South African Archaeological Bulletin 68 (197): 63–71, 2013 63

Field and Technical Report

A PRELIMINARY REPORT ON FIELDWORK IN THE NORTHERNTULI GAME RESERVE, NORTHEASTERN BOTSWANA

TIM FORSSMANSt. Hugh’s College, University of Oxford, OX2 6LE, United Kingdom

E-mail: tim.forssman@gmail.com

(Received July 2012. Revised February 2013)

INTRODUCTIONThere has been a great deal of archaeological research

conducted on the Greater Mapungubwe Landscape, an areawhich includes northern South Africa, northeastern Botswanaand southwestern Zimbabwe (Fig. 1). Most of this research hasbeen conducted on the South African side of the border(Fouché 1937; Hanisch 1980, 1981a; Eastwood & Cnoops 1999;Calabrese 2000a,b; Hall & Smith 2000; Huffman 2000, 2007,2008, 2009; Wood 2000; Kuman et al. 2005; Van Doornum 2005,2007, 2008; Eastwood & Eastwood 2006; Schoeman 2006;Kempson 2007; Forssman 2010). Immediately to the north ofthe Limpopo River, in Botswana and Zimbabwe, little work hasbeen conducted even though a number of sites have beenidentified (see Huffman 2008). Zimbabwe has seen somestudies focusing on the agricultural sequence (e.g. Robinson1966; Garlake 1967; Manyanga et al. 2000; Manyanga 2006) andexcavations have been performed at a small number ofLSA sites (e.g. Robinson 1964; Cooke & Simons 1969; Walker &Thorp 1997; Thorp 2010). The least studied part of this land-scape is in Botswana where only a few excavations at agricul-turalist homesteads (Van Waarden 1979, 1980; Voigt & Plug1981; Kinahan et al. 1998; Kinahan 2000; Mosothwane 2011) anda single LSA excavation (Walker 1994) have been reported. TheGreater Mapungubwe Landscape witnessed significant culturalchanges between AD 900 and 1300 leading to the apparentdisappearance of the indigenous foraging culture (VanDoornum 2005: 196) and the formation of complex agro-pastoralstate societies (Huffman 2000). In this paper recent findingsfrom a large project in the Northern Tuli Game Reserve,Botswana (Fig. 2) are presented in order to demonstrate therich archaeology of the region and contribute to our under-standing of the local prehistory.

BACKGROUND

LOCAL ENVIRONMENTNorthern Tuli is a 72 000 ha game reserve most of which is

located between the Motloutse and Shashe Rivers in northeasternBotswana. Its southern and northeastern boundaries arethe international borders with South Africa and Zimbabwe,respectively. The area is composed primarily of undulatingbasalt ridges except along the Limpopo and Motloutse Riverswhere shear deformation along the Limpopo Mobile Belt (Mc-Carthy & Rubridge 2005: 37) has exposed the underlyingClarens Sandstone Complex and formed koppies and sand-stone ridges (Le Baron et al. 2010). Dense stands of Mopane tree(Colophospermum mopane) dominate the local vegetation withvachellia (previously known as acacia) shrubland in flood-plains and on disturbed land (Alexander 1984). The northernbasalt zone is only broken by the Pitsani, Njaswe and MojaleRivers along which fertile floodplains can be found in certainareas. Along the river networks are riverine forests comprisingmostly Croton spp., apple-leaf (Lonchocarpus capassa), nyala

tree (Xanthecercis zambesiaca) and vachellia. The area is charac-teristically hot and dry with an average maximum temperatureof around 32°C in summer and 22°C during winter (Hanisch1981b) and an average rainfall of between 320 and 350 mm perannum (Huffman 2008).

PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCHThere have been a number of surveys conducted in Northern

Tuli, but most of these findings remain unpublished. The bulkof the surveying was performed by Grant Hall during hisemployment at the Mashatu Game Reserve. From his work heproduced an unpublished report (G. Hall 2003) in which hediscusses the Mmamagwa complex, 46 agriculturalist home-steads that he was able to identify which include Zhizo, K2,Mapungubwe, Khami and Venda period sites (Table 1), and aglass bead assemblage collected from the Mmamagwa complex

FIG. 1. The Greater Mapungubwe Landscape and sites mentioned in the text.

FIG. 2. Location of Northern Tuli.

and analysed by Marilee Wood (2005). There have been twoadditional surveys conducted by Ed Eastwood along theMotloutse River and by Cynthia Mooketsi (2009) in the westernportion of Mashatu near to the Mmamagwa complex.

In addition to the surveys there have been a few excava-tions. The earliest of these was Van Waarden’s (1979, 1980)excavations at Leeukop as part of a project sponsored by TrentUniversity. The site is about 1.6 km northwest of Mmamagwaand was occupied by agriculturalists during the 19th centurywith a possible early 17th century component and may havebeen used as a rain-control site. Over 40 pole and daga struc-tures were found along with several middens and a large as-semblage of ceramics, beads and a number of human burials.Commando Kop, which is situated approximately 22 km north-east of Leeukop and along the Pitsani River, was excavated aspart of the same project (Voigt & Plug 1981). The site has aprimary Zhizo occupation with 11 associated human burialsbut also has Leopard Kopje ceramics. During the Second Anglo-Boer War the site was used as a canon station (Huffman 2012)because of its elevated position on Pitsani Hill overlookingBryce’s store 2 km south along the river where an intense battleoccurred in 1899 (Hickman 1972). Fortunately, the temporarywar-time use of Pitsani Hill did not damage the site signifi-cantly (Voigt & Plug 1981).

More recently Nick Walker (1994) excavated Tuli Lodge andMorongwa Mosothwane (2011) Cut Line Rock, both near theLimpopo River. Mosothwane’s (2011) excavation in 2008 waslimited to the removal of a naturally mummified human bodylater found to be a male between the ages of 40 and 60 years.The remains were removed from a homestead that containsKhami ceramics and was likely occupied between AD 1400and 1800. At Tuli Lodge Nick Walker (1994) excavated two 1 ×1 m squares to a depth of 30 cm and recovered 14 379 lithicswhich include 4912 chips (34.16%) and 441 formal tools (4.66%).He noted a decline of backed pieces relative to scrapers inupper levels. The assemblage also included Bambata sherdsand what Walker (1994) calls Mapungubwe/Zimbabwe ware aswell as large amounts of copper slag.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEYSurveying for archaeological sites is the primary phase of

any archaeological work (Tartaron 2003), and the inspectionand identification of sites is an integral step before any excava-tion (Wandsnider & Camilli 1992). Some scholars have evensuggested that surveying is more important than excavating(Alcock & Cherry 2004) but it is not without its limitations(Lewarch & O’Brien 1981; Sullivan et al. 2007), which if nottaken into consideration, have the potential to distort results.These limitations can include vegetation cover (Foley 1981),survey procedures (Cherry et al. 1988), substrate type (Shennan1985), site identification (Fish & Kowalewski 1990; Orton 2007)and the distance between the surveyor and the artefact as well

as the artefact’s size and colour (Banning et al. 2006). This hasled some researchers to question the quality of data producedby archaeological surveys (Cowgill 1989) and ask what in factthese finds actually represent (Wandsnider & Camilli 1992).Most researchers, however, do agree that many of the issuessurrounding an archaeological survey can be overcome by awell-structured survey technique (Sampson 1985) and thereare a number of techniques that a surveyor can choose from.Google Earth has been used to plot stone-walled settlementsand to identify their different architectural styles (Sadr &Rodier 2012) as well as aerial photography to identify agricul-turalist homesteads (Denbow 1984). Chemical analysis of soilssuch as phosphate testing (Wells et al. 2000) is also a usefultechnique as is the use of test pits (Nance & Ball 1986) to identifyareas of human activity that are not visible on the surface. How-ever, foot surveying is argued as the best technique for anyarchaeological survey (Foley 1981; Reid & Segobye 2000). Thereare a number of ways that a foot survey can be undertaken andincludes surveying vegetation or geological zones (Sampson1985; Lane 1996), specific features of the landscape such askoppies (Forssman 2010) or walking in transects (Bintliff &Snodgrass 1988).

SURVEY METHODTwo survey techniques were used in this project: foot and

vehicle surveys. Not all of Northern Tuli was surveyed due toits size and the project’s time constraints. Only Tuli SafariLodge (2143 ha) and Uitspan South (794 ha) were surveyedcompletely on foot with the northern portion of Tuli surveyedin a vehicle. The Mashatu Game Reserve (25 018 ha) was alsosurveyed but not in its entirety. Mashatu was divided up into1 × 1 minute squares using a 1:50 000 topographic map (Fig. 3).In each square terrain ruggedness (as indicated by the totallength of contour lines), hill ranges, the dominant geology andsoil type, the number of koppies, known sites and possible siteswere recorded. Based on the presence, absence and combina-tion of these attributes certain squares were selected for footsurveying. The intention was to cover not only areas wheresites were known or expected to occur but also a representativesample of the different ecological zones. The area aroundMmamagwa was completely surveyed in order to gain a betterunderstanding of site distribution around this importantfarmer site and to test whether there is a greater density offorager sites from within the last 2000 years around theMmamagwa settlement (see Reid & Segobye 2000). Figure 4presents a map of the foot and vehicle surveys.

64 South African Archaeological Bulletin 68 (197): 63–71, 2013

TABLE 1. Chronology of major ceramic facies found in the area.

Ceramic facies Date (AD) Reference

Happy Rest 350–600 Hanisch 1981aZhizo 750–1050 Calabrese 2000aLeokwe 1050–1220 Calabrese 2000aToutswe 1050–1300 Huffman 2007: 151K2 1000–1200 Huffman 2007: 279Transitional K2 1200–1250 Huffman 2007: 279Mapungubwe 1250–1300 Calabrese 2000bIcon 1350–1400 Huffman 2010Khami 1400–1800 Huffman 2012Venda (Letaba) 1600 until present Loubser 1991

FIG. 3. The 1 × 1 minute grid placed over Mashatu also includes Tuli andUitspan.

South African Archaeological Bulletin 68 (197): 63–71, 2013 65

SITE DEFINITION AND RECORDINGAmong other reasons, survey data needs to be recorded so

as to inform future decisions on which sites are to be excavated(Foley 1981). Important information to record includes siteposition, the condition of the site and deposit, the approximatedepth of the deposit, a list of artefact types present such asLSA lithics, ceramics or bead types with an estimate of artefactdensity and site size. In parts of Europe, North America andAfrica the concept of a ‘site’ is rejected (Ebert 2001) becausedefining sites in areas with a widespread artefact distribution isnot always possible (Krakker et al. 1983). For this reason somehave instead suggested that archaeology needs to be studiedacross the landscape (Thomas 1975; Foley 1981). The definitionof a site draws on other debates in archaeology including -special purpose sites (Binford 1983) and aggregation anddispersal camps (Wadley 1989), the discussion of which isbeyond the scope of this paper. Modifying the definition ofBevan & Conolly (2004) who refer to any accumulation ofartefacts as a site, I consider sites to be any archaeological pointof interest. While this includes what are traditionally acceptedas sites such as agriculturalist homesteads it also includesdiscrete artefact accumulations like lithic or ceramic scatters,isolated finds of stone tools and rock markings such as mankalagaming boards or grinding hollows. In this survey, a surveycard was developed with the categories GPS coordinates, sitenumber, substrate, soil depth, erosion, location, habitat type,natural features, animal and human activity and archaeologicalfeatures listed. The list of categories has a corresponding list ofconditions which are numbered to simplify the recordingprocess. For example, when recording the category soil depththe conditions and corresponding numbers are: 1 = <5 cm;2 = 5–20 cm 3 = 20–50 cm; 4 = 50–100 cm and 5 = >100 cm.Only the number representing the applicable depth measure-ment is recorded. This technique allows for rapid recording inthe field and a concise, systematic and consistent recordingsystem easily stored in a digital format and manipulated there-after.

FINDINGS

SURVEY RESULTSThe survey revealed 428 archaeological points of interest.

From the findings some interesting points can be made and aresummarised below.

LSA POINTS OF INTERESTLSA artefacts are abundant in Northern Tuli and they are

found in a range of contexts. However, most are of little interest

to archaeologists. For example, of the 186 LSA points of interest30 (16.13%) are at raw material outcrops, which contain a smallnumber of lithics that are scattered over a large area and mixedwith naturally occurring raw material resources. It is not possibleto say when these lithics were produced and for how long thesite was occupied and conducting a full study may prove diffi-cult because of the lack of deposit, mixing of artefacts withnaturally broken nodules and the wide distribution of the lowdensity stone tool scatter.

Many of the LSA points of interest are ephemeral or discretecollections of lithics. Some offered no option for furtherenquiry due to a number of reasons, one of which is erosion; atotal of 51 (27.42%) LSA points of interest were subjected toeither extensive or considerable erosion. There are two reasonswhy erosion is so prevalent on the landscape. First, the area iscovered with aeolian sand, possibly a mantle of the easternpalaeo-Kalahari (Le Baron et al. 2010). When flooding is experi-enced, to which the area is prone (Plug 2000), alluvial actionresults in the removal of the deposit and formation of erosionalgullies. Second, the region was used for intensified local cattleranching during the early part of the 20th century (Mazonde1987) contributing to localised land degradation. Both ofthe factors have contributed to the eroded landscape. At32 (17.20%) LSA points of interest, however, no erosion wasrecorded and the sites appear to be in primary context. Suchephemeral scatters are often overlooked by archaeologists(Orton 2007) and archaeological projects should include themas they may provide us with valuable information on short-term camps.

One might expect that there would be a concentration ofLSA points of interest (including rock art sites) near to majoragriculturalist centres such as has been found elsewhere inBotswana (Reid & Segobye 2000). Figure 5 shows the location ofthe Leokwe Hill and Mmamagwa agriculturalist centres witha 3 km radius buffer zone around each site and the knownLSA points of interest, rock art sites and excavations carried outon the landscape. The density of LSA points aroundMmamagwa is 1.17/km² (n = 33) and 1.03/km² (n = 29) atLeokwe Hill. In the area of Nldulamithi Kraal and ShawuCamp, two sites excavated in this project, the LSA density is2.76/km² (n =78) in the same sized buffer zone. It is clear thatthere is a large amount of forager sites around the agriculturalistcentres but their contemporaneity with the agriculturalistcentres is unknown.

FIG. 4. Foot and vehicle survey tracklogs.

FIG. 5. LSA point density around Leokwe Hill and Mmamagwa within a 3 kmradius: B2, Balerno Shelter 2; B3, Balerno Shelter 3; BMS, Balerno Main Shel-ter; DS, Dzombo Shelter; JS, João Shelter; KC, Kambaku Camp; LMS, LittleMuck Shelter; MS, Mafunyane Shelter; and SC, Shawu Camp.

A number of LSA lithic scatters were also found withinagriculturalist homesteads (n = 32; 17.20%) but withoutexcavations their association cannot be determined. Similaroccurrences have been found in other parts of southern Africawhere the LSA material was associated with the agriculturalisthomestead; for example, in Madikwe in the North West Prov-ince (S. Hall 2000), near Gaborone at Magagarape (Walker1994), at Msuluzi in KwaZulu-Natal (Maggs 1980) and atBaobab, a Zhizo settlement in northern South Africa (Calabrese2005: 84). It has been suggested that foragers moved intoagriculturalist homesteads possibly through marriage (S. Hall2000), labour relations or assimilation (Wadley 1996). The sameshift occurring on the Greater Mapungubwe Landscape mightexplain the apparent disappearance of the foraging record inrockshelter sites around AD 1300 (Van Doornum 2005: 196).There are historical accounts of foragers living with farmers orin permanent homesteads that might indicate assimilation hadoccurred by the mid to late 1800s (see Elton 1872; Dornan 1917).In order to test whether foragers assimilated into farmer society,excavations need to be conducted at homesteads where lithicsoccur.

IRON AGE SETTLEMENTSThe so-called Iron Age of northern South Africa has been

well-studied (for a review see Huffman 2007). In the 2229A mapzone, over 1150 agriculturalist sites have been identifiedthrough surveys carried out by Tom Huffman and his students(Huffman 2012). Almost all of these sites are found in SouthAfrica with 46 located in Northern Tuli. An additional 78 agri-culturalist homesteads, defined by the presence of a single orseveral kraals, were identified during the survey for this project.In addition, 13 homesteads of those identified by G. Hall andHuffman were revisited either because they were located in thesquare being surveyed or found during the vehicle survey.Therefore, 91 homesteads were visited during the survey and atotal of 124 homesteads have been identified on Mashatu, Tuliand Uitspan. At some of the homesteads diagnostic ceramicsherds or glass beads were found and it was possible to identifyin which period the site was occupied (Table 2). The home-steads are situated across the entire survey zone (Fig. 6) andthere does not seem to be a difference in the location of sitesfrom the Middle (AD 900–1300) and Late Iron Age (AD 1300onwards; Fig. 7) periods.

Of particular interest are the larger sites in the survey zonesuch as the Mmamagwa complex. This large political centre hasZhizo, K2, Mapungubwe, Khami and Venda ceramics presentas well as glass beads from the respective periods (see Wood2005). However it has not been studied in detail and little can besaid about the site other than to give a basic description. Twomain ridges occur at the Mmamagwa complex and between

them are a number of kraals. A seasonal stream has erodedthrough the occupation revealing middens, ceramics, beadsand human burials (all recorded while surveying the area andby G. Hall 2003).The main palace is on the eastern koppie andterracing is found at its southeastern base and near to the hill-top in this same area. On top of the hill is an area with grain binfoundations and a number of grinding stones and at the back orthe western edge of the koppie there are at least 15 cupules inthe bedrock. The hill has various terraced areas as well as exten-sive walling with loopholes. Another large walled complex islocated approximately 2.15 km south of Mmamagwa on top ofa koppie. Only undiagnostic ceramics were found here duringthe survey along with a Bohemian glass bead which wasproduced in the 19th century AD (Wood 2005).

A number of homestead clusters were also identified duringthe survey and in different parts of the research area (Fig. 7).North of the Pont Drift border a cluster of eight sites with Iconand Khami ceramics were identified and one with TransitionalK2 (TK2) sherds. At one of the Khami sites walling was foundon a natural terrace south of the main kraal, which may demar-cate a girls’ initiation zone (see Huffman 1984). Further northnear to Ndlulamithi Kraal are three agriculturalist homesteadclusters, situated on the edge of the Mojale and Pitsani Riverfloodplains, and another is located northwest of theMmamagwa complex along the Motloutse River. The reasonwhy homestead clusters exist and whether all of the settle-ments within the cluster are contemporaneous are unknown atthis stage and should be the focus of future research.

66 South African Archaeological Bulletin 68 (197): 63–71, 2013

TABLE 2. Agricultural homesteads identified based on ceramics and glassbeads.

Period Iron Age settlements

Zhizo 7Leokwe 2K2 10Transitional K2 3Mapungubwe 6Icon 1Khami 30Venda 2Unknown 63Total 124

FIG. 6. The distribution of agriculturalist homesteads in the survey zone.Ovals demarcate homestead clusters

FIG. 7. Middle and Later Iron Age homesteads identified during the survey.Circles demarcate homestead clusters.

South African Archaeological Bulletin 68 (197): 63–71, 2013 67

BUSHMAN AND KHOEKHOE ROCK ARTEastwood and colleagues (e.g. Eastwood & Cnoops 1999;

Eastwood & Eastwood 2006) have identified more than150 Bushman rock art sites between the Mapungubwe easternboundary and the confluence of the Motloutse and LimpopoRivers. In Northern Tuli, however, only eight sites have beenidentified with an additional two so-called Khoekhoen herderart sites (Fig. 8) and 25 locations with engraved markings whichinclude mankala boards, grooves, cupules or hollows. TheTuli Block as a whole, which includes Northern Tuli, lacks thedensity of Bushman rock art sites found in South Africa eventhough there are many paintable rock surfaces present (Walker2009). A cursory investigation of the size of the paintable zoneshows that in South Africa, the portion of the sandstone koppiebelt that has been surveyed extends for 40.41 km along theLimpopo River and 9.43 km inland, covering approximately381.01 km2. The sandstone koppie belt within Northern Tuli isless extensive, covering an area of about 71.76 km2 (24.16 km by2.97 km). Therefore, in South Africa there is approximately arock art site every 2.54 km2 (total = 150) and one every 8.97 km2

(total = 8) in Northern Tuli. It is clear that even though NorthernTuli has a smaller area where paintable surfaces occur it has alower density of rock art sites. The relative lack of sites mayindicate cultural differences existing across the Limpopo River,but even so, it would not exclude the possibility of cross-bordertrade, the sharing of ideas, migration and conflict (cf. Flynn1997).

The Bushman rock art tradition in Northern Tuli is similarto rock art in northern South Africa and Zimbabwe (Walker2009; see Eastwood & Eastwood 2006 for an overview).There isalso so-called Khoekhoen herder art on the Greater Mapun-gubwe Landscape (see Eastwood & Smith 2005). Notably,herder art differs in the way images are produced and in thecontent; all are finger painted and are outlined geometricimages (Smith & Ouzman 2004) many of which may representaprons or loin cloths (Eastwood & Smith 2005). There are twoknown sites in Northern Tuli which have so-called herderimages. One site, JB Shelter, is located behind Dzombo Shelterand has paintings similar to what has been identified else-where as aprons (Fig. 9). The only other recording of finger-painted art is at Cut Line Rock and although not mentionedin Mosothwane’s (2011) report it was identified during thesurvey along with a nearby panel of Bushman rock art. Afurther analysis of this is beyond the scope of this paper.

EXCAVATIONSSix excavated sites produced archaeological materials. Each

excavation is briefly described below and Table 3 is a summaryof the findings at each site.

Dzombo Shelter (Fig. 10) is situated about 600 m west of theMmamagwa complex. It is a fairly large (h: 3 m; d: 10 m; w: 8 m)north-facing rockshelter and was excavated because of its deepdeposit (Fig. 11). Two areas of the site were excavated: inside

FIG. 8. Rock art sites in Northern Tuli: Bushman, herder and farmer sites. FIG. 9. A so-called Khoekhoe herder apron motif painted behind DzomboShelter.

TABLE 3. A brief summary of the excavated assemblage at each site: DS, Dzombo Shelter; JS, João Shelter; SC, Shawu Camp; MS, Mafunyane Shelter;KC, Kambaku Camp and NK, Ndlulamithi Kraal.

DS MS JS NK KC SC

Chips 6210 3391 3351 240 66 299Chunks 814 411 454 44 58 197Cores 128 82 88 2 8 33Flakes 738 347 257 1 25 19Broken flakes 3108 1867 1961 22 121 49Formal tools 509 207 138 2 19 17Other 17 44 268 11 48 179

Total 11524 6349 6517 322 345 793

Plain ceramics 199 28 1037 372 559 0Diagnostic ceramics 13 3 80 24 45 0

Total 212 31 1117 396 604 0

Organic beads 86 50 87 13 0 0Glass beads 20 3 150 3 1 0Metal beads 0 1 0 1 0 0

Total 106 54 237 17 1 0

the rock shelter two 1 × 1 m squares were dug (trench 1) and alarge artefact assemblage was recovered, and three squareswere excavated in the outside living area (trench 2). Althoughno radiocarbon dates are currently available, the sequence ofdecorated ceramics and glass beads appears to be consistentwith the dated sequence at farmer sites: in the upper levelsLeopard’s Kopje ceramics, Mapungubwe oblates and K2 beadswere found with Zhizo ceramics and glass beads below these.The data recovered from the site are comparable to Van Door-num’s (2005) findings in South Africa: the lithic assemblage isdominated by crypto-crystalline (CCS) materials with a highfrequency of formal tools (4.16%) and there are few ceramicsherds and glass beads present.

The highest density of artefacts came from MafunyaneShelter (n = 595 lithics/13 l bucket), which elsewhere may benamed Tuli Lodge (the distinction was made since it was notcertain that the shelters were the same because Walker’s [1994]report has no GPS coordinates for the site). On the surface alarge assemblage containing lithics, ceramics and a variety ofbeads was recorded and excavations inside the rockshelterproduced a large array of lithic artefacts including backedbladelets, segments, scrapers and a variety of cores. In total asample of over 6000 lithics was collected in three 50 × 50 cmsquares. Also found were glass beads, various organic beads,ceramics, copper items and a portion of a figurine. Of interest is

the substantial amount of iron and copper slag found in thedeposit.

In excavations at João Shelter (Fig. 12) a fairly large assem-blage of over 6500 lithics (n = 53 lithics/13l bucket) was recov-ered from seven 1 × 1 m squares. The rockshelter itself, wherefour of the squares were excavated, is relatively shallow (h:5 m; d: 4 m; w: 18 m) and is situated along a portion of a largeridge (h: 14 m; l: 55 m) less than 300 m southeast of theMmamagwa complex. Immediately outside the rockshelter isan agriculturalist homestead with K2 decorated ceramicsand K2, Mapungubwe, Indo-Pacific and European glass beads.At the site there are also at least three grainbin foundations,three possible human burials, a midden and stone-wallinginside the rockshelter and along the koppie ridge next to themidden (trench 4). There is also a fine-lined painting of a kuduat the site and an indeterminate antelope. Most of the lithics(n = 5405) came from inside the rockshelter and are dominatedby CCS materials but a lithic assemblage dominated by quartzcame from two squares placed in the homestead at a grainbinfoundation (trench 2) and in the midden (trench 4). Charcoalsamples have been selected for radiocarbon dating to establisha chronology for the rockshelter and homestead.

Ndlulamithi Kraal was excavated to pursue the notion thatforagers may have been living within farmer homesteads. Atthe site K2 and Leokwe decorated pottery was found, andscattered on the surface was an LSA lithic assemblage whichincluded small and medium scrapers. The lithics were found inthe kraal and particularly in the northern portion of the home-stead near the koppie edge where trench 3 is located (Fig. 13).The site also has a possible second kraal (l: 12 m) that is slightlysmaller than the upper kraal (l: 18 m; see Huffman 2009). Theexcavation revealed additional K2 and Leokwe decoratedsherds and ostrich eggshell, bone, land snail, glass and copperbeads. No diagnostic LSA artefacts were found in the excava-tion. However, at Kambaku Camp, a homestead with K2 andKhami decorated ceramics, a small diagnostic LSA assemblagewas recovered from behind the hut zone where a single 1 ×1 msquare was excavated, and from within the kraal in which three1 × 1 m squares were dug. Like Dzombo and João Shelter,Kambaku Camp is in the southwestern sandstone belt not

68 South African Archaeological Bulletin 68 (197): 63–71, 2013

FIG. 10. Dzombo Shelter. Black shapes represent boulders.

FIG. 11. The stratigraphy from trench 1 inside Dzombo Shelter.

FIG. 12. João Shelter.

South African Archaeological Bulletin 68 (197): 63–71, 2013 69

far from the Limpopo River (500 m southeast) and theMmamagwa complex (3 km west). The formal component ofthe lithic assemblage was relatively high (6.81%) whencompared to Dzombo Shelter (4.16%) and Shawu Camp(3.44%) as well as other local excavations (also see VanDoornum 2007, 2008). Of great interest is the relatively lateage estimate of the site and with radiocarbon dates it will bepossible to associate the lithic assemblage with either the K2 orKhami occupation of the homestead.

The smallest excavated site where a single 1.5 × 1 m squarewas dug is Shawu Camp. The site is located on top of a koppiein the northern basalt zone in Mashatu. The koppie issurrounded by a massive CCS outcrop, composed mostly ofagate, and over 90% of the lithic assemblage is made usingCCS materials. The excavated assemblage is fairly small, withless than 1000 artefacts (n = 97 lithics/13l bucket), and no ceramicsor organic material were found.

SUMMARYThis paper has presented an interim report of an archaeo-

logical survey in Northern Tuli, Botswana, near Mapungubwe,K2 and Schroda, as well as excavated LSA sites such as BalernoMain and Little Muck Shelter. The final results will help usbetter understand and interpret the archaeological record onthe Greater Mapungubwe Landscape. Future studies willexpand on the LSA and agricultural sequence in the NorthernTuli and address questions of rock art authorship and variabilityon both sides of the Limpopo River, incorporating this informa-tion into the broader archaeological framework for the region.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSI would like to thank the Palaeontological Scientific Trust

and its Scatterlings of Africa programmes for financial supportand the Mashatu Game Reserve for lodging. All members ofNorthern Tuli must be thanked for their assistance and particu-

larly Pete le Roux, Andrei Snyman, Quentin Fraser-Jones,Francois du Toit, Abraham Ramonwana and Piet vanRensberg. Two anonymous reviewers are thanked for their in-put as well as Karim Sadr and Jill Kinahan for their help withediting and Wendy Voorvelt for the maps and section drawing.All errors are my own.

REFERENCESAlcock, S.E. & Cherry, J.F. 2004. Side-by-Side Survey: Comparative Regional

Studies in the Mediterranean World. Oxford: Oxbow Books.Alexander, G.J. 1984. A preliminary investigation into the relationships

between geology, soils and vegetation in the Eastern Tuli Block,Botswana. Unpublished BSc Honours Research Report. Pieter-maritzburg: University of Natal.

Banning, E.B., Hawkins, A.L. & Stewart, S.T. 2006. Detection functionsfor archaeological survey. American Antiquity 71(4): 723–742.

Bevan, A. & Conolly, J. 2004. GIS, archaeological survey and landscapearchaeology on the island of Kythera, Greece. Journal of Field Archaeol-ogy 29(1/2): 123–138.

Binford, L.R. 1983. In Pursuit of the Past: Decoding the ArchaeologicalRecord. London: Thames & Hudson.

Bintliff, J. & Snodgrass, A. 1988. Off-site pottery distributions: a regionaland interregional perspective. Current Anthropology 29(3): 506–513.

Calabrese, J.A. 2000a. Interregional interaction in southern Africa:Zhizo and Leopard’s Kopje relations in northern South Africa, south-western Zimbabwe and eastern Botswana, AD 1000 to 1200. AfricanArchaeological Review 17(4): 183–210.

Calabrese, J.A. 2000b. Metals, ideology and power: the manufactureand control of materialised ideology in the area of the Limpopo-Shashe confluence, c. AD 900 to 1300. The South African ArchaeologicalSociety Goodwin Series 8: 100–111.

Calabrese, J.A. 2005. Ethnicity, class, and polity: the emergence of socialand political complexity in the Shashi-Limpopo valley of southernAfrica, AD 900 to 1300. Unpublished PhD thesis. Johannesburg:University of the Witwatersrand.

Cherry, J.F., Davis, J.L., Demitrack, A., Mantzourani, E., Strasser, T.F. &Talalay, L.E. 1988. Archaeological survey in an artifact-rich landscape:a Middle Neolithic example from Nemea, Greece. American Journal ofArchaeology 92(2): 159–176.

Cooke, C.K. & Simons, H. 1969. Mpato Shelter: Sentinel Ranch, BeitBridge, Rhodesia: excavation results. Arnoldia (Rhodesia) 4(18): 1–9.

Cowgill, G. 1989. Formal approaches in archaeology. In: Lamberg-Karlovsky, C.C. (ed.) Archaeological Thought in America: 74–88. Cam-bridge: Cambridge University Press.

Denbow, J.R. 1984. Cows and kings: a spatial and economic analysis of ahierarchal Early Iron Age settlement system in eastern Botswana. In:Hall, M., Avery, G., Avery, D.M., Wilson, M.L. & Humphreys, A.J.B.(eds) Frontiers: Southern African Archaeology Today: 24–39. Cambridge:Cambridge Monographs in African Archaeology, BAR InternationalSeries 207.

Dornan, S.S. 1917. The Tati Bushmen (Masarwas) and their language.Journal of the Anthropological Institute 47: 37–112.

Ebert, J.I. 2001.Distributional Archaeology. Salt Lake City: University ofUtah Press.

Eastwood, E.B. & Cnoops, C.J.H. 1999. Capturing the spoor: towardsexplaining kudu in San rock art of the Limpopo-Shashi confluencearea. South African Archaeological Bulletin 54: 107–119.

Eastwood, E.B. & Eastwood, C. 2006. Capturing the Spoor: an Explorationof Southern African Rock Art. Claremont: New Africa Books.

Eastwood, E.B. & Smith, B.W. 2005. Fingerprints of the Khoekhoe:geometric and handprinted rock art in the central Limpopo basin,southern Africa. South African Archaeological Society Goodwin Series 9:63–76.

Elton, F. 1872. Journal of exploration on the Limpopo River. Journal of theRoyal Geographical Society of London 42: 1–49.

Fish, S.K. & Kowalewski, S.A. 1990.The Archaeology of Regions: A Case forFull-Coverage Survey. Washington: Smithsonian Institute Press.

Foley, R. 1981. Off Site Archaeology and Human Adaptation in EasternAfrica. Cambridge: Cambridge Monographs in African Archaeology,BAR International Series 97.

Forssman, T.R. 2010. The Later Stone Age Occupation and Sequence ofthe Mapungubwe Landscape. Unpublished MSc dissertation.Johannesburg: University of the Witwatersrand.

FIG. 13. Ndlulamithi Kraal.

Fouché, L. 1937. Mapungubwe: Ancient Bantu Civilization on the Limpopo.Reports on Excavations at Mapungubwe (Northern Transvaal) fromFebruary 1933 to June 1935. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Flynn, D.K. 1997. ‘We are the border’: identity, exchange, and the Statealong the Bénin-Nigeria Border. American Ethnologist 24(2): 311–330.

Garlake, P.S. 1967. Iron Age archaeology. In: 17th Expedition: Maramani:22–25. Salisbury: Rhodesian Schools Exploration Society.

Hall, G. 2003. A compendium of archaeological sites and artifacts fromMashatu Game Reserve, north eastern Tuli Block, Botswana.Unpub lished report for Mashatu Game Reserve.

Hall, S.L. 2000. Forager lithics and Early Moloko homesteads atMadikwe. Natal Museum Journal of Humanities 12: 33–50.

Hall, S.L. & Smith, B. 2000. Empowering places: rock shelters and ritualcontrol in farmer-forager interactions in the Northern Province. TheSouth African Archaeological Society Goodwin Series 8: 30–46.

Hanisch, E.O.M. 1980. An Archaeological Interpretation of Certain IronAge Sites in the Limpopo/Shashi Valley. Unpublished MSc disserta-tion. Pretoria: University of Pretoria.

Hanisch, E.O.M. 1981a. Schroda: a Zhizo site in the NorthernTransvaal. In: Voigt, E. (ed.) Guide to Archaeological Sites in the Northernand Eastern Transvaal: 37–53. Pretoria: Transvaal Museum.

Hanisch, E.O.M. 1981b. The Northern Transvaal: environment andarchaeology. In: Voigt, E.A. (ed.), Guide to Archaeological Sites In TheNorthern and Eastern Transvaal. Pretoria: Transvaal Museum.

Hickman, A.S. 1972. The fight on Bryce’s store and other incidentsduring the Boer War. Rhodesiana 26: 53–68.

Huffman, T.N. 1984. Expressive space in the Zimbabwe culture. Man19(4): 593–612.

Huffman, T.N. 2000. Mapungubwe and the origins of the Zimbabweculture. The South African Archaeological Society Goodwin Series 8: 14–29.

Huffman, T.N. 2007. Handbook to the Iron Age: the Archaeology ofPre-Colonial Farming Societies in Southern Africa. Pietermaritzburg:University of KwaZulu-Natal Press.

Huffman, T.N. 2008. Climate change during the Iron Age in theShashe-Limpopo Basin, southern Africa. Journal of ArchaeologicalScience 32: 2032–2047.

Huffman, T.N. 2009. Mapungubwe and Great Zimbabwe: the originand spread of social complexity in southern Africa. Journal of Anthro-pological Archaeology 28(1): 37–54.

Huffman, T.N. 2010. Intensive El Niño and the Iron Age of south-eastern Africa. Journal of Archaeological Science 37: 2572–2586.

Huffman, T.N. 2012. Historical archaeology of the Mapungubwe area:Boer, Birwa, Sotho-Tswana and Machete. Southern African Humanities24: 33–59.

Kinahan, J. 2000. Fifteenth century agropastoral responses to adisequilibrial ecosystem in southeastern Botswana. In: Barker, G. &Gilbertson D. (eds) The Archaeology of Drylands: Living at the Margin:233–251. London: Routledge.

Kinahan, J., Kinahan J.H.A. & Van Waarden, C. 1998.The archaeologyand symbolic dimensions of a thirteenth century village in easternBotswana. Southern African Field Archaeology 7(2): 63–71.

Kempson, H. 2007. Late Earlier Stone Age sites in the MapungubweNational Park, South Africa: a Technological Study. UnpublishedMSc dissertation. Johannesburg: University of the Witwatersrand.

Krakker, J.J., Shott, M.J. & Welch, P.D. 1983. Design and evaluation ofshovel-test sampling in regional archaeological survey. Journal of FieldArchaeology 10(4): 469–480.

Kuman, K., Gibbon, R.J., Kempson, H., Langejaans, G., Le Baron, J.C.,Pollarolo, L. & Sutton, M. 2005. Stone Age signatures in northernmostSouth Africa: early archaeology of the Mapungubwe National Parkand vicinity. In: D’Errico, F. & Backwell, L. (eds) From Tools to Symbols,From Early Hominids to Modern Humans: 163–182. Johannesburg:Witwatersrand University Press.

Lane, P.J. 1996. Archaeological survey and excavation in southeastBotswana, 1992. Nyame Akuma 45: 11–23.

Le Baron, J.C., Grab, S.W. & Kuman, K. 2010. Grain-size characteristicsof surface sands and sandstones: indicators of potential sedimentsources for the southern Tuli Basin, South Africa. South AfricanGeographical Journal 92(1): 7–21.

Lewarch, D.E. & O’Brien, M.J. 1981. The expanding role of surfaceassemblages in archaeological research. Advances in ArchaeologicalMethod and Theory 4: 297–342.

Loubser, J.N. 1991. The ethnoarchaeology of Venda-speakers in south-ern Africa. Navorsinge van die Nasionale Museum, Bloemfontein 7(8):145–164.

Maggs, T.M.O’C. 1980. Msuluzi confluence: a seventh century EarlyIron Age site on the Tugela River. Annals of the Natal Museum 24:111–145.

Manyanga, M. 2006. Resilient landscape: socio-environmentaldynamics in the Shashi-Limpopo basin, southern Zimbabwec. AD 800 to the present. Unpublished PhD thesis. Uppsala : UppsalaUniversity.

Manyanga, M., Pikirayi, I. & Ndoro, W. 2000. Coping with drylandenvironments: preliminary results from Mapungubwe and Zimba-bwe phase sites in the Mateke Hills, south-eastern Zimbabwe. TheSouth African Archaeological Society Goodwin Series 8: 69–77.

Mazonde, I.N. 1987. The development of ranching and economicenterprise in eastern Botswana. Unpublished PhD thesis. Manches-ter: University of Manchester.

McCarthy, T. & Rubidge, B. 2005. The Story of Earth and Life: a SouthernAfrican Perspective on a 4.6-Billion-Year Journey. Cape Town: Struik.

Mooketsi, C.O. 2009. Archaeological surveys in the Shashi-LimpopoBasin, eastern Botswana. In: Pwiti, G., Radimilahy, C. & Macamo, S.(eds) Dimensions of African Archaeology: 8–18. Dar es Salaam: E & DVision Publishing Limited.

Mosothwane, M. 2011. The Tuli mummy: a preliminary report fromnortheastern Botswana. South African Archaeological Bulletin 66(194):157–160.

Nance, J.D. & Ball, B.F. 1986. No surprises? The reliability and validity oftest pit sampling. American Antiquity 51(3): 457–483.

Orton, J. 2007. The sampling of ephemeral shell scatters inNamaqualand, South Africa. South African Archaeological Bulletin62(185): 74–78.

Plug, I. 2000. Overview of Iron Age fauna from the Limpopo Valley.South African Archaeological Society Goodwin Series 8: 117–126.

Reid, A. & Segobye, A. 2000. Politics, society and trade on the easternmargins of the Kalahari. South African Archaeological Society GoodwinSeries 8: 58–68.

Robinson, K.R. 1964. Dombozanga Rock Shelter, Mtetengwe River, BeitBridge, southern Rhodesia: excavation results. Arnoldia (Rhodesia)1(17): 50–51.

Robinson, K.R. 1966. The Leopard’s Kopje culture, its position in theIron Age of southern Rhodesia. South African Archaeological Bulletin21: 5–51.

Sadr, K. & Rodier, X. 2012. Google Earth, GIS and stone-walled struc-tures in southern Gauteng, South Africa. Journal of ArchaeologicalScience 39: 1034–1042.

Sampson, C.G. 1985. Atlas of Stone Age Settlement in the Central and UpperSeacow Valley. Bloemfontein: National Museum.

Schoeman, M.H. 2006. Clouding power? Rain-control, space, land-scapes and ideology in Shashe-Limpopo state formation. Unpub-lished PhD thesis. Johannesburg: University of the Witwatersrand.

Shennan, S.J. 1985. Experiments in the Collection and Analysis of Archaeo-logical Survey Data: the East Hampshire Survey. New York: AcademicPress.

Smith, B.W. & Ouzman, S. 2004. Taking stock: identifying Khoekhoenherder rock art in southern Africa. Current Anthropology 45(4):499–526.

Sullivan III, A.P., Mink II, P.B. & Uphus, P.M. 2007. Archaeologicalsurvey design, units of observation, and the characterization ofregional variability. American Antiquity 72(2): 322–333.

Tartaron, T.F. 2003. The Archaeological Survey: sampling strategies andfield methods. Hesperia Supplements 32: 23–45.

Thorp, C. 2010. Induna Cave, southwestern Zimbabwe: a ‘contactperiod’ assemblage in a changing social landscape. Southern AfricanHumanities 22: 113–147.

Thomas, D.H. 1975. Nonsite sampling in archaeology: up the creekwithout a site? In: Mueller, W.J. (ed.) Sampling in Archaeology: 61–81.Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

Van Doornum, B.L. 2005. Changing places, spaces and identity in theShashe-Limpopo region of Limpopo Province, South Africa. Unpub-lished PhD thesis. Johannesburg: University of the Witwatersrand.

Van Doornum, B.L. 2007. Tshisiku Shelter and the Shashe-Limpopoconfluence area hunter-gatherer sequence. Southern African Human-ities 19: 17–67.

Van Doornum, B.L. 2008. Sheltered from change: hunter-gathereroccupation of Balerno Main Shelter, Shashe-Limpopo confluencearea, South Africa. Southern African Humanities 20: 249–284.

Van Waarden, C. 1979. Archaeological investigation of Leeukop: afunctional approach. Botswana Notes and Records 12: 151–164.

70 South African Archaeological Bulletin 68 (197): 63–71, 2013

South African Archaeological Bulletin 68 (197): 63–71, 2013 71

Van Waarden, C. 1980. Leeukop: a functional analysis of a refugeeperiod settlement in eastern Botswana. Unpublished MA thesis.Peterborough: Trent University.

Voigt, E.A. & Plug, I. 1981. Early Iron Age Herders of the Limpopo Valley.Pretoria: Transvaal Museum.

Wadley, L. 1989. Legacies from the Later Stone Age. The South AfricanSociety Goodwin Series 6: 42–53.

Wadley, L. 1996. Changes in the social relations of precolonialhunter-gatherers after agropastoralist contact: an example from theMagaliesberg, South Africa. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 15:205–217.

Walker, N.J. 1994. The Late Stone Age of Botswana: some recent excava-tions. Botswana Notes and Records 26: 1–35.

Walker, N.J. 2009. Test excavation at Lepokole Cave, eastern Botswana.Botswana Notes and Records 41: 17–24.

Walker, N.J. & Thorp, C. 1997. Stone Age Archaeology in Zimbabwe. In:

Pwiti, G. (ed.) Caves, Monuments and Texts: Zimbabwean ArchaeologyToday: 9–32. Studies in African Archaeology 14. Uppsala: UppsalaUniversity.

Wandsnider, L. & Camilli, E.L. 1992. The character of surface archaeo-logical deposits and its influence on survey accuracy. Journal of FieldArchaeology 19(2): 169–188.

Wells, E.C., Terry, R.E., Parnell, J.J., Hardin, P.J., Jackson, M.W. &Houton, S.D. 2000. Chemical analysis of ancient anthrosols in resi-dential areas at Piedras Negras, Guatamala. Journal of ArchaeologicalScience 27: 449–462.

Wood, M. 2000. Making connections: relationships between interna-tional trade and glass beads from the Shashe-Limpopo area. TheSouth African Archaeological Society Goodwin Series 8: 47–50.

Wood, M. 2005. Glass beads and pre-European trade in theShashe-Limpopo region. Unpublished MSc dissertation. Johannes-burg: University of the Witwatersrand.