Interregional Interaction in Southern Africa: Zhizo and Leopard's Kopje Relations in Northern South Africa, Southwestern Zimbabwe, and Eastern Botswana, AD 1000 to 1200

P1: FMV/LZX P2: FLF/LZX QC: FOM

African Archaeological Review [aar] PP040-293003 January 4, 2001 9:48 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999

African Archaeological Review, Vol. 17, No. 4, 2000

Interregional Interaction in Southern Africa: Zhizoand Leopard’s Kopje Relations in Northern SouthAfrica, Southwestern Zimbabwe, and EasternBotswana, AD 1000 to 1200

John A. Calabrese1

The dominant model of relations between Zhizo- and Leopard’s Kopje-ceramicusing groups in northern South Africa, southwestern Zimbabwe, and easternBotswana between AD 1000 and 1300 has been one of hostile invasion by Leopard’sKopje groups, who are thought to have forced Zhizo groups into eastern Botswana(Huffman, 1978, 1986a, 1996). Leopard’s Kopje groups are thereupon thought tohave set about the process of nascent state formation in the absence of any signif-icant contact, other than violence or intermittent intermarriage (Denbow, 1982,1983, 1986; Huffman, 1986a, 1996), with their Zhizo (i.e., Toutswe) neighborsto the west. More recently, Denbow (1990) has modified his position to includetrade in exotic goods as a regular feature of Leopard’s Kopje–Zhizo relations.Radiocarbon and ceramic data from the Iron Age site Leokwe Hill, in combinationwith the available ceramic data and a reanalysis of the ceramics from the siteSchroda, indicate that current interpretations of the relations between Zhizo andLeopard’s Kopje groups need to be reconsidered. New hypotheses are presentedthat posit that the nature and intensity of interaction between these groups wasmore far-reaching than is currently thought.

Le modele dominant des relations entre les groupes qui ont utilises les ceramiquesZhizo et ceux qui ont utilises celles de Leopard’s Kopje dans le nord de l’Afriquedu Sud, sud-est du Zimbabwe et l’est du Botswana entre AD 1000 et 1300, aetel’invasion hostile par les groupes de Leopard’s Kopje, qui, l’on pense avoir force lesgroupes Zhizo dans l’est du Botswana (Huffman, 1978, 1986a, 1996). Les groupesde Leopard’s Kopje sont penses avoir etabli le procede de l’etat de formation(nascent) en l’absence de tous contacts significatifis, autre que la violence ou des

1Sashi-Limpopo Archaeological Project, Department of Archaeology, University of the Witwatersrand,Private Bag 3, PO WITS 2050, South Africa; e-mail: [email protected].

183

0263-0338/00/1200-0183$18.00/0C© 2000 Plenum Publishing Corporation



184 Calabrese

mariages consanguins intermittents (Denbow, 1982, 1983, 1986; Huffman, 1986a,1996), avec leur Zhizo (c.a.d. Toutwse) voisinsa l’ouest. Recemment, Denbow(1990) a modifie sa position pour inclure le commerce des produits exotics commeune caracteristique reguliere des relations entre Leopard’s Kopje et Zhizo. Leradiocarbonne et les donnees en ceramique du site de l’age de fer Leokwe Hill,en combinaison avec les donnees de ceramiques disponibles et une re-analysedes ceramiques du site Schroda, indiquent que les interpretations des relationsentre Zhizo et les groupes de Leopard’s Kopje doiventetre reconsiderees. Desnouvelles hypotheses sont presentees qui proposent que la nature et l’intensite desinteractions entre ses groupesetaient d’une portee bien plus grande que nous lepensons actuellement.

KEY WORDS: interaction; complexity; southern Africa; Iron Age; Zhizo; Leopard’s Kopje.

INTRODUCTION

The rise of the first complex sociopolitical systems in southern Africa oc-curred between the eleventh and thirteenth centuries in both the areas of theShashi–Limpopo confluence in South Africa and in the Central District of easternBotswana. In South Africa, the first system is best known from the Leopard’s Kopjesites of K2 and Mapungubwe (Eloff and Meyer, 1981; Fouché, 1937; Gardner,1963; Garlake, 1973; Huffman, 1982, 1984, 1986a,b, 1996). The growth of com-plexity at these sites has been linked to control over wealth generated from partic-ipation in the Indian Ocean trade network (Garlake, 1973; Huffman, 1982, 1984,1986a,b, 1996). In Botswana, the first complex system is best known from the lateZhizo site of Toutswe (Denbow, 1982, 1983, 1986, 1990). The rise of complexityat Toutswe and related sites has been attributed to their control over increasedwealth in cattle, and the need to defend it from Leopard’s Kopje groups near theShashi–Limpopo confluence (Denbow, 1986; Huffman, 1986a, 1996). The riseand decline of both of these systems were roughly contemporaneous, and bothsocieties were geographically contiguous (Fig. 1). Relations between Leopard’sKopje and Toutswe groups during this period have been viewed as essentially hos-tile (Huffman, 1986a, 1996), or limited to the exchange of wives (Denbow, 1982),or a mixture of the two (Denbow, 1983, 1986). More recently, Denbow (1990)has posited a two-way system of exchange between these neighbors, with ivory,cattle, and skins from Toutswe being traded to K2 and Mapungubwe for exoticgoods.

Radiocarbon and ceramic data from the Iron Age site Leokwe Hill, locatednear the Shashi–Limpopo confluence in South Africa, in combination with avail-able ceramic data and a reanalysis of the ceramics from the Zhizo site Schroda,indicate that the current interpretations of the relations between eastern Botswanaand the area of the Shashi–Limpopo confluence in South Africa from the elevenththrough thirteenth centuries need to be reconsidered. Following this reassessment,new hypotheses are presented that posit that the nature and intensity of interaction



Interregional Interaction in Southern Africa 185

Fig. 1. Map showing the location of some of the sites mentioned in the text.

between these areas was more far-reaching than is currently thought. Before pre-senting the data and analysis, however, a brief discussion of current interpretationsof the relevant Iron Age archaeology from southwestern Zimbabwe, northern SouthAfrica, and the Central District of eastern Botswana is provided.

BACKGROUND

Southwestern Zimbabwe

The Leopard’s Kopje culture was first identified by Robinson (1966) in thearea around Bulawayo in southwestern Zimbabwe. Robinson divided Leopard’sKopje ceramics into three stylistically continuous phases. The earliest phase wascharacterized by single and multiple lines or bands of comb- or dentate-stampingon the necks and shoulders of jars, whereas the later phases were dominated byincised arcades and triangles on the neck and lower neck/shoulder areas of jars.

Huffman (1974) reinterpreted Robinson’s ceramic analysis and divided theearly comb-stamped assemblages from the later, predominantly incised, wares.The earlier wares, dated between AD 800 and 1000, known as Zhizo, were placedby Huffman within the Gokomere Tradition. The later, predominantly incised,



186 Calabrese

assemblages, still called Leopard’s Kopje, dated between AD 1000 and 1200,were placed into the Kutama Tradition. The Kutama Tradition includes Gumanye,Harare, Klingbeil, and Eiland wares (Huffman, 1978, 1982, 1989). Interactionsbetween the users of these two, now distinct, styles were viewed by Huffman asessentially hostile, with Leopard’s Kopje ceramics rapidly driving Zhizo waresand, by extension, peoples into eastern Botswana around AD 1000 (Huffman,1986a, 1996; cf. Denbow, 1983).

Robinson (1985) accepted Huffman’s typological separation of Zhizo fromLeopard’s Kopje, but argued that design elements and techniques shared betweenthe two were indicative of some undetermined level of contact and interaction. Insupport of this argument, Robinson noted that Zhizo could be divided into twophases, (a) and (b), with Zhizo (a) wares comprising “pure” Gokomere ceramics,and Zhizo (b) having shared elements with early Leopard’s Kopje assemblages.

Shashi–Limpopo Confluence, South Africa

Evidence for the Zhizo occupation of the Shashi–Limpopo area comes fromthe early tenth through the early eleventh century sites of Schroda and Pont Drif(Hanisch, 1980, 1981; Fig. 2). The period of Zhizo occupation was of considerable

Fig. 2. Map of the Shashi–Limpopo confluence, showing some of the sites mentioned in the text.




importance to the development of coastal–interior trading contacts in the interior ofsouthern Africa and thus with the articulation of the area with the Arab-dominatedIndian Ocean trade network. The earliest archaeological evidence for relativelylarge-scale coastal trading contacts with the interior of southern Africa recoveredthus far consists of glass trade beads from Schroda. The available evidence indicatesthat glass beads, and possibly cloth, were exchanged for elephant ivory and animalpelts.

Huffman (1978, 1986a, 1996) and Denbow (1983) have argued that Zhizopeoples were driven out of the Shashi–Limpopo area and southwestern Zimbabwearound AD 1000 by Leopard’s Kopje groups who migrated into the region fromthe southeast (Huffman, 1978). In the Shashi–Limpopo area, Huffman (1978) hasreferred to this putative population replacement as “an 11th century difaqane.”

Leopard’s Kopje ceramics in the Shashi–Limpopo region are represented bytwo diachronic phases, A and B, which are best recognized, respectively, by theceramics from the sites of K2 and Mapungubwe (Huffman, 1974). Leopard’s KopjeA (hereafter referred to as K2) settlements abound in the Shashi–Limpopo region.The relative paucity of archaeological reconnaissance, excavation, and publicationof research results in the area, however, severely limits our ability to provide a clearpicture of the initial occupation, and later expansion and growth, of K2 settlements,and the nature and duration of Zhizo–K2 interaction.

Archaeological efforts have focused almost exclusively on the sites of K2 andMapungubwe. Faunal remains from both of these sites have been analyzed (Voigt,1983), as have the ceramics (Meyer, 1980) and the extant human skeletal remains(Steyn, 1994).

The site K2 is located at the base of the hill Bambandyanalo on the farmGreefswald in the Northern Province of South Africa. K2 peoples engaged ina mixed agro-pastoral economy. Continuing the earlier pattern at Schroda, K2peoples also participated in an active trade with the coast. The overall volumeof trade, however, is believed to have expanded considerably from Zhizo times(Huffman, 1982, 1986a,b, 1996). Evidence for goods traded into the site consistsof glass beads of exotic origin recovered from various contexts. Other, highlyperishable items, such as cloth, may also have been traded into the site. Evidencefor items exported from the region consists of fragments of elephant ivory discardedduring processing; finished bracelets and other objects fashioned from ivory havealso been recovered. Large quantities of finished bone tools and linkshafts in excessof local needs have also been found. Gold may also have been exported from theregion during K2 times, but thus far no direct evidence for trade in, or processingof, gold has been recovered (Huffman, 1982). Despite the quantities of workedivory and bone present at K2, no evidence for full-time craft specialization (e.g.,workshops or craft specialist communities) has yet been identified.

It has been posited by some authors (e.g., Garlake, 1973; Huffman, 1982,1986a,b) that the participation of the residents of K2 in the Indian Ocean tradenetwork brought about significant changes in the nature of K2 society, particularly



188 Calabrese

regarding the formation and institutionalization of social and political hierarchies.The acquisition and accumulation of exotic trade goods by K2 peoples, accord-ing to Huffman (1982, p. 143), allowed those individuals who controlled theseresources to amass wealth beyond that usually associated with Southern Bantusocieties.

The available evidence indicates that, by AD 1060, K2 was the largest of theearly Leopard’s Kopje settlements in the region, and it has been interpreted as theregional political centre because of the presence of an enormous kraal midden atthe centre of the site (Huffman, 1986a,b, 1996). The midden is taken as an indicatorof intense political activity, as this location in recent southern Bantu society is theplace where the local political leader holds court, settling disputes and renderingjudgments (Huffman, 1982, 1986b). If the application of this historical analogyis valid, then the political importance of K2 and its leaders in the regional powerstructure was enormous. By about AD 1060 the midden had grown to such anextent that it overtook the cattle byre and forced the herd to another location. Thecourt at K2 apparently continued as the political focus of the region until aroundAD 1220, at which time the site was abandoned and its residents moved a shortdistance away to Mapungubwe Hill.

The developments noted from K2 to Mapungubwe have been described indetail elsewhere (e.g., Huffman, 1982, 1996). They are significant as they provide,for the first time in the prehistory of southern Africa, evidence for the physicalseparation of elites and commoners and the concomitant emergence of new socialand political institutions. The material expression of these transformations is seenmost dramatically in the shift away from the socially inclusive village layout seenat K2 to the segmented pattern observed at Mapungubwe.

Eastern Botswana

Zhizo ceramics make their appearance in eastern Botswana by AD 700,around the same time as in southwestern Zimbabwe (Denbow, 1982, 1983, 1986).Zhizo ceramics from the eighth through eleventh centuries have a high degreeof correspondence (84%) with contemporaneous Zhizo wares from southwest-ern Zimbabwe (Denbow, 1983, p. 187). In Botswana these wares are knownas Taukome, after the site of the same name (Denbow, 1982, 1983). After thebeginning of the eleventh century, however, Zhizo wares in Botswana begin tochange (Denbow, personal communication, 1997). Generally, decoration in comb-stamping and bead/bangle impression becomes much smaller in size, and some-times moves from the central necks of jars onto the lower neck. Also, raisedappliques on the lower neck, decorated with diagonal lines of comb-stamping,bead/bangle impression and incision, become common after this time. Decoratedbeakers and low, shallow bowls and plates, typically associated with Leopard’sKopje pottery, increase in frequency (Denbow, 1982, Fig. 5). These later Zhizo




wares are known in Botswana as Toutswe. Toutswe ceramics persisted until aroundAD 1300.

After around AD 1000, coinciding with the advent of Toutswe ceramics,a settlement hierarchy, with the sites of Toutswe, Bosutswe, and Shoshong asapexes of regional power, appears. These sites are all located on hilltops in highlydefensive positions; all three have animal byres on the hilltop, providing evidencethat the choice of hilltop locations had more to do with defense rather than status(Huffman, 1986a). Huffman (1986a, 1996) has argued that the defensive nature ofthese settlements provides evidence of hostility between the Shashi–Limpopo areaand eastern Botswana at this time. However, as Denbow (1986) has indicated, itis currently unclear whether all three sites were part of a unified political system.Thus it is possible that competition and conflict may have characterized relationsbetween Toutswe, Bosutswe, and Shoshong and that the defensive nature of thesesettlements may have had more to do with internal, rather than external, conflict.

As will be discussed later in the presentation and interpretation of the datafrom Leokwe Hill, the nature and extent of Leopard’s Kopje and Zhizo/Toutswerelations are far more complex than has previously been considered.

LEOKWE HILL

The site of Leokwe Hill is located on the farm Little Muck in the NorthernProvince of South Africa (22.15.20S, 29.15.50E; see Fig. 2). The site was firstidentified by Hanisch in 1973 and was later interpreted by Huffman (1986a,b)as a Mapungubwe period provincial capital. Archaeological investigations wereundertaken at the site as part of the Shashi–Limpopo Archaeological Project, theprimary research goal of which is the investigation of the rise of social and polit-ical complexity from K2 to Mapungubwe times. Specific activities of the projectinclude gathering data with which to examine the roles of cultural interaction andlong-distance trade in increasing complexity.

The Leokwe Hill site is large, encompassing an area of roughly 80,000 m2.The site has been divided into Areas A through D, consisting of the western hillsummit (Area A) and adjacent low-lying areas of prehistoric occupation (Areas Bthrough D; Fig. 3). To date, all areas have been surveyed and tested, although onlyAreas A and B have been excavated extensively. These areas are the focus of thefollowing discussion.

Area A

Area A of the Leokwe Hill site complex includes the far western summit ofa much larger hill of the same name (see Fig. 3). The larger and higher easternportion is separated from the western summit by a deep saddle. Access to the



190 Calabrese

Fig. 3. Aerial photo of Leokwe Hill, showing Areas A through D.

western summit is limited to an ascent on the northern slope below the saddle. TheKolope River flows directly to the west of Area A.

Prior to excavation, the results of 1996 surface reconnaissance indicatedZhizo, K2, Mapungubwe, and Venda components on the western summit andonly a Venda component on the eastern remainder. Surface features noted on thewestern summit were located near the northern edge of the hill; these consisted ofa large, circular stone feature (possibly a grain storage bin foundation) and somepartially exposed hut platforms. Below the summit in the hill saddle was a mankalaboard carved into the bedrock.

Other features immediately associated with Area A included a large, fallenstone wall, which in antiquity restricted access to the saddle and thus to the hilltop.Directly below the saddle, in a portion of the site designated the Northern Terrace,a series of three low (0.50 m) semicircular uncoursed masonry walls were present.A single 2× 2 m trench was excavated behind and upslope of one of these walls.This excavation produced a minimum of four K2 vessels and six translucent totransparent bluish-green snapped cane glass beads. These beads are consistent withthose recovered from K2. This low stone walling may thus be associated with theLeopard’s Kopje occupation of the western summit.

A total area of 65 m2, encompassing four blocks, was excavated on the west-ern summit. These excavations revealed at least two episodes of hut constructionand midden deposition associated with Zhizo and Leopard’s Kopje ceramics. The




deposit on the hill has been badly affected by bioturbation and no intact hut floorshave been exposed thus far, although large amounts of baked daub walling andflooring were recovered. The remnants of hut floors were typically seen in section,marked by 2–4 cm thick gravel lenses interspersed with pieces of daub. Only asingle, horizontally continuous, gravel lens was present. Both Zhizo and Leopard’sKopje ceramics were found atop this lens. No animal byres or dung deposits werelocated either on the surface or in excavations.

Preliminary analysis of the 315 decorated ceramic vessels recovered fromthe hilltop indicates that the predominant ceramics (n = 297) are wares that arebest described as transitional (between K2 and Mapungubwe) Leopard’s Kopje(Calabrese, in preparation), with smaller amounts of Zhizo (n = 13) wares andearlier Early Iron Age Happy Rest (De Vaal, 1943; Prinsloo, 1974) materials(n = 2). Both Happy Rest sherds were recovered directly above bedrock, whereasthe Zhizo material was interspersed with the Leopard’s Kopje material. ThreeVenda sherds were recovered from the uppermost level and the surface.

Additional cultural material recovered from the hilltop included beads,groundstone, and metal artefacts (Table I). Numerous lithic artifacts and faunalmaterials were present but have yet to be analysed. The lithic tools represent a pri-marily Later Stone Age assemblage. Two carbon samples from the basal Leopard’sKopje level on the hill summit were submitted for radiocarbon dating. The resultsare presented in Table III.

Area B

Area B is located 200 m east of Area A on the north side of Leokwe Hill (seeFig. 3). A currently dry drainage to the Kolope River runs through the far northernportion of Area B. This drainage runs directly along the base of a small rocky hillthat separates Area B from Area C. Surface reconnaissance here indicated a strongZhizo component with a modicum of Leopard’s Kopje and Venda ceramics present.The far southern portion of Area B, adjacent to the face of the hill, contains a 20 mlong rock overhang with low uncoursed masonry walling in front of it. Surfacefeatures observed included a substantial Zhizo midden deposit on the edge of anunburnt animal byre and two grain bin foundations. A 3× 5 m trench (Block A),a 2 × 2 m trench (Block B), and a 2× 3 m trench (Block C) were excavated here,as were five additional 1× 1 m test units (Fig. 4).

The non-pottery artefacts recovered from the whole of Area B included beads,groundstone, metalwork, ceramic figurine fragments, and spindle whorls (Table I).Faunal remains and lithic artefacts were also present, but are yet to be analyzed.Preliminary examination of the lithic tools, however, indicates a primarily MiddleStone Age assemblage. Many of the lithic artefacts are heavily weathered, pati-nated, and rolled; these have probably come down onto the site from the mainportion of Leokwe Hill, located directly to the south.



192 Calabrese

Table I. Leokwe Hill, Areas A and B, Non-Pottery Artefacts

Area A Area B

N % N %

BeadsGlass 115 33 4 1Ostrich Eggshell 218 62 57 20Achatinasp. 1 <1 204 73Iron 7 2 3 1Copper 4 1 4 1Freshwater shell 1 <1 — —Bone 3 <1 9 3Ivory — — 1 <1

Total beads 349 100 282 100Groundstone

Upper 6 50 2 50Lower 1 8 — —Burnishing 2 18 1 25Grinding/anvil 1 8 — —Shaft-straightening/bead-grinding 1 8 1 25Red ochre-stained 1 8 — —

Total groundstone 12 100 4 100Metal

Iron bloom 2 7 — —Slag 2 7 2 18Iron bangle fragments 4 15 1 9Iron links — — 5 46Iron pin 1 4 — —Iron pendant 1 4 — —Copper bangle fragments 13 48 1 9Copper ring 1 4 — —Indeterminate copper ornament 1 4 — —Copper links — — 2 18Copper pouring splash 2 7 — —

Total metal 38 100 11 100Non-pottery ceramics

Figurine fragments — — 4 67Spindle whorls/pottery disks 2 100 2 33

Total non-pottery ceramics 2 100 6 100

STRATIGRAPHY AND CERAMICS

Blocks A and B, Central Midden and Animal Byre 1

Five soil strata were encountered during excavation in Blocks A and B, ex-tending respectively to 108 and 120 cm below surface. Block A is described hereand is illustrated in Fig. 5. Stratum I consisted of a brown, heavily trampled, looseashy silt sitting atop a more compact dark yellowish brown ashy silt (Stratum II).Both of these strata have been subjected to animal disturbance in the recent past.A very clear change in the colour and texture of the soil matrix was noted below




Fig. 4. Leokwe Hill, Area B, plan view showing features and excavations.

Stratum II, which came down onto either an unburnt dung deposit (Stratum III) oronto an ash midden (Stratum IV). Stratum III was unevenly distributed throughoutthe deposit. It became progressively thicker and more compact towards the south-western portion of the excavation, where it formed a rough horizontal arc. StratumIV was a heavily burrowed, very fine and powdery light brownish grey ash. Ap-proximately 30%–40% of this stratum was lost to burrowing activities. Strata IIIand IV sat atop a yellowish brown moderately ashy silt (Stratum V) on bedrock.Again, this stratum had also been subjected to extensive animal disturbance, al-though it was at times difficult to detect. In terms of depositional integrity, it shouldbe stated that although the site has been clearly subjected to much bioturbation,the excavation procedures employed ensured that little contaminated deposit wasretained, as all burrows were removed separately and materials recovered fromthem were excluded from analysis.

After refitting, 300 decorated and 383 plain vessels were identified fromBlocks A and B. Ceramic affiliations of the decorated vessels were made employingreferences to comparative materials (Hanisch, 1980; Huffman, 1974; Meyer, 1980;Robinson, 1966, 1985). In brief, only comb-stamped, bead- or bangle-impressed,and fingernail impressed wares were included in the Zhizo category. All incisedvessels were excluded from the Zhizo category, as incision is common in both Zhizo



194 Calabrese

Fig

.5.

Leok

we

Hill

,Are

aB

,Blo

ckA

,sou

thw

alls

ectio

n.




Fig. 6. Zhizo ceramics from Leokwe Hill, Area B, with occurrences and frequencies. (a, b) Multiplehorizontal lines of comb-stamping: (a) Central neck; (b) Lower neck. (c) Zoned and unzoned diagonallines of comb-stamping, central neck. (d) Multiple horizontal lines of bead/bangle impression, lowerneck.

and Leopard’s Kopje assemblages. All incised wares that could be recognized as K2or Mapungubwe were placed into their respective categories. The IndeterminateIncised vessel category includes all incised wares that could have been placedin either Zhizo or Leopard’s Kopje. Representative drawings of the eight mostfrequent combinations of vessel form, decoration and decoration placement onceramics from the whole of Area B are shown in Figs. 6 and 7; drawings ofexcavated ceramics are shown in Fig. 8. The vertical distribution of all decoratedceramics from Blocks A and B is shown in Table II.

As is shown in Table II, the K2 material occurred throughout the deposit,whereas the Mapungubwe and Eiland ceramics were restricted to Stratum I. Zhizoceramics occur consistently throughout the deposit, with a slightly higher percent-age in the lowest stratum. The vertical distribution of these ceramics is significantas it provides evidence of a primarily Zhizo occupation with K2 influence, fol-lowed by a later Mapungubwe influence. Three carbon samples from Block Awere radiocarbon dated (Table III).

Block C, Hut 1 and Animal Byre 2

Block C, a 2× 1 m and a 2× 2 m trench separated by a 25 cm balk, wasexcavated 4 m to theeast of Block A (see Fig. 4) in an attempt to locate structural



196 Calabrese

Table II. Area B: Vertical Distribution of Decorated Ceramics, Blocks A and B

IndeterminateSoil Strata Zhizo K2 incised Eiland Mapungubwe Totals

Stratum IN 51 1 18 1 4 75% 68 1 24 1 6 100

Stratum IIN 55 9 28 — — 92% 60 10 30 — — 100

Strata III/IVN 33 5 15 — — 53% 62 10 28 — — 100

Stratum VN 63 1 16 — — 80% 79 1 20 — — 100

Total number 202 16 77 1 4 300Total % 68 5 26 — 1 100

remains and associated cultural materials. It was hoped that such features wouldyield carbon samples suitable for dating. Two features, a collapsed, burnt hut andthe rock-and-pole lined edge of an animal byre, were located.

The stratigraphy in Block C was straightforward (Fig. 9), with a single stratumof mixed alluvium and colluvium, between 20 and 32 cm thick, sitting atop a mixed

Fig. 7. Zhizo ceramics from Leokwe Hill, Area B, with occurrences and frequencies. (a, b) Zoneddiagonal lines of bead/bangle impression: (a) Shoulder; (b) Lower neck. (c) Zoned and unzonedlines of diagonal incision, lower neck. (d) Zoned diagonal lines of incision, central neck.




Fig

.8.

Exc

avat

edce

ram

ics

from

Leok

we

Hill

,Are

aB

.(a)

K2

jar,

mul

tiple

uptu

rned

inci

sed

arca

des

infil

led

with

and

bord

ered

byin

cisi

on,l

ower

neck

/sho

ulde

r,B

lock

B,S

trat

umIV

.(b–

i)Z

hizo

recu

rved

jars

.(b,

d–f)

Mul

tiple

horiz

onta

llin

esof

com

b-st

ampi

ng:(

b)C

entr

alne

ck,f

rom

Blo

ckA

,Str

atum

V;(

d)C

entr

alne

ck,f

rom

Blo

ckA

stra

tum

IV;(

e)Lo

wer

neck

,fro

mun

der

ston

ein

cattl

eby

re,B

lock

C;(

f)Lo

wer

neck

,fro

mB

lock

A,

stra

tum

IV.

(c)

Zon

edup

turn

edco

mb-

stam

ped

tria

ngle

infil

led

with

diag

onal

lines

ofco

mb-

stam

ping

,pr

obab

lyre

late

dto

Tout

swe

war

es,

Blo

ckA

,Str

atum

IV.(

g,h)

Zon

eddi

agon

albe

ad/b

angl

eim

pres

sion

:(g)

Sho

ulde

r,fr

omB

lock

A,S

trat

umII;

(h)

Cen

tral

and

low

erne

ck,B

lock

B,S

trat

umIV

.(i)

Mul

tiple

horiz

onta

llin

esof

bead

/ban

gle

impr

essi

on,l

ower

neck

,Blo

ckA

,Str

atum

IV.



198 Calabrese

Tabl

eIII

.R

adio

carb

onA

geD

eter

min

atio

ns:L

eokw

eH

ill,A

reas

Aan

dB

a

Ana

lysi

sD

ate

1S

igm

ara

nge

Are

a/b

lock

num

ber

Con

text

Dep

th(c

m)

Cer

amic

affin

ities

Age

(bp)

(cal

A.D

.)(c

alA

.D.)

Are

aA

,Blo

ckA

GrA

-901

1R

emna

ntliv

ing

43Le

opar

d’s

Kop

je(L

K)

890±40

1213

1174

–124

4su

rfac

ew

ithZ

hizo

(Z)

Are

aA

,Blo

ckB

Pta

-744

4R

emna

ntliv

ing

29LK

with

Z94

0±60

1168

1037

–122

0su

rfac

eA

rea

B,B

lock

AP

ta-7

443

Mid

den

25Z

with

LK10

00±60

1037

1015

–116

8P

ta-7

449

Mid

den

59Z

with

LK98

0±50

1045

,110

810

25–1

174

Pta

-751

7M

idde

n79

Zw

ithLK

940±

5011

6810

41–1

213

Are

aB

,Blo

ckC

Pta

-757

8B

yre

post

37Z

890±20

1213

1192

–122

7P

ta-7

563

Fal

len

hutp

ost

51Z

880±25

1220

1198

–123

9P

ta-7

665

Fal

len

hutp

ost

60Z

950±50

1163

1037

–120

4P

ta-7

669

Upr

ight

hutp

ost

30Z

910±

4011

9211

63–1

227

aA

llda

tes

corr

ecte

dfo

ris

otop

icfr

actio

natio

nan

dca

libra

ted

usin

gVo

gel

eta

l.(1

993)

.




Fig

.9.

Leok

we

Hill

,Are

aB

,Blo

ckC

,eas

twal

lsec

tion,

wes

tofb

alk.



200 Calabrese

stratum of ash and dung. This mixed stratum was approximately 15 cm thick andoverlaid both the top of the collapsed hut and the edge of the byre. The hut rubblewas between 5 and 40 cm thick and sat directly on bedrock. The bedrock rose upin the area of the byre, however, and the maximum depth of deposit in the byre wasonly 47 cm below surface. The hut thus appears to have been constructed beforethe byre.

The hut was roughly oval in shape, approximately 2.5 m in diameter, andconstructed of a wattle and daub frame supported at its exterior base by rockfill (Fig. 10). It was situated in a natural hollow in the former land surface andwas therefore protected from alluvial washing after it had burnt down. Threepotstands, on a low bench raised approximately 5 cm off the floor, were found inthe southwestern portion of the hut. The remains of three highly burnt ceramicvessels were recovered, all executed in the Zhizo style. Several carbon sampleswere recovered from the rubble, including the bases of five burnt upright posts andfive fallen posts. All of these samples were securely associated with the burningof the structure.

The edge of the animal byre was lined with stones, with a pair of woodenposts placed approximately every 20 cm (see Fig. 10). This structure had, likethe hut, been burnt, although to a lesser extent. A single large diagnostic ceramicfragment of Zhizo manufacture was recovered from the byre. This sherd was foundunder one of the stones and directly adjacent to a pair of burnt posts. A total offour carbon samples from Block C were radiocarbon dated (Table III).

The overall configuration of the settlement at Leokwe Hill gives the impres-sion of a very large, dense occupation, most accurately described as a town. Themain occupation of the site was during the Zhizo and Leopard’s Kopje period.Happy Rest and Venda components are also present. The Happy Rest componentis confined to the basal level of the western hill summit; whereas the Venda com-ponent, although horizontally extensive, has little vertical substance to it. As isshown later, Leopard’s Kopje occupation of Area A and the Zhizo occupation ofArea B were contemporaneous.

RADIOCARBON DATING AND INTERPRETATION

Nine carbon samples from Leokwe Hill were submitted for radiocarbon anal-ysis. Two were from Area A, seven were from Area B, and all were recovered fromreliable contexts. The provenience, context, ceramic affinities, and results of theradiocarbon analyses are shown in Table III. The radiocarbon results from AreaA partially support the current interpretation of the prehistory of the area, as theyindicate an elite Leopard’s Kopje-using population living on a hill summit aroundthe turn of the thirteenth century. It is interesting to note, however, that the datesfor the hilltop occupation at Leokwe are earlier than those from Mapungubwe Hill(ca. AD 1220), its political superior (Vogel, in preparation).




Fig

.10.

Leok

we

Hill

,Are

aB

,Blo

ckC

,pla

nvi

ewsh

owin

gfe

atur

esan

dde

pths

.



202 Calabrese

The results from Area B were, however, unexpected and have forced a recon-sideration of the larger current regional chronology. As previously stated, Zhizo-using populations were thought to have been expelled from the region by Leopard’sKopje users around AD 1000. The dates from Area B and the associated ceramics,however, clearly indicate that the Zhizo style was still in place in the Shashi–Limpopo area by the turn of the thirteenth century. Moreover, given the contem-poraneity of the dates from Areas A and B, it is reasonable to infer that Zhizo andLeopard’s Kopje users were living together at Leokwe Hill during the late twelfthcentury.

The main focus of the site appears to have been the western summit of LeokweHill. This summit, although it is located in a defensible position and may havewalling associated with Leopard’s Kopje occupation of the hill, lacks other, moreclear indications of defense. Specifically, no animal byres are present on the sum-mit, as are present at contemporaneous Toutswe sites in Botswana (Denbow, 1983,1984) and at much later difaqane period settlements in the subcontinent. If the mainpurpose of the hilltop location was defensive, the presence of byres on the summitwould be expected (see Huffman, 1986a). The walling would then appear to serveas a marker of the relative status of the hill’s inhabitants. It is thus tentativelyposited here that the western summit of Leokwe Hill was an elite residential zoneduring the major period of the site’s occupation. The areas below and to the northand east of the summit would then appear to be contemporaneous areas of lowerstatus occupation.

This interpretation is supported by the relative distribution of glass trade beadsrecovered from Areas A and B (see Table I). Glass beads account for 33% of allbeads from Area A, whereas they account for only 1% of the beads from Area B.Also, although Achatina shell beads are relatively common in Area B (73%), theyaccount for less than 1% of the bead assemblage from Area A. Ostrich eggshellbeads, on the other hand, were more common on the hilltop (62%) and less frequentin Area B (20%). These differences in access to various items of material cultureat two portions of the same settlement are interpreted here as indicating statusdifferences. Thus it would appear that at Leokwe Hill, status differences coincidedwith ethnic, or at the very minimum, ceramic differences. A comparison of thefaunal assemblages from Areas A and B, following the work of Brain (1974),De Wet (1993), and Thorp (1984, 1995), is currently underway and will aid inconfirming or refuting this hypothesis.

Although the co-occurrence in time and space of Leopard’s Kopje and Zhizowares may appear unusual, it should be kept in mind that relatively few sitesof either ceramic group have been excavated in the region, and the question ofZhizo–K2 interaction was not examined or problematized in any detail by previousresearchers. In a recent reassessment of the published literature by this author, it isclear that such a co-occurrence is demonstrable in previously excavated contexts,though not recognized by the original or subsequent researchers.




The present author has recognized that Zhizo wares have already been foundin association with K2 wares at the site K2, but these have never been discussed assuch in print. These vessels were recovered from the original excavations in 1934,which included four juvenile burials, and were illustrated by Schofield (1937, platesxxvii: 1, 6, 10, 11, 18; xxix: 12; xxxi: 7). One of the internments at K2, Burial2, had both Zhizo and K2 wares securely associated with the grave assemblage(see Fouché, 1937, plate xi: 4; Schofield, 1937, plates xxv: 1, 4; xxxi: 7). Zhizowares from K2 and Mapungubwe are also illustrated by Meyer (1980, Fig. 46a,b, c, h, l, m, n; Fig. 132d; photos 57, 58, 73, 74, 76). In addition, Zhizo wares arereadily apparent on the surface at the site K2 (personal observation, 1998). Thusit is suggested here that a situation analogous to that at Leokwe Hill also obtainedat K2. Other sites in the region that have K2 materials in possible association withZhizo materials include Pont Drif (Hanisch, 1980) and Glennel (Hanisch, n.d.).Levels with potential evidence for Zhizo–K2 interaction at Pont Drif date to the latetenth century and at Glennel to the early eleventh century (Vogel, in preparation).

In southwestern Zimbabwe, Robinson recovered several vessels, from thesites of Leopard’s Kopje, Norfolk Road, Rennydene Farm, and Mawala Hill,which he contended contained elements shared between Leopard’s Kopje andZhizo (1966, Fig. 12: 23; Fig 13: 31, 1985, Figs. 8e, 12h, 16c). These consist of,among others, jars with upturned arcades, a common K2 design motif, outlinedby and sometimes infilled with lines of comb-stamping, a decoration techniquediagnostic of Zhizo, on the neck and shoulder.

Ceramic evidence of interregional interaction between Leopard’s Kopje andZhizo groups includes a Toutswe vessel recovered from Mapungubwe Hill(Schofield, 1937, plate xxxi: 9), and Leopard’s Kopje wares recovered from theeastern Botswana sites Taukome (Denbow, 1982), Bosutswe (Huffman, personalcommunication, 1998), Thatswane (personal observation, 1998), and Lose(Kiyaga-Mulindwa, 1990).

It is also possible to speak of a larger shared ceramic horizon style (sensuWilley and Phillips, 1958, pp. 31–33) between the two, with decorated beakersand very shallow open bowls and plates occurring in both areas. Of special interestare the decorated low bowls and plates. These vessels are found in relativelyhigh frequencies on elite Leopard’s Kopje sites (Calabrese, in preparation) andare typically decorated with incised motifs just below the rim, or on the body.Lips are thickened and sometimes flat, and are often both internally and externallyflared. This overall vessel form, including the lip form, is also found on vesselsfrom the Toutswe area, but the decoration there is typically on top of the lip andusually consists of diagonal lines of comb-stamping or bead/bangle impression.Information on the overall distribution of these vessels is not currently availablefor the Toutswe area, although they have been illustrated by Denbow (1982, 1983)and the author has examined these vessels in collections in the National Museumin Gaborone from the sites of Toutswe, Taukome, and Thatswane.



204 Calabrese

The recovery of K2 materials from Toutswe sites and vice versa has beenpreviously interpreted either as a material correlate of intermarriage betweenLeopard’s Kopje and Zhizo groups (Denbow, 1982) or as evidence of continuingtrade links (Denbow, 1990). Elsewhere, however, Denbow (1986) and Huffman(1986a, 1996) have posited that relations between the Shashi–Limpopo and easternBotswana may have been essentially antagonistic.

These positions are not necessarily contradictory if a wider and more flexibleview of the nature of exchange and interaction in Iron Age societies is taken. Asis evidenced by the ceramic data outlined above and by other indicators of Zhizo–Leopard’s Kopje interaction, including a cache of 2,600 glass trade beads recoveredfrom a single pot at the Toutswe site Kgaswe B-55 (Denbow, 1986), exchange wasin all likelihood a regular feature of Zhizo–Leopard’s Kopje relations. Conflictwas also probably a regular feature of interaction, but may have included, beyondwarfare, competitive emulation (e.g., Renfrew, 1986), aggressive gift exchange,and other nonmarket oriented forms of reciprocity (e.g., Friedman and Rowlands,1977; Mauss, 1990; Polanyi, 1957). If a view is taken of the reasons for, and pur-poses of, participation in the Indian Ocean trade that places more importance uponthe social and political purposes to which exotic goods were put, then exchangesof these goods both within and between these societies may be interpreted as aid-ing in the formation and maintenance of sociopolitical relations of dominance andsubordination. For example, the “gift” of trade items from those who had readyaccess to them to subordinates, could not readily (if ever) be reciprocated, therebycreating a structural imbalance in power relations. This issue is a complex one andwill be examined in more detail in future work.

CERAMIC COMPARISON: SCHRODA AND LEOKWE HILL, AREA B

Much of the earlier discussion is based on the contemporaneity of the Zhizoand Leopard’s Kopje occupations at Leokwe Hill. In order to provide an indepen-dent means of testing the validity of the radiocarbon dates from Area B, a ceramicsample from Area 5 at the Zhizo site Schroda, securely dated to the early tenththrough the early eleventh centuries, was analyzed and compared with the entireceramic collection form Area B. Because the dates indicated a one to two hundredyear gap between both sites, it was thought that the ceramics should have changedsomewhat over time. The frequencies of decoration techniques and decorationplacement employed in both assemblages were plotted alongside each other. Theresults of this comparison are shown in Figs. 11 and 12. The eight most commoncombinations of vessel form, decoration and decoration placement on ceramicsfrom Schroda are illustrated in Figs. 13 and 14; drawings of excavated ceramicsare shown in Fig. 15.

These results indicate that, although the two assemblages are clearly partof the larger Zhizo style, there are strong differences between them. In terms of




Fig. 11. Comparison of decoration technique frequencies, Schroda, Area 5 and Leokwe Hill,Area B.

decoration technique, bead/bangle impression and incision increase from Schrodato Area B, whereas comb-stamping decreases. The combination of stamping andincision, a common feature of the ceramics from Schroda, is entirely absent fromArea B. Significant differences in decoration placement are also noted, with place-ment on or just below the rim decreasing and lower neck placement increasing.These changes are indicative of a gradual change through time, rather than a sharpstylistic break. It is important to state here that the Zhizo ceramics from Area B,although clearly different from Zhizo ceramics at Schroda, are not identical tocontemporaneous Zhizo assemblages from eastern Botswana (i.e., Toutswe) de-scribed by Denbow (1983, 1984) and which were examined by the author. Area Bceramics are thus posited to represent the results of an independent development

Fig. 12. Comparison of decoration placement frequencies, Schroda, Area 5 and Leokwe Hill,Area B.



206 Calabrese

Fig. 13. Zhizo ceramics from Schroda, Area 5, with occurrences and frequencies. (a) Multiplehorizontal lines of comb-stamping, central neck. (b) Zoned and unzoned diagonal lines of comb-stamping, central neck. (c) Two horizontal lines of comb-stamping, below rim. (d) Single horizontalline of comb-stamping, shoulder.

within the Shashi–Limpopo area by Zhizo users. Because these ceramics occur atleast a century and a half after Robinson’s (Robinson, 1985) proposed Zhizo (b)wares, and they are clearly distinct from both the earlier Schroda Zhizo and thecontemporaneous Toutswe wares, I propose to call the ceramics from Area B atLeokwe Hill “Leokwe Zhizo.”

CONCLUSIONS

The radiocarbon and ceramic data presented here indicate that Zhizo ceramicusers were not necessarily driven into eastern Botswana with the introduction ofLeopard’s Kopje ceramics into the region around AD 1000. Rather, it is posited thatZhizo users remained in the area and their material culture continued to develop.Thus, as opposed to simple replacement, a much more complex and dynamic socialand political situation had developed in the Shashi–Limpopo area, and in the widerregion, between Zhizo- and Leopard’s Kopje-using groups.

In the Shashi–Limpopo area, this situation involved mutual habitation of thearea by both groups from the beginning of the eleventh century through at least thelate twelfth century, if not later. Although there is not yet enough information tohypothesize confidently what the foundations and nature of interactions between




Fig. 14. Zhizo ceramics from Schroda, Area 5, with occurrences and frequencies. (a) Multiplediagonal and horizontal lines of incision zoned by single lines of horizontal comb-stamping andmultiple diagonal and horizontal lines of comb-stamping, zoned by single lines of horizontal incision,central neck. (b) Zoned and unzoned diagonal lines of incision, central neck. (c) Multiple horizontallines of incision, central neck. (d) Multiple horizontal lines of bead/bangle impression, central neck.

these groups were, such interactions were definitely frequent, regular, and notaltogether hostile.

The regional implications of this continued interaction between Zhizo andLeopard’s Kopje users can be considered in the context of increasing complexityin the Shashi–Limpopo area and in eastern Botswana. The development of sociopo-litical complexity does not typically occur in isolation (Friedman and Rowlands,1977; Renfrew, 1986) and often involves the concomitant development of interre-gional systems of elite social identification and interaction (e.g., Schortman, 1989).The development of these systems helps to ensure that the flow of scarce, exoticresources used in status differentiation, and of the more mundane resources usedto acquire them, continues. It is hypothesized, based on the evidence of culturalinteraction described earlier, that such a system may well have been in place be-tween Toutswe and Leopard’s Kopje societies. Future publications will addressthese and related issues in more detail.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The research reported here was made possible by the cooperation and supportof numerous institutions and individuals. Among these are Alan Fourie, owner of



208 Calabrese

Fig

.15.

Exc

avat

edZ

hizo

cera

mic

sfr

omA

rea

5at

Sch

roda

,all

recu

rved

jars

.(a)

Two

horiz

onta

llin

esof

com

b-st

ampi

ng,b

elow

rim.(

b)Z

oned

diag

onal

lines

ofco

mb-

stam

ping

,bel

owrim

.(c)

Com

b-st

ampe

dzo

ned

geom

etric

shap

es(p

roba

bly

tria

ngle

s),b

ody.

(d)M

ultip

ledi

agon

allin

esof

deep

inci

sio

n,rim

.(e

)D

iago

nall

ines

ofco

mb-

stam

ping

part

ially

zone

dby

asi

ngle

line

ofho

rizon

tali

ncis

ion,

cent

raln

eck.

(f)

Mul

tiple

obliq

uelin

esof

inci

sio

nzo

ned

byho

rizon

tall

ines

ofco

mb-

stam

ping

,ce

ntra

lnec

k.(g

)D

iago

nall

ines

ofin

cisi

onzo

ned

byho

rizon

tall

ines

ofco

mb-

stam

ping

and

inci

sion

,be

low

rim.




Little Muck Farm, and the farm’s manager, Gustaf Kruger; they provided access,accommodation, and hospitality on many occasions. Further material and logis-tical support, and accommodation on the Venetia Limpopo Nature Reserve, wereprovided by the Farms Department of DeBeers Consolidated Mines, Ltd. GrahamMain, Director of the Farms Dept. and Nigel Fairhead, manager of the Reserve, aresingled out here for thanks. The ceramic material from Schroda was loaned fromthe National Culture History and Open Air Museum in Pretoria. The Departmentof Archaeology, University of the Witwatersrand, provided financial and materialsupport both in and out of the field. Anna Marie Fuls and Ebbie Visser of the Qua-ternary Dating Research Unit of the Centre for Scientific and Industrial Researchin Pretoria are thanked for their careful preparation and analysis of the radiocarbondated samples. Tom Huffman, Simon Hall, and Edwin Hanisch generously offeredtheir insights and comments in numerous conversations. Figures 1 through 5, andFigs. 8 and 9 were rendered by Wendy Voorvelt. John Vogel and Gavin Whitelawread and commented upon previous drafts of this paper. Finally, thanks are offeredto all the students and professionals, too numerous to mention individually here,who assisted in the excavations. Any errors of omission, commission, or fact aresolely the responsibility of the author.

REFERENCES

Brain, C. (1947). Human food remains from the Iron Age at Zimbabwe.South African Journal ofScience70: 303–309.

Calabrese, J. (in preparation).The Rise of Social and Political Complexity in the Area of the Shashi–Limpopo Confluence, Ph.D. Thesis, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg.

Denbow, J. (1982). The Toutswe Tradition: A study in socioeconomic change. In Hitchcock, R., andSmith, M. (eds.),Settlement in Botswana, Heinemann, Johannesburg, pp. 73–86.

Denbow, J. (1983).Iron Age Economics: Herding, Wealth, and Politics Along the Fringes of the KalahariDesert During the Early Iron Age, Ph.D. Thesis, Indiana University, Bloomington.

Denbow, J. (1984). Cows and Kings: A spatial and economic analysis of a hierarchical Early Iron Agesettlement system in eastern Botswana. In Hall, M., Avery, G., Avery, D. M., Wilson, M. L., andHumphreys, A. J. B. (eds.),Frontiers: Southern African Archaeology Today, British Archaeolog-ical Reports International Series 207, Oxford, pp. 24–39.

Denbow, J. (1986). A new look at the later prehistory of the Kalahari.Journal of African History27:3–28.

Denbow, J. (1990). Congo to Kalahari: Data and hypotheses about the political economy of the westernstream of the Early Iron Age.African Archaeological Review8: 139–176.

De Vaal, J. (1943). ’n Soutpansbergse Zimbabwe.South African Journal of Science40: 303–327.De Wet, E. (1993).Methodological Considerations of Late Iron Age Fauna From the Soutpansberg,

M.A. Thesis, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg.Eloff, J., and Meyer, A. (1981). The Greefswald sites. In Voigt, E. (ed.),Guide to Archaeological Sites

in the Northern and Eastern Transvaal, Southern African Association of Archaeologists, Pretoria,pp. 7–22.

Fouche, L. (1937).Mapungubwe: Ancient Bantu Civilization on the Limpopo, Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge.

Friedman, J., and Rowlands, M. (1977). Notes towards an epigenetic model of the evolution of ‘civi-lization.’ In Friedman, J., and Rowlands, M. (eds.),The Evolution of Social Systems, Duckworth,London, pp. 201–276.

Gardner, G. (1963).Mapungubwe, Vol. II, J. L. van Schaik, Ltd., Pretoria.



210 Calabrese

Garlake, P. (1973).Great Zimbabwe, Thames and Hudson, London.Hanisch, E. (1980).An Archaeological Interpretation of Certain Iron Age Sites in the Limpopo/Shashi

Valley, M. A. Thesis, University of Pretoria, Pretoria.Hanisch, E. (1981). Schroda: A Zhizo site in the Northern Transvaal. In Voigt, E. (ed.),Guide to

Archaeological Sites in the Northern and Eastern Transvaal, Southern African Association ofArchaecologists, Pretoria, pp. 37–53.

Hanisch, E. (n.d.).Excavations at Commando Kop [Glennel], Manuscript on file at the Department ofArchaeology, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg.

Huffman, T. (1974).The Leopard’s Kopje Tradition, Museum Memoir No. 6, National Monumentsand Museums of Rhodesia, Salisbury.

Huffman, T. (1978). The origins of Leopard’s Kopje: An 11th century difaqane.Arnoldia7:1–12.Huffman, T. (1982). Archaeology and ethnohistory of the African Iron Age.Annual Review of Anthro-

pology11: 133–150.Huffman, T. (1984). Leopard’s Kopje and the nature of the Iron Age in Bantu Africa.Zimbabwea1:

28–35.Huffman, T. (1986a). Iron Age settlement patterns and the origins of class distinction in southern

Africa. In Wendorf, F., and Close, E. (eds.),Advances in World Archaeology 5, Academic Press,New York, pp. 291–338.

Huffman, T. (1986b). Archaeological evidence and conventional explanations of southern Bantu set-tlement patterns.Africa 56: 280–298.

Huffman, T. (1989). Ceramics, settlements, and late Iron Age migrations.African ArchaeologicalReview7: 155–182.

Huffman, T. (1996).Snakes and Crocodiles, Witwatersrand University Press, Johannesburg.Kiyaga-Mulindwa, D. (1990). Excavation at Lose Enclosure, Central Botswana. In Sinclair, P., and

Pwiti, G. (eds.),Urban Origins in Eastern Africa: Proceedings of the 1990 Workshop, The CentralBoard of National Antiquities, Stockholm, pp. 48–59.

Mauss, M. (1990).The Gift, W. W. Norton, New York and London.Meyer, A. (1980).n’Interpretasie van die Greefswald Potwerk, M.A. Thesis, University of Pretoria,

Pretoria.Polanyi, K. (1957). The economy as instituted process. In Polanyi, K., Arensberg, C., and Pearson, H.

(eds.),Trade and Market in Early Empires: Economies in History and Theory, The Free Pressand The Falcon’s Wing Press, Glencoe, pp. 243–269.

Prinsloo, H. (1974). Early Iron Age sites at Klein Afrika.South African Journal of Science70: 271–273.Renfrew, C. (1986). Introduction. In Renfrew, C., and Cherry, J. (eds.),Peer-Polity Interaction and

Sociopolitical Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 1–18.Robinson, K. (1966). The Leopard’s Kopje culture: Its place in the Iron Age of southern Rhodesia.

South African Archaeological Bulletin21: 5–51.Robinson, K. (1985). Dated Iron Age sites from the upper Umguza Valley 1982: Their possible impli-

cations.South African Archaeological Bulletin40: 17–38.Schofield, J. (1937). Work Done in 1934: Pottery. In Fouché, L. (ed.),Mapungubwe: Ancient Bantu

civilization on the Limpopo, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 32–61.Schortman, E. (1989). Interregional interaction in prehistory: The need for a new perspective.American

Antiquity54: 52–65.Steyn, M. (1994).An Assessment of the Health Status and Physical Characteristics of the Prehistoric

Populations from Mapungubwe, Ph.D. Thesis, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg.Thorp, C. (1984).Faunal Remains as Evidence of Social Stratification at Great Zimbabwe, M.A. Thesis,

University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg.Thorp, C. (1995).Kings, Commoners and Cattle at Zimbabwe Tradition Sites, Museum Memoir Series

No. 1, National Museums and Monuments of Zimbabwe, Harare.Vogel, J. (in preparation). Radiocarbon dating of the Iron Age sites on Greefswald Farm.Voigt, E. (1983).Mapungubwe: An Archaeozoological Interpretation of an Iron Age Community,

Museum Monograph No. 1, Transvaal Museum, Pretoria.Willey, G., and Phillips, P. (1958).Method and Theory in American Archaeology, University of Chicago

Press, Chicago and London.

Documents

Interregional Interaction in Southern Africa: Zhizo and Leopard's Kopje Relations in Northern South Africa, Southwestern Zimbabwe, and Eastern Botswana, AD 1000 to 1200