden,
and the change in each level appears to parallel the Wilton sequence at Bambata Cave
(Reid et al. 1998). The weight of evidence therefore supports the association of the
pottery with stone tools.
HUFFMAN: BAMBATA AND THE SPREAD OF FARMING
Fig. 8. Bambata pottery: Bambata B, rows 1–3; Bambata A, rows 4–5.
67
68
SOUTHERN AFRICAN HUMANITIES, VOL. 17, 2005
Domestic animals were also clearly associated. Well-preserved remains of cattle and
small stock (Hall in Campbell 1992) demonstrate a pastoral component in the economy.
Sheep were also present at Bambata Cave (Walker 1983). Following Sadr (2003), the
Toteng people were probably hunter-gatherers with cattle. Bambata A is therefore best
explained in terms of Hypothesis II: hunter-gatherers acquired Bambata pottery through
trade and passed pots, and fragments, along pre-existing networks, while some also
acquired domestic animals.
Bambata A dates
At Toteng, this pottery and domestic animal complex dates from AD 215 to 555.
Further south, at Jubilee Shelter in the Magaliesberg, the pottery dates are later.
Toteng I
Toteng III
Jubilee Shelter
215
215–350
540
(Pta 5534)
(Beta 44965, Beta 44966)
(Wits 1381)
330
430–555
615
Note that I have calibrated all dates following Vogel et al (1993), omitted the mid point
and intercept, and rounded up the one sigma spans to the nearest five years. Following
this procedure, the dating span for Bambata A is probably between AD 200 and 620.
Bambata B
The second archaeological context of Bambata pottery has a more limited extent,
and there are farming affinities, for example, rain making hills (Great Zimbabwe Period
I and Howmans Ruin) and villages (Buhwa and Mabveni). As rule, this second context
occurs in areas with abundant agricultural land (Fig. 9). I call the pottery in this context
Bambata B.
Although the style is the same (Figs 8, 10), Bambata B tends to be thicker than
Bambata A. At Toteng, for example, A pottery ranges from 3.5 to 10 mm, with a cluster
between 4 and 7 mm. Rim and neck measurements on a comparable sample from several
sites in the Matopos have the same range (Table 1a). On the other hand, Bambata B
varies from about 5 to 11 mm with a cluster between 6 and 10 mm (Table 1b). This
difference suggests that farming communities may have purposefully made Bambata A
thin, and therefore lighter, for trade to people with a mobile lifestyle. From this
perspective, Bambata may be a part of Benfica, rather than a separate facies. This last
point remains for future research.
TABLE 1a
Typical range of thickness (mm) in Bambata A pottery.
(number of sherds per site: Bambata Cave - 14, Bambata Outspan - 3, Cave of Hands - 3,
Chamagwangadza - 1, Gulubahwe - 1, Gwanda Road - 2, Kwilembe - 2, Shame Shaba - 1, Tshangula 19, Whitewater - 4; T - Toteng sherds)
Rim
3.0
2
3.5
2
Neck
7
Shoulder
1
1
T1
1
T1
4.0
10
T1
4
T3
4.5
4
1
T1
T1
5.0
2
T4
4
T3
2
5.5
1
T1
6.0
1
T4
6
T5
6.5
1
T1
7.0
2
7.5
8.0
2
T3
1
T1
2
T1
T1
9.0
10
1
T1
3
T1
n
25
T12
29
T17
7
T5
HUFFMAN: BAMBATA AND THE SPREAD OF FARMING
69
Fig. 9. Typical farming location of Bambata B pottery: top, Mabveni (note fields in background); bottom,
Buhwa.
70
SOUTHERN AFRICAN HUMANITIES, VOL. 17, 2005
Mabveni
Great Zimbabwe
Fig. 10. Bambata B pottery: top, Mabveni; bottom, Great Zimbabwe. Scale in inches.
71
HUFFMAN: BAMBATA AND THE SPREAD OF FARMING
TABLE 1b
Typical range of thickness (mm) in Bambata B pottery.
(number of sherds per site: Buhwa - 1, Great Zimbabwe - 4, Howmans Ruin - 4, Mabveni - 9)
3.0
3.5
4.0
Rim
Neck
Shoulder
Bowl
4.5
5.0
5.5
1
6.0
1
3
7.0
2
2
8.0
4
2
1
9.0
4
2
2
1
10
3
2
11
1
1
n
15
13
3
1
Bambata B dates
In addition to thickness, there is a slight difference in dating. Bambata B, for instance,
occurred together with Silver Leaves in the same daga structure at Buhwa CB 19
(Huffman 1978, 1994), dating it to between AD 200 and 400. It also occurs with Ziwa
(this is a new identification) in Great Zimbabwe Period I, dating it there to between the
fifth and seventh centuries (Robinson 1961b, c); either under Gokomere at Mabveni,
dating it to between the second and fifth centuries, or with Gokomere, dating it to the
seventh and eighth centuries (Robinson 1961a). From these associations and dates, the
chronology of Bambata B probably ranges from AD 350 to 650.
Great Zimbabwe PI
Mabveni
Mabveni (Gokomere level)
405
140
630–790
(M 913)
(SR 43)
(SR 79, Pta 2105)
650
430
670–700
As an archaeological signature, Bambata B sites do not yet provide evidence for the
full Iron Age package, but it is a reasonable conclusion. First, Bambata B pottery is
unlikely to represent hunter-gatherer/farmer interaction because of the different ranges
of thickness and overlapping dates. Secondly, the concentration of Bambata A sites in
the Matopos, and the number of vessels at Bambata Cave, suggest that Bambata B
villages were close by. And thirdly, the ceramic assemblages suggest that Bambata B
occurred with Silver Leaves at Buhwa CB 19, and vice versa at Buhwa CB 23: this
second site yielded daga, slag and tuyere fragments. Incidentally, Ziwa sites are also
on record along the base of Mt Buhwa (R. Burrett pers comm. 2005), and all three
groups probably wanted to utilise the rich iron ore resources.
Bambata B, then, is best explained in terms of Hypothesis I: it represents the vanguard
of the Iron Age. The dates for the sub-sets of pottery overlap because the different uses
probably continued side by side. Indeed, interaction with hunter-gatherers probably
occurred wherever the farmers lived in southern Africa.
INTERACTION
At this point, we need to consider the status of Gokomere. Gokomere belongs to the
Nkope Branch of UREWE (Fig. 11), differing from the parent facies of Ziwa and Nkope
further north by having a significant proportion of multiple bands in the neck (Huffman
1976, 1989). In contrast to Nkope, all KALUNDU facies have multiple bands; and so,
Ziwa people must have interacted with a Kalundu neighbour. Bambata B occurs at the
same time as Ziwa in south-western Zimbabwe; and so, Bambata villagers are the most
72
SOUTHERN AFRICAN HUMANITIES, VOL. 17, 2005
Fig. 11. Spread of Early Iron Age Traditions into southern Africa.
likely candidates. From this perspective Ziwa potters incorporated some Bambata
features, creating Gokomere in the process.
Gokomere
↑
Bambata + Ziwa
Because Bambata and Gokomere share some types and many motifs, even before the
interaction, it is not always possible to identify the affiliation of small and fragmentary
samples. The Bambata B vessels at Mabveni, for example, could represent either the
early Bambata presence or the later period of incorporation. Either case provides support
for interaction between Bambata and Ziwa people.
73
HUFFMAN: BAMBATA AND THE SPREAD OF FARMING
CERAMIC CHANGE
Further north and west, the derivation of another Early Iron Age facies, Bisoli, is
most likely due to the evolution of Bambata (Table 2, Fig. 12). Early pottery at Bisoli
(Denbow 1984; Denbow & Wilmsen 1986), Domboshaba (Van Waarden 1999, pers.
comm. 2005) and Panga in eastern Botswana, and Merrys site in the Matopos, differ
from Gokomere and Zhizo assemblages in a few notable details, such as rolled rims
with decoration extending onto the lip, parallel broad lines in the neck and broad
decoration on the shoulder (Fig. 13). Many of these Bambata-like features also occur
on Robinson’s (1985) Zhizo A that are especially early sites in the Khami Ruins area.
There are two dated sites in this new facies:
Bisoli
Domboshaba
665–785
875
(Wits 1099, I-12, 708)
(I-13, 746)
770–950
1010
These dates overlap with both Gokomere and Zhizo. Indeed, Bisoli itself is
contemporaneous with the typical Zhizo site of Makuru (Huffman 1973) near Great
Zimbabwe. The ceramic differences between Bisoli and Makuru strengthen the
assignment of Bisoli as a new Early Iron Age facies. Its derivation from Bambata
strengthens Hypothesis I. The full definition of Bisoli and its relationships to other
facies requires further research.
TABLE 2
Bisoli sequence.
1000
1950
1900
1850
1800
1750
1700
1650
1600
1550
1500
1450
1400
1350
1300
1250
1200
1150
1100
______________________
Bisoli
______________________
Bambata B
?
————————
Bambata A
Benfica
DOMESTIC STOCK
This study has concentrated on the stylistic origin and use of Bambata ceramics;
the relationship with domestic stock is a separate issue. On the strength of one
date from Bambata Cave (Walker 1983), many Africanists place the introduction
of small stock and Bambata pottery in the last centuries BC. The Bambata Cave
date is suspect, however, because an older date comes from above the Bambata
lenses (Vogel et al. 1986). Recent AMS dates for domestic animals at Toteng
74
SOUTHERN AFRICAN HUMANITIES, VOL. 17, 2005
?
Fig. 12. Bisoli sequence.
HUFFMAN: BAMBATA AND THE SPREAD OF FARMING
Fig. 13. Bisoli stylistic types.
75
76
SOUTHERN AFRICAN HUMANITIES, VOL. 17, 2005
(Robbins et al. 2005) are early but ambiguous. The new dates place sheep and
cattle at Toteng I about 2000 years ago, and then again in the seventh century, but
in the tenth century at Toteng III:
Bambata Cave
AMS dates
Toteng I (sheep 75–80 cm)
Toteng I (cattle 70–75 cm)
Toteng I (cattle 55–60 cm)
Toteng III (sheep/goat 30–35 cm)
185 BC
(Pta 3072)
35 BC
AD 5
50 BC
AD 615
AD 965
(Beta 186669)
(Beta 1904888)
(Beta 186670)
(Beta 186671)
55
10 BC
640
985
The early dates come from levels below the main concentration of Bambata A pottery
(Bambata lens at Toteng I: 35–60 cm and III: 30–45 cm), while the seventh to tenth
centuries dates come from within it. These dates therefore do not establish a direct
relationship between domestic animals and Bambata A pottery, although they do confirm
the presence of early domestic livestock in north-central Botswana. If these dates are
accurate, and the bones are in situ, then domestic animals and Bambata pottery first
appeared at different times in different places: they do not automatically co-occur.
The origin of the stock is another separate issue. Many Africanists (e.g. Robbins
et al. 2005) believe the Pastoral Neolithic in East Africa was the ultimate source of
both cattle and small stock. While attractive, the ceramic study introduces a parallel
possibility: domestic stock may have moved with Kalundu people from their place
of origin in the proto-Bantu homeland. Significantly, Benfica shares many KALUNDU
traits with Early Iron Age pottery at Kafélé and Oveng (Clist 1992) in Gabon,
including organisational structure (i.e. decoration layout), motifs and motif
combinations (Fig. 14). At Oveng, this pottery dates to between the first and third
centuries AD, and is therefore as early as Benfica. Equally significant, KALUNDU
and UREWE share aspects of structure, motifs and combinations that suggest a CoTradition source compatible with the proto-Bantu homeland in West Africa. If
climatic fluctuations created a tsetse-free corridor some 2000 years ago, Kalundu
farmers could have brought domestic stock with them into southern Africa. This
possibility too, remains a topic for future research.
CONCLUSION
Although special technological features help to identify Bambata pottery, the facies
needs to be defined in terms of multidimensional types. Once defined, Bambata pottery
and the nature of its involvement in the spread of food production require two
explanations for two different archaeological contexts. The style originated among
farming communities, probably Benfica in Angola, but it first spread into south-eastern
Africa with hunter-gatherer groups at about AD 200. The association with domestic
animals, however, was variable both spatially and chronologically. Only later, at about
AD 350, do mixed farmers responsible for the style appear to have been present in
Botswana and Zimbabwe. These people might have purposefully made the pottery thin
for trade to mobile hunter-gatherers. Thus, Hypothesis II explains Bambata A, while
Hypothesis I covers Bambata B. Hypothesis I is further strengthened by the in situ
evolution of Bambata into Bisoli. Hypothesis III, a pastoral ceramic tradition, has no
HUFFMAN: BAMBATA AND THE SPREAD OF FARMING
Fig. 14. Early Iron Age pottery from Kafélé, Gabon. Courtesy B. Clist.
77
78
SOUTHERN AFRICAN HUMANITIES, VOL. 17, 2005
support. Finally, the origin and spread of domestic livestock in southern Africa may
also require more than one explanation.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I thank Bernard Clist for the drawings used in Figure 14. Wendy Voorvelt compiled
the map and completed the pot drawings. Karim Sadr made useful comments from an
alternate perspective.
REFERENCES
ARNOLD, G. & JONES, N. 1919. Notes on the Bushman Cave at Bambata, Matopos. Proceedings Rhodesia
Scientific Association 17 (1): 5–21.
BOLLONG, C. A. & SAMPSON, C. G. 1999. Later Stone Age herder-hunter interactions reflected in ceramic
distributions in the upper Seacow River valley. South African Journal of Science 95: 171–80.
CAMPBELL, A. C. 1992. Southern Okavango integrated water development study. Archaeological Survey of
proposed Maun Reservoir. Report on file, Department of Water Affairs, Gaborone.
CLIST, B. 1992. Interm report of the Oveng archaeological site 1991 excavations, Estuaire Province, Gabon.
Nsi 10/11: 28–35.
COOKE, C. K. 1963. Excavations in Pomongwe and Tshangula Cave, Matopo Hills, Southern Rhodesia.
South African Archaeological Bulletin 18: 73–151.
––––––1970. Archaeological report. Rhodesian Schools Exploration Society, 20th Expedition: Chibi,
Bulawayo, pp. 12–14.
DENBOW, J. R. 1984. Prehistoric herders and foragers of the Kalahari; the evidence for 1500 years of interaction.
In: Schrire. C., ed., Past and present in hunter gatherer studies. Orlando: Academic Press,
pp. 175–93.
DENBOW, J. & CAMPBELL, A. C. 1980. National Museum of Botswana, archaeological research programme.
Nyame Akuma November: 3–9.
–––––– 1986. The early stages of food production in southern Africa and some potential linguistic correlations.
Sprache und Geschichte in Afrika 7 (1): 83–103.
DENBOW, J. R. & WILMSEN, E. N. 1986. Advent and course of pastoralism in the Kalahari. Science 234:
1509–15.
DE SOUSA MARTINS, R. 1976. A estacao arquelogica da antiga Banza Quibaxe: Dembos-Angola. Contribuicoes
para o Esrudo da Antropologia Portuguesa 9 (4): 244–306.
DOS SANTOS JR, J. R. & ERVEDOSA, C. M. N. 1970. A estacao arqueologica de Benfica (Luanda-Angola).
Ciecias Biologicas (Luanda) 1 (1): 31–51.
HAMMOND-TOOKE, W. D., ed. 1974. The Bantu-speaking peoples of southern Africa. London: Routledge &
Kegan Paul.
HUFFMAN, T. N. 1973. Test excavations at Makuru, Rhodesia. Arnoldia (Rhodesia) 5 (39): 1–21.
––––––1976. Gokomere pottery from the Tunnel Site, Gokomere Mission. South African Archaeological
Bulletin 31: 31–53.
––––––1978. The Iron Age of the Buhwa district, Rhodesia. Occasional Papers National Museums and
Monuments of Rhodesia A4 (3): 81–100.
––––––1980. Ceramics, classification and Iron Age entities. African Studies 39 (2): 123–74.
––––––1989. Iron Age migrations: The ceramic sequence in southern Zambia, excavations at Gundu and
Ndonde. Johannesburg: Witwatersrand University Press.
––––––1994. Toteng pottery and the origins of Bambata. Southern African Field Archaeology 3: 3–9.
LINDAHL, A. & MATENGA, E. 1995. Present and past: ceramics and homesteads. An ethnoarchaeological
project in the Buhera district, Zimbabwe. (Studies in African Archaeology 11). Uppsala:
Department of Archaeology, Uppsala University.
MITCHELL, P. 2002. The archaeology of southern Africa. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
PHILLIPSON, D. W. 1985. African archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
REID A., SADR, K. & HANSON-JAMES, N. 1998. Herding traditions. In: Lane, P., Reid, A. & Segobye, A., eds,
Ditswa Mmung: The archaeology of Botswana. Gaborone: Pula Press and the Botswana Society,
pp. 81–100.
ROBBINS, L. H. 1985 The Manyana rock painting site. Botswana Note and Records 17: 1–14.
ROBBINS, L. H., CAMPBELL, A. C., MURPHY, M. L., BROOK, G. A., SRIVASTAVA, P. & BADENHORST, S. 2005. The
advent of herding in southern Africa: Early AMS dates on domestic livestock from the Kalahari
Desert. Current Anthropology 46: 671–7.
HUFFMAN: BAMBATA AND THE SPREAD OF FARMING
79
ROBBINS, L. H., MURPHY, M. L., CAMPBELL, A. C., BROOK, G. A., REID, D. M., HABERYAN, K. A. & DOWNEY,
W. S. 1998. Test excavations and reconnaissance palaeoenvironmental work at Toteng, Botswana.
South African Archaeological Bulletin 53: 125–32.
ROBINSON, K. R. 1961a. An Early Iron Age site from the Chibi District, Southern Rhodesia. South African
Archaeological Bulletin 16: 95–102.
––––––1961b. Excavations on the Acropolis Hill. Occasional Papers National Museum of Southern Rhodesia
3A: 159–92.
––––––1961c. Zimbabwe pottery. Occasional Papers National Museum of Southern Rhodesia 3A:
193–226.
––––––1964. Dombozanga Rock Shelter, Mtetengwe River Beit Bridge, Southern Rhodesia, excavation
results. Arnoldia (Rhodesia) 1 (7): 1–14.
––––––1966. Bambata ware; its position in the Rhodesian Iron Age in the light of recent evidence. South
African Archaeological Bulletin 21: 81–5.
––––––1985. Dated Iron Age sites from the upper Umguza Valley 1982: their possible implications. South
African Archaeological Bulletin 40: 17–38.
SADR, K. 2003. The Neolithic of South Africa. Journal of African History 44: 195–209.
SADR, K. & SMITH, A. B. 1991. On ceramic variation in the southwestern Cape, South Africa. South African
Archaeological Bulletin 46: 107–15.
SAMPSON, C. G. 1988. Stylistic boundaries among mobile hunter-foragers. Washington DC: Smithsonian
Institution Press.
SAMPSON, C. G. & SADR, K. 1999. On the size and shape of Later Stone Age fibre-tempered vessels from the
upper Seacow River valley. Southern African Field Archaeology 8: 3–16.
SCHOFIELD, J. F. 1941. A report on the pottery from Bambata Cave. South African Journal of Science 37:
361–72.
SMITH, A. B., SADR, K., GRIBBLE, J. & YATES, R. 1991. Excavations in the south-western Cape, South Africa,
and the archaeological identity of prehistoric hunter-gathers within the last 2000 years. South
African Archaeological Bulletin 46: 71–91.
SUMMERS, R. 1961. The Southern Rhodesian Iron Age. Journal of African History II: 1–13.
VAN WAARDEN, C. 1999. The prehistory and archaeology of Botswana: an annotated bibliography. Gaborone:
The Botswana Society.
VOGEL, J. C., FULS, A. & VISSER, E. 1986. Radiocarbon fluctuations during the Third Millennium BC.
Radiocarbon 28 (2B): 935–8.
VOGEL, J. C., TALMA, A. S., FULS, A., FISSER, E. & BECKER, B. 1993. Pretoria calibration curve for short lived
samples, 1930–3350 BC. Radiocarbon 35 (1): 73–86.
WADLEY, L. 1987. Later Stone Age hunters and gatherers of the southern Transvaal. Cambridge Monographs
in African Archaeology 25. Oxford: BAR International Series 380.
WALKER, N. J. 1983. The significance of an early date for pottery and sheep in Zimbabwe. South African
Archaeological Bulletin 38: 88–92.
––––––1994. The Later Stone Age of Botswana: some recent excavations. Botswana Notes and Records 26:
1–35.
80
SOUTHERN AFRICAN HUMANITIES, VOL. 17, 2005