Pastoral Neolithic sites on the southern Mbulu Plateau, Tanzania

This article was downloaded by: [Mary Prendergast]On: 11 November 2013, At: 02:33Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Azania: Archaeological Research inAfricaPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/raza20

Pastoral Neolithic sites on the southernMbulu Plateau, TanzaniaM.E. Prendergasta, A.Z.P. Mabullab, K.M. Grilloc, L.G. Broderickd,O. Seitsonene, A.O. Gidnaf & D. Gifford-Gonzalezg

a St. Louis University, Avenida del Valle 34, 28003 Madrid, Spainb Department of History and Archaeology, University of Dar esSalaam, PO Box 35050, Dar es Salaam, Tanzaniac Institut für Ur- und Frühgeschichte and the Graduate School‘Human Development in Landscapes,’ Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel, Germanyd Department of Archaeology, University of York, The King's Manor,York, YO1 7EP, United Kingdome Department of Geoscience and Geography, University ofHelsinki, Helsinki FI-00014, Finlandf Palaeontology Unit, National Museum of Tanzania, ShaabanRobert Street, P.O. Box 511, Dar es Salaam, Tanzaniag Department of Anthropology, University of California Santa Cruz,1156 High Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95064 United States of AmericaPublished online: 01 Nov 2013.

To cite this article: M.E. Prendergast, A.Z.P. Mabulla, K.M. Grillo, L.G. Broderick, O. Seitsonen,A.O. Gidna & D. Gifford-Gonzalez , Azania: Archaeological Research in Africa (2013): PastoralNeolithic sites on the southern Mbulu Plateau, Tanzania, Azania: Archaeological Research in Africa,DOI: 10.1080/0067270X.2013.841927

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0067270X.2013.841927

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/raza20

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0067270X.2013.841927

should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mar

y Pr

ende

rgas

t] a

t 02:

33 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2013

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Pastoral Neolithic sites on the southern Mbulu Plateau, Tanzania

M.E. Prendergasta*, A.Z.P. Mabullab, K.M. Grilloc, L.G. Broderickd, O. Seitsonene,A.O. Gidnaf and D. Gifford-Gonzalezg

aSt. Louis University, Avenida del Valle 34, 28003 Madrid, Spain; bDepartment of History andArchaeology, University of Dar es Salaam, PO Box 35050, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania; cInstitut fürUr- und Frühgeschichte and the Graduate School ‘Human Development in Landscapes,’ Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel, Germany; dDepartment of Archaeology, University of York, TheKing’s Manor, York, YO1 7EP, United Kingdom; eDepartment of Geoscience and Geography,University of Helsinki, Helsinki FI-00014, Finland; fPalaeontology Unit, National Museum ofTanzania, Shaaban Robert Street, P.O. Box 511, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania; gDepartment ofAnthropology, University of California Santa Cruz, 1156 High Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95064United States of America

As part of a larger project examining the introduction of herding into northernTanzania, surveys and excavations were conducted at the southern edge of the MbuluPlateau, documenting the presence of Narosura ceramics dating to the early thirdmillennium BP, as well as a Later Stone Age occupation dated via ostrich eggshell tothe tenth millennium BP. This marks the southernmost extent of the Pastoral Neolithicin eastern Africa. The paucity of sites attributable to early herding in this area may bedue to a lack of survey in landscapes likely to have been preferred by livestock ownersand to extensive contemporary cultivation in those same areas. Links can be drawnbetween the study area and previously documented sites with Narosura materials nearLake Eyasi, and between the study area and obsidian sources in the Lake Naivashaarea of the Rift Valley, making the plateau and its surroundings a potentially promisingarea for further research.

Keywords: Pastoralism; food production; Pastoral Neolithic; Later Stone Age; EastAfrica

Une nouvelle série de prospections et de fouilles dans la partie méridionale du plateaude Mbulu a été effectuée dans le contexte d’un projet de recherche sur l′introductiondu pastoralisme au nord de la Tanzanie. Ces travaux ont conduit à la découverte decéramique de Narosura datant du commencement du troisième millénaire BP etd’une occupation du Later Stone Age datée sur des coquilles d’œuf d’autruche audixième millénaire BP. Ces données marquent l′extension la plus méridionale dunéolithique pastoral en Afrique de l′Est. Le manque de sites attribuables à cettepériode dans cette zone peut s′expliquer en partie par la prospection insuffisante dansles paysages qui auront été préférés par les premières populations pastorales, et parl’agriculture intensive dans ces zones aujourd’hui. Des liens peuvent maintenant êtreproposés entre le territoire que nous avons prospecté et, d’une part, les sites connusprésentant de la tradition Narosura près du lac Eyasi, et d’autre part les gisementsd’obsidienne près du lac Naivasha, dans la Vallée du Rift. Ceci fait du plateau deMbulu une zone prometteuse pour l’étude des premières populations adaptées aupastoralisme.

*Email: [email protected]

Azania: Archaeological Research in Africa, 2013http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0067270X.2013.841927

© 2013 Taylor & Francis

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mar

y Pr

ende

rgas

t] a

t 02:

33 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2013

mailto:[email protected]

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0067270X.2013.841927

Introduction

Pastoralism is a central feature of contemporary economic and social life in eastern Africaand the introduction and spread of early herding in the region has long been of interest toarchaeologists. In Kenya and Tanzania, this spread is associated with a suite of ceramicand lithic traditions collectively known as Pastoral Neolithic (PN) (Bower and Nelson1978). Variability within and the relationships among PN traditions are sources ofdisagreement, but a basic chronological and geographic framework can be provided(Table 1). Several decades of research have pointed to a trend in occurrences of earlyceramics and livestock, which appear as early as 5000 BP1 near Lake Turkana and increasein frequency along the Rift Valley and on the plains of southern Kenya and northernTanzania over the next several millennia, particularly from c. 3300-1200 BP. The paucity ofPN sites in the latter area, particularly beyond the Serengeti Plains and Lake Eyasi Basin,has often been cited as evidence of a southern frontier for early herding and a potential areaof long-term forager-food producer interaction (Gifford-Gonzalez 2000; Lane 2004;Marshall et al. 2011; Prendergast 2011). Alternatively, this may mark an artificial researchboundary, reflecting the more numerous and well-documented field projects in Kenya overthe last several decades, particularly in areas easily accessible from Nairobi, and thecomparative paucity of sustained, high-quality, published research in northern Tanzania.

Data from sites in the Serengeti and Eyasi regions leave unanswered a number ofquestions pertinent to any new research in Tanzania (Bower 1973; Bower andChadderdon 1986; Mehlman 1989; Prendergast 2008). These include the placement ofnewly discovered stone artefacts and ceramics within existing frameworks for theSavanna Pastoral Neolithic (SPN), a regional sub-tradition of the PN; the sources ofobsidian found in these areas and the nature of resource exchanges along the Rift Valley;the chronology of the initial appearances of SPN material culture and livestock innorthern Tanzania; and the degree to which incoming herders may have managed risk byengaging in foraging and/or in exchange relationships with indigenous hunter-gatherers.

In 2012, we launched a survey and excavation project aimed at increasing knowledgeof southern SPN sites and, ultimately, at addressing the questions just mentioned. Wesought to identify and date SPN materials; recover sufficient ceramic, lithic and faunalsamples to characterise sites and their connections, if any, to those further north; and toobtain over the longer term a better understanding of forager and food producer land usepatterns and interactions. Surveys and excavations were conducted in the Engaruka andManyara Basins, and on the southern Mbulu Plateau (Prendergast et al. 2013). Here wepresent results from the latter area.

The research setting

The Ufana Valley is located at the southernmost edge of the Mbulu Plateau (Figure 1), ahigh-elevation area lying between the Eyasi-Wembere and Natron-Manyara-Balangidaarms of the Rift Valley. Our research area is located between the villages of Luxmandaand Ufana in Babati District, Manyara Region. The area is dominated by rocky, bare hills(c. 1800–2100 m a.s.l.) with a river valley some 0.5–2.0 km wide. The elevatedtopography, cool climate and predictable rains have enabled intensive agriculture on theplateau for at least the last two centuries and thus much of the landscape is modified(Meindertsma and Kesslet 1997). The plateau is marked by high linguistic diversity,reflecting a complex social and economic landscape: it hosts speakers of SouthernCushitic (Iraqw), Southern Nilotic (Datoga) and Bantu languages, which scholars havelinked to temporally distinct migrations of herders and later farmers (Ehret 1982;

2 M.E. Prendergast et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mar

y Pr

ende

rgas

t] a

t 02:

33 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2013

Table 1. Generalised overview of Stone Age ceramic traditions in eastern Africa.

Era/Ceramictradition(s) Date BP Location Associations References

LSA/Kansyore c. 8000-2000 Victoria Basin (primary);Serengeti/Eyasi

Hunter-gatherer-fishers; high artefact density; fewdomesticates in later contexts

Dale 2007;Prendergast 2008

SPN/Nderit c. 5000-3500 Turkana Basin (primary);Central Rift, Serengeti

Monumental-funerary sites, hunting, fishing, somedomesticates (Turkana); hunting, few domesticates,Eburran Phase 5 stone artefacts (Central Rift)

Ambrose 1998; Gifford-Gonzalez 1998

SPN/Narosura,Akira, Marangishu

c. 3300-1200 Central Rift south to Eyasi, eastto Tsavo (coastal hinterland);Serengeti-Mara Plains

Stone bowls, pestles, axes; cattle- and caprine-basedeconomies (usually); diverse stone artefacts, ceramics;diverse (some large) settlements

Bower and Nelson 1978

PN/Elmenteitan c. 3000-1200 Western-southwestern Kenyanhighlands, Loita-Mara Plains,west side of Central Rift

Obsidian blades (from limited sources), lug-handledvessels, cattle- and caprine-based economies

Robertshaw 1990;Ambrose 1998

Azania:

Archaeological

Research

inAfrica

3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mar

y Pr

ende

rgas

t] a

t 02:

33 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2013

Ambrose 1982). To the northwest and south of the plateau, respectively, Hadza andSandawe foragers maintain distinct click languages. This suggests a long history ofinteraction between groups speaking unrelated languages and perhaps pursuing quitedifferent subsistence practices.

Despite this intriguing linguistic history, archaeological research in the area has beenlimited. Unpublished surveys and excavations by Mabulla and Gidna in 2008–2011documented several rock-shelters with Later Stone Age (LSA) blade-based technology,ostrich eggshell beads and blanks, red ochre and paintings. A brief study of the excavatedfauna by Prendergast indicated that rock-shelter inhabitants had access to both openplains and more wooded areas with game such as zebra (Equus sp.), warthog(Phachochoerus africanus), African buffalo (Syncerus caffer), wildebeest (Connochaetestaurinus), Bohor reedbuck (Redunca redunca) and kongoni or topi (Alcelaphusbuselaphus/Damaliscus lunatus). These sites are broadly comparable to a number ofLSA rock-shelters in the Eyasi, Singida, and Kondoa areas of Tanzania (Inskeep 1962;Masao 1976; Mehlman 1989; Odner 1971). While the sites are earlier than our frame ofinterest, Mabulla and Gidna also documented stone bowls, ceramics, and rock artdepicting livestock, prompting our own survey of the area.

Ufana Valley survey

A major goal of the 2012 survey was to determine the extent to which prehistoricmaterials could be found in open areas between the documented rok-shelters. Open airsurveys are important since previous research suggests a settlement preference amongboth contemporary and prehistoric pastoralists for slightly sloping, well-watered areaswith high soil productivity (Western and Dunne 1979; Robertshaw et al. 1990; Seitsonen

Figure 1. Map of the Northern Gregory Rift in Tanzania, showing key landmarks andarchaeological sites mentioned in the text. The survey area was located near Ufana (see Figure 2).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mar

y Pr

ende

rgas

t] a

t 02:

33 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2013

2009; Causey 2010), yet most research in northern Tanzania, and certainly in Ufana, hashitherto focused on rock-shelters.

Surveys were conducted along four transects in the Ufana Valley (Figure 2) with fivefieldwalkers spaced 10 m apart. The first two parallel transects, each 3 km in length,followed a north-south axis between Daumboy Hill (UTM 36M 0760338 9527337) andthe easternmost shoulder of Datari Hill (36M 0760343 9530218). These transects cut thevalley transversally and thus provided an understanding of changes in artefact abundancebetween the hills and valley. The second pair of transects, each 2.85 km long, followedeither side of the Ufana River along a northeast-southwest axis. During survey, artefactswere collected and labelled with a GPS waypoint. Artefacts <10 m apart were usuallyassigned a single waypoint. Later, we delineated thirty-one discrete find locations bycombining all waypoints within a 75 m buffer and assigning each one a numberbeginning with ‘UVS’.

Finds were quite sparse, ranging from one to 16 artefacts per find location. Artefactdensities at find locations decreased with proximity to the river. This may be due to thefact that approximately 60% of the land along the river is under active cultivation andcrops obscure surface visibility. Sedimentation may also have buried many artefacts.However, it should be stressed that the survey area is small and distribution patternscannot be generalised.

Most of the sherds collected (N=113 for all sites) are from very large, thick-walledand globular pots with reddish pastes and are presumed to be modern. Ceramics are stillused locally and most finds were located near homes and fields. Stone artefacts, mainlymanufactured from local chert (N=28), were few and showed no clear distributionpatterns. Quartz (N=7) and especially obsidian (N=2) were rare. Nearly all exhibit LSAcharacteristics. The apparent lack of Middle Stone Age artefacts might again be attributedto sedimentation in the valley, leading to their deep burial. Most of the chert encounteredin Ufana is slightly translucent grey in colour and clearly differs from the predominantlywhite chert variants encountered in the Manyara and Engaruka areas (Seitsonen 2005,2006). This and the quartz both appear to be local.

Although this survey produced few results, it was quite limited in scope andadditional research might lead to more finds. This was made clear to us by the discoveryby Gidna of ceramics and stone artefacts in a farm plot along a track entering Luxmandavillage, far from the survey area. This site was named UVS40 and was explored throughtest pits.

Shovel test pits at UVS40

UVS40 had numerous artefacts on the surface, upturned by farming. The plot lies on ahigh, exposed area just northwest of Maraghong Hill. Like the valley, most of the area hasbeen modified for agriculture. Foot surveys across the plot identified ceramics, stoneartefacts and two lobed stone axes matching Mehlman’s (1989:153) descriptions of thesame from SPN sites in the Eyasi Basin (Figure 3). A grid measuring 60 m (north-south)by 100 m (east-west) was laid out across the plot, with the northeast corner at UTM 36M0757353, 9529048. A total of 24 shovel test pits were excavated at 20 m intervals. Pitsmeasured approximately 50x50 cm, with their depths varying considerably but extendingto 30–50 cm. All materials from a single pit were passed through nested 5 mm and 2 mmsieves. Although finds were not recorded by depth, the method used did enable us toquickly determine the site’s potential. Finds were mainly concentrated in the northern andwestern portions of the grid and there were surface scatters on adjacent plots and across

Azania: Archaeological Research in Africa 5

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mar

y Pr

ende

rgas

t] a

t 02:

33 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2013

Figure 2. Map of the Ufana area with 2012 survey find locations and excavated sites indicated. Traced following QDS 1:50000 maps 84/4 Hanang and 84/2Dongobesh, with contour lines converted from feet to metres. UTM co-ordinates in zone 36M.

6M.E.Prendergast

etal.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mar

y Pr

ende

rgas

t] a

t 02:

33 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2013

the road, suggesting that the site may extend well beyond our sampled area. Most findswere concentrated in the top 5–10 cm of the test pits.

The ceramics from UVS40 (N=356 for all 24 pits) are similar in decorative style tothose from elsewhere in eastern Africa described as ‘Narosura Ware’ (Odner 1972). As inother Narosura assemblages, a range of decorative motifs is present, including comb-stamping in horizontal bands under rims (Figure 4). The assemblage is uniform inmanufacture, form and decoration, and thus perhaps represents a single occupation.Sherds are relatively well-fired with brown surfaces and black cores, as well as someblackening of interior surfaces. Inclusions of moderately- to well-sorted quartzose arecommon. Many sherds have obvious coil breaks.

Stone artefacts are abundant, with chert (N=448, 48%) and quartz (N=432, 46%)each comprising nearly half the assemblage, while obsidian is less common (N=61, 6%).The assemblage is predominantly microlithic, based on bipolar and platform reduction

Figure 4. UVS40: decorated ceramics of possibly ‘Narosura’ affiliation: a-g collected from thesurface; h-n recovered from test pit B5. An AMS radiocarbon date (ISGS-A2367) was obtainedfrom sherd i.

Figure 3. Ground stone axes recovered on the surface in the Ufana Valley: a, b UVS40; c DMB3.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mar

y Pr

ende

rgas

t] a

t 02:

33 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2013

strategies, with few formal tools or cores. However, some crescents and other geometricmicroliths are present.

Although faunal remains are present (1,089 fragments), they are quite poorly preservedand only eleven specimens (1%) were identifiable to taxonomic group or size class.Fragmentation, concretion, burning, root-etching and weathering were all documented. Thelow density of finds, with no more than three identifiable specimens per shovel test pit, is alsoworth noting. Since most bones came from the uppermost 5–10 cm, it is possible that thismaterial is recent. Of the NISP of 11, three specimens were attributed to cattle (Bos taurus orcf. B. taurus), three represented caprines (Ovis aries or Capra hircus) and the remaining fiverepresented bovids of Bovid Size Classes 2 (caprine-sized) and 3 (cattle-sized).

A sherd from pit B5, attributed to the Narosura tradition, was submitted to thegeochronology laboratory at the Illinois State Geological Survey. Organic material in thesherd was dated using AMS radiocarbon dating, giving a date of 2855 ± 20 BP (1023-846cal. BC; ISGS-A2367) (Table 2). This is the first direct date for the SPN in this area andis at the early end of the Narosura range in Kenya (Figure 5). The UVS40 sherd is earlierthan charcoal samples associated with Narosura ceramics at Nasera Rockshelter in theSerengeti (Mehlman 1989) and possible Narosura ceramics west of Kilimanjaro (Mturi1986), which were, until now, the only dates associated with Narosura material innorthern Tanzania. The early third millennium BP date suggests that fully developedpastoralism, which is usually associated with Narosura ceramics (e.g. Gifford-Gonzalez1998), may have extended to the south earlier than previously thought. This findingunderscores the value of direct dating carefully attributed ceramic sherds in bothfieldwork and collections research in this region.

Excavation at Daumboy Rock-Shelter 3

Daumboy Rock-Shelter 3 or DMB3 (UTM 36M 0760338, 9527337; 1903 m a.s.l.) is oneof several shelters on Daumboy Hill and was selected for excavation based on thequantity of ceramic and lithic artefacts visible on the surface and in the wash downslope.These finds included another lobed axe like those from UVS40 (Figure 3). The rock-shelter measures approximately 7 m along the wall (north-south) and approximately 4.5 mfrom the wall to the dripline (Figure 6). Facing west, it is somewhat protected from the

Table 2. Ufana Valley: radiocarbon dates (calibrated using the SHCal04 curve in OxCal version 4.2;McCormac et al. 2004). Bold typeface for material identifies AMS dates.

Site andcontext Association Material Date BP

Calibrated dateBC/AD

Laboratorynumber

UVS40: shoveltest pit B5

Narosura ceramics,cattle/caprines*

Pottery 2855 ± 20 1023-846 BC ISGS-A2367

DMB3: U3,94 cm(Layer A)

Ceramics, stoneartefacts, cattle teeth

Charcoal 1120 ± 70 AD 779–1146 ISGS-6949

DMB3: U3,117 cm(Layer B)

Ceramics, stoneartefacts, cattle teeth

Charcoal 4060 ± 70 2861-2295 BC ISGS-6950

DMB3: U1,40 cm(Layer D)

Aceramic LSA Ostricheggshell

9280 ± 25 8551-8315 BC ISGS-A2386

*Shovel test pit excavated without respect to stratigraphy; fauna may not be in association


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mar

y Pr

ende

rgas

t] a

t 02:

33 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2013

elements by woodlands and large boulders. The tops of these command an impressiveview of the valley and surrounding hills, which are covered in light woodland and bushwhere not under cultivation.

Figure 5. Plot of calibrated BC/AD dates (2-sigma values) from a sherd identified as Narosura atUVS40, with dates from other Narosuran or putative Narosuran sites for comparison. Only dates oncharcoal or on organic fractions of bone or tooth are shown. References: Nasera (Mehlman 1989),Maua Farm (Mturi 1986), Narosura (Odner 1972), Lemek North-East (Robertshaw 1990), NaivashaRailway (Ambrose 1984), Crescent Island Main (Onyango-Abuje 1977), Crescent Island Causeway(Bower and Nelson 1978), Prolonged Drift (Gifford et al. 1980).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mar

y Pr

ende

rgas

t] a

t 02:

33 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2013

A single datum point was placed near the base of the shelter wall, some 15 cm abovethe present-day surface. Four trenches were laid out relative to distinct shelter features.These included a 1×1 m unit near the wall (Unit 1); two 1×1 m units at and just outsidethe dripline (Units 2 and 3), and a 1×2 m unit approximately 8.5 m north-northwest ofand 6.4 m below the datum (Unit 4), beyond a number of large boulders between whichthe deposit was washing out. This unit was abandoned after it became clear that it was ajumbled secondary deposit.

Figure 6. View and plan of DMB3: a) facing north, with the small Gidaghroi Hill visible in thecentre of the background and Datari Hill behind and to the left; b) plan of the excavations.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mar

y Pr

ende

rgas

t] a

t 02:

33 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2013

Natural stratigraphy was followed whenever visible; when no stratigraphy was visible ora natural level was thicker than 5 cm, arbitrary 5 cm thick spits were employed. Datablematerials such as charcoal and ostrich eggshell were collected with a small spatula andwrapped in foil. All sediment was passed through nested 5 mm and 2 mm sieves.

Figure 6. (Continued)

Table 3. Daumboy Rockshelter 3 (DMB3): summary of depositional layers.

Range of depths below datum (cm)*

Layer Description Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 Unit 4

A Light brown topsoil, loose, roots/organic matter, modern debris

25–35 20–45 75–100 -

B Dark brown, compacted, silty clay;densely packed bones and stoneartefacts; pottery, charcoal, red ochre;no ostrich eggshell

- 45–85 85–125 -

C Medium brown, loosely packed siltyclay; decrease in artefact density

- 85–90(traces)

110–140 -

D Brownish grey silt; ash; concretions;abundant stone artefacts, bone, ostricheggshell beads and blanks in variousstages

30–90 >90(stopped

excavation)

130–175(overliesbedrock)

>640–660(stopped

excavation)

E Brownish grey silt, loose, fewinclusions; sharp decrease in artefactdensity, otherwise difficult todistinguish from Layer D

70–100 - - -

F Medium brown, fine-grainedhomogeneous silt; few stone artefacts,no bone

85–125(overliesbedrock)

- - -

*Slopes across the trench are reflected in the fact that there is overlap in ranges for over/under-lying layers


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mar

y Pr

ende

rgas

t] a

t 02:

33 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2013

Table 3 summarises the rock-shelter’s stratigraphy. The sequence is clearest in theprofiles of Units 1 and 3 (Figures 7 and 8). The entire surface is covered by a thin soil(Layer A) with organic matter and modern debris. In Units 2 and 3, Layer A includes apavement of large stones, under which lies Layer B, a densely packed clay with a highconcentration of bone, numerous stone artefacts and ceramics and some red ochre. Thislayer slopes down to the west-northwest and overlies Layer C, distinguished by itsslightly lighter colour, looser compression and decreased artefact density. There is a sharpstratigraphic break between this layer and the underlying Layer D, the latter being aloose, brownish grey silt with abundant ash and nodules of concreted sediment. Layer Dis found in all four excavated units and is an aceramic LSA occupation, with a blade-based lithic technology, ostrich eggshell beads and blanks at various stages ofmanufacture (Figure 9) and heavily concreted faunal remains. Layer D is, on average,50 cm thick in Unit 1, but is very thin in Unit 3 and slopes steeply down to the northwest-west, where it had washed into Unit 4. In Unit 1, Layer D is underlain by twoincreasingly sterile deposits (Layer E and F), below which lies bedrock.

Table 4 summarises the finds from DMB3. Nearly all the pottery was discovered inLayers A and B in Units 2 and 3. All the sherds from those units (N=85) areundecorated, relatively low-fired and somewhat weathered (i.e. eroded on their edges andsurfaces). These sherds are nondescript and contain quartzose inclusions, often poorlysorted, and some mica. At least 18 sherds from Layer B in Unit 2 are likely to come froma single low-fired, globular brown vessel with abundant quartzose inclusions and asomewhat blackened interior surface. One similar sherd was found just under the surface

Figure 7. DMB3: east profile of Unit 1, showing the layers identified following excavation.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mar

y Pr

ende

rgas

t] a

t 02:

33 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2013

in Unit 1. Only one sherd was found in Unit 4. It came from just under the surface and isvery thin-walled, unlike other pottery from DMB3, and is decorated with a band ofdiagonal thumbnail hatches (Figure 10). The ages and culture-historical affiliations of all

Figure 8. DMB3: south profile of Unit 3, showing the layers identified during excavation.

Figure 9. DMB3: ostrich eggshell beads and blanks from Unit 1, Layers A and D.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mar

y Pr

ende

rgas

t] a

t 02:

33 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2013

Table 4. Daumboy Rockshelter 3 (DMB3): materials recovered from excavations.

Unit Layer* Chert Quartz Obsidian Stone Ochre PotteryOstrich eggshell

(worked)Ostrich eggshell(unworked)

Total numberof finds

1 A 30 522 14 5 3 1 575A/D 30 100 7 1 3 3 144D 201 1141 12 39 14 25 1432D/E 144 971 3 81 2 1201E/F 31 884 23 938F 37 675 1 16 729

2 A 7 74 5 5 91B 305 1458 42 61 2 55 1923B/C 25 506 1 1 533C/D 34 693 12 3 742

3 A 161 354 17 8 1 14 555B 380 1966 8 42 10 11 2417C 29 429 6 2 2 2 470D 3 3

4 D 49 369 25 1 1 445TOTALS 1463 10145 104 323 21 87 23 32 12198

*In units 1 and 2, some spits cross-cut two stratigraphic layers. These are grouped here.

14M.E.Prendergast

etal.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mar

y Pr

ende

rgas

t] a

t 02:

33 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2013

these ceramics are unknown. Also found at DMB3 were several odd nodules that appearto be fired clay, similar in some ways to daub.

DMB3 produced a large lithic assemblage dominated by quartz (87%), with a smallerchert component (12%) and rare elements of obsidian (1%). Bipolar reduction iscommon, with few formal retouched tools in the assemblage. Irregular platform cores anda few geometric microliths are present. Detailed techno-typological analyses by Seitsonenare underway and may shed light on temporal changes in the technological sequence.Diachronic change is observable in the relative frequencies of raw materials (Table 4).The aceramic layers D-F contain almost exclusively quartz. In the ceramic layers A-C, therelative frequencies of chert and obsidian increase slightly. This may be linked to laterHolocene occupations in the valley, where chert and obsidian are more common.Elsewhere in northern Tanzania and Kenya, obsidian frequencies increase in the PN era(Merrick and Brown 1984; Mehlman 1989).

Although faunal remains are abundant at DMB3, specimens from the more recentdeposits (particularly Layer B) are soft and easily fragmented, while those from earlierdeposits (Layers D-E) are covered in concretions. In both cases, extensive treatment willbe necessary for many fragments before they can be identified. A small sample wasstudied in the field with the aim of providing basic taxonomic information: onlymaximally diagnostic specimens, such as teeth and complete compact bones or epiphyses,were selected.

Of the 369 identified specimens (NISP), a majority are tooth fragments, but thisreflects the sampling method, since the assemblage is very clearly dominated by limbshaft fragments. Taxa represented (Table 5) include warthog, zebra and alcelaphines(especially wildebeest), along with a few other bovids typical of semi-open to opensavanna, including African buffalo, eland, a hippotragine antelope and gazelle. Taxa morecommon in semi-wooded to closed environments, such as waterbuck and bushbuck, arealso represented in small numbers. Domestic livestock are present in the ceramic layers:cattle teeth were found in Layers B in Unit 2 and in Layers A, B and C in Unit 3. A singlepatella in Layer B may belong to a caprine, though it is difficult to be certain in theabsence of more diagnostic elements. The unanalysed portion of the assemblage appearsto be dominated by large bovids and equids. The selected sample is consistent with whatis known from neighbouring rock-shelters discussed above, as well as from PN-era rock-shelters in the Serengeti and the Eyasi Basin, where livestock are rare to absent and wildbovids and equids dominate (Gifford-Gonzalez 2011; Prendergast 2011).

Our goals for dating DMB3 were twofold: first, to have an understanding of the rock-shelter’s sequence from the aceramic through to the ceramic layers; and, second, to relate

Figure 10. Decorated sherd from DMB3.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mar

y Pr

ende

rgas

t] a

t 02:

33 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2013

the rock-shelter to UVS40 and other PN-era sites in the broader region. Ostrich eggshellfrom Layer D gave an AMS radiocarbon date of 9280 ± 25 BP (8551-8315 cal. BC;ISGS-A2386) (Table 2). This is well within the wide range for the LSA in north-centralTanzania and is nearly identical to a date of 9280 ± 60 BP (Hela-1013) previouslyobtained from aceramic LSA deposits on the north side of Lake Manyara (Seitsonen2006). This is the first date from an area that is, as noted above, rich in rock-shelters withLSA technology.

To date the ceramic layers, two conventional radiocarbon dates were obtained oncharcoal from Unit 3. A sample from the densely packed bone midden in the middle of

Table 5. Daumboy Rockshelter 3(DMB3): taxonomic representation based on selected, highlydiagnostic elements.

Layers D/E Layers B/C Layer A

Taxonomic group NISP MNI NISP MNI NISP MNI

AVES Bird, taxon indet. 1 1MAMMALIAPERISSODACTYLAEQUIDAEEquus cf. burchelli (zebra) 8 2 18 2

ARTIODACTYLASUIDAEPhacochoerus africanus (warthog) 1 1 3 1Suid indet. 1 1

BOVIDAEBovid Size 1 Aff. Madoqua sp.(dik-dik)

1 1

Bovid Size 1 Aff. Sylvicapra grimmia(bush duiker)

9 1

Bovid Size 1–2 Aff. Ovis/Capra(sheep/goat)

1 1

Gazella thomsoni (Thomson's gazelle) 2 1Redunca redunca (Bohor reedbuck) 2 1Kobus defassa (waterbuck) 1 1Alcelaphus/Damaliscus (kongoni/topi) 4 1Connochaetes taurinus (wildebeest) 6 1 8 2Alceleaphini, taxon indet. 6 -Bos taurus (cattle) 9 2 3 1Syncerus caffer (African buffalo) 1 1Hippotragini, taxon indet. 1 1cf. Taurotragus oryx (eland) 1 1Bovid Size 1–2 3 1 34 - 4 1Bovid Size 2–3 3 -Bovid Size 3 6 - 106 - 6 -Bovid Size 3–4 (may also be Equid) 1 - 31 -Bovid, indet. (tooth fragments) 55 - 23 -

CARNIVORAFelis sp. (small felid) 1 1 1 1

HYRACOIDEAProcavia sp. (rock hyrax) 1 1 3 1

RODENTIAHystrix cristata (porcupine) 3 1

MOLLUSCA Achatinidae (land snail) 1 1TOTAL 27 7 298 17 44 8


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mar

y Pr

ende

rgas

t] a

t 02:

33 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2013

Layer B produced a date of 4060 ± 70 BP (2861–2295 cal. BC; ISGS-6950). This issurprisingly early considering its association with cattle teeth and ceramics and wetherefore treat it with caution. However, although the bone midden itself is internallyquite jumbled (and could represent a sweeping event), we do not see any evidence in theunit’s stratigraphy of mixing between layers. A second sample from Layer A,approximately 15 cm below the surface and just above the stones separating Layers Aand B, gave a date of 1120 ± 70 BP (cal. AD 779–1146; ISGS-6949). This date seemsreasonable for the most recent documented occupation at DMB3 and thus offers aterminus ante quem for the cattle and ceramics in Layer B. Further research shouldattempt to replicate the early date for cattle via direct dating.

Sources for Ufana Valley obsidian artefacts

Although obsidian forms only a small part of the Ufana Valley lithic assemblages, itspresence is meaningful in terms of drawing connections between the newly discoveredsites and those elsewhere in northern Tanzania and in Kenya. Mehlman (1989: 407, 438,484, 504) indicated that obsidian artefacts from mid-late Holocene levels at Nasera andMumba rock-shelters in the Serengeti and Eyasi regions came from the Naivasha Basin inthe Rift Valley, specifically from the Sonanchi Crater, Njorowa Gorge, and Upper Eburrusources. The first two of these sources were also the main ones for surface-collectedartefacts at the possibly Narosuran site of Maua Farm, west of Kilimanjaro, and forNarosuran sites in Kenya, such as the type site and Lemek North-East (Merrick andBrown 1984). It is reasonable to expect that these might also be the primary sources forsites at the southern edge of the SPN distribution.

As part of an on-going project on obsidian sourcing in northern Tanzania (Prendergastet al. 2012), sixteen samples from the Ufana area have thus far been characterised usingx-ray fluorescence (XRF). The elemental compositions of samples from DMB3 andUVS40 indicate procurement almost exclusively at the Sonanchi Crater/Mundui sourcesjust west of Lake Naivasha or at the Oserian Farm/Njorowa Gorge group south of thelake (Table 6). The only northern Naivasha source (Masai Gorge) is connected to anaceramic LSA deposit at Semonyati 3 rock-shelter, one of the unpublished sitespreviously excavated by Mabulla and Gidna. The findings from DMB3 and UVS40 areconsistent with expectations, and suggest that exchange networks extended over adistance of more than 400 km along the Rift.

Conclusions and directions for future research

The findings from UVS40 and DMB3 suggest that survey along the so-called ‘southernfrontier’ of early herding in eastern Africa may, in fact, push this frontier still furthersouth. This serves to remind us that PN-era site distributions may to some extent be anartefact of research emphases rather than a true pattern. A relatively limited survey of theUfana Valley has already produced Narosura ceramics directly dated to the early thirdmillennium BP and potentially even earlier cattle remains. The latter are associated withceramics that cannot be identified with any known tradition and with charcoal dating tothe fifth millennium BP.

One of the obstacles to placing these newly discovered artefacts within existingframeworks is that, with the exception of Mehlman (1989), no scholar has described indetail the PN-era ceramic and lithic assemblages of northern Tanzania. Ranges of variationwithin and between artefact traditions therefore remain unclear. Future research should


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mar

y Pr

ende

rgas

t] a

t 02:

33 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2013

Table 6. Sources of obsidian artefacts from the Ufana Valley.

Site ContextArtefactanalysed Association

Petrologicalgroup* Source locality

Distancefrom

site (km)

Laboratory,method**,analyst(s)

DMB3 Exposed profile belowsite, associated withceramics

Microlithfragment

Ceramics, stoneartefacts, cattleteeth

20 Oserian Farm 1, Kenya 390 km New Mexico, ED-XRF (Shackley)

DMB3 Exposed profile belowsite, associated withceramics

Microlithfragment

Ceramics, stoneartefacts, cattleteeth

19 Sonanchi Crater/Mundui,Kenya

400 km Helsinki, WD-XRF(Heikkilä-Seitsonen)

DMB3 Unit 2, Layer B (L8) Flake Ceramics, stoneartefacts, cattleteeth





400 km Helsinki, PXRF(Seitsonen)

DMB3 Unit 2, Layer B (L8) Microlith Ceramics, stoneartefacts, cattleteeth






DMB3 Unit 1, Layer D (L4) Flake Aceramic LSA,wild fauna







20/25 Njorowa Gorge/ NaivashaLake Edge S/Oserian Farm 1,Kenya

380–390 km Helsinki, PXRF(Seitsonen)

DMB3 Unit 1, Layer F (L20) Flake Aceramic LSA,wild fauna

20/25 Njorowa Gorge/ NaivashaLake Edge S/Oserian Farm 1,Kenya

380–390 km Helsinki, PXRF(Seitsonen)

18M.E.Prendergast

etal.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mar

y Pr

ende

rgas

t] a

t 02:

33 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2013

Table 6. (Continued)

Site ContextArtefactanalysed Association

Petrologicalgroup* Source locality

Distancefrom

site (km)

Laboratory,method**,analyst(s)

UVS40 Test pit C4 Flake Narosura ceramics,livestock



UVS40 Test pit C4 Flake Narosura ceramics,livestock



UVS40 Test pit D3 Flake Narosura ceramics,livestock









Semonyati 3 Unit 3, Level 5 Flake Aceramic LSA,wild fauna

32 Masai Gorge, Kenya 415 km New Mexico, ED-XRF (Shackley)

*Following Merrick and Brown (1984)**ED-XRF = energy dispersive x-ray fluorescence; WD = wavelength dispersive XRF; PXRF = portable XRF

Azania:

Archaeological

Research

inAfrica

19

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mar

y Pr

ende

rgas

t] a

t 02:

33 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2013

focus on careful description and comparison of both previously and newly excavatedassemblages from the region, coupled with direct dating of well-attributed ceramic sherds.

Despite the ambiguities in fitting material culture to existing traditions, it is clear thatthere are some connections among PN-era sites in Kenya and Tanzania. Transport ofobsidian over 400 km from the Naivasha Basin is evident from the XRF data and wasprobably the result of numerous exchanges among PN-era people. An increase inobsidian in the Tanzanian sites discussed here during the PN era, relative to LSAcontexts, suggests that such exchanges increased in frequency at this time. This mightimply greater mobility and/or social networks among PN-era herders. It also seemsprobable that the low frequency of obsidian in northern Tanzanian assemblages —relative to the Central Rift of Kenya — means this area is the endpoint of a long down-the-line exchange. This could indicate that the final frontier for stone-using pastoralists is,in fact, not much further south than the surveyed area.

If this area is indeed a frontier, then in its archaeofaunal record we can expect a mixof wild and domestic taxa, as discussed by Gifford-Gonzalez (1998, 2011) andPrendergast (2011). Such a mix might reflect exchanges among herders and foragers,or an increased reliance by herders on wild food sources, and some analytical methodsexist that may tease apart these interpretations when assemblages are sufficiently large(Prendergast and Mutundu 2009). Thus far, the presence of caprines and cattle in putativeassociation with Narosura ceramics at UVS40, and the relative abundance of wild bovidsand equids in the ceramic layers at DMB3, is consistent with what has been foundelsewhere near Lake Eyasi. There, PN-era and other ceramic deposits at MumbaRockshelter show limited use of livestock by occupants who otherwise hunted (andpresumably gathered), while neighbouring open-air sites with Narosura ceramics aredominated by livestock (Prendergast 2011).

The Eyasi area provides additional parallels to the southern Mbulu Plateau. In bothareas, stone bowls and lobed axes typical of the SPN are present. Bowls recovered in the2008–2011 surveys by Mabulla and Gidna resemble those from Ngorongoro Crater(Merrick 1973), Seronera (Bower 1973), and numerous sites in the Eyasi Basin(Mehlman 1989). Lobed axes like those from UVS40 and DMB3 have been documentedat Narosura sites and undated burial cairns in the Eyasi Basin (Mehlman 1989), at theNarosura type site (Odner 1972) and in association with Narosura ceramics at CrescentIsland (Onyango-Abuje 1977).

Based on this preliminary study, the Ufana area appears to represent a southwardextension of the distribution of Narosura material culture, with strong similarities to otherNarosuran sites in terms of ceramic and lithic artefacts, chronology and rawmaterial sources.Further research in the Ufana Valley will attempt to locate additional open-air sites withsubsurface deposits to be excavated more systematically than was possible during the initialsurvey. Continued analyses of obsidian may strengthen links between this area and theNaivasha sources. In the longer term, research should be expanded elsewhere on the MbuluPlateau, as it initially appears that this high-altitude area, with its relatively abundant rainfalland vegetation, was as attractive to foragers and herders in the past as it is to farmers today.

AcknowledgmentsOur work was carried out under research permits issued by the Antiquities Division and theCommission for Science and Technology (COSTECH) of Tanzania. Funding was provided by aWenner-Gren International Collaborative Research Grant (No. 111) and a National GeographicSociety Committee for Research and Exploration Grant (No. 9059-12). Radiocarbon dates wereprovided by Dr Hong Wang of the Illinois State Geological Survey and obsidian characterisation by


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mar

y Pr

ende

rgas

t] a

t 02:

33 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2013

Mr Pasi Heikkilä of the University of Helsinki and Dr Steven Shackley of the University of NewMexico. We thank Mr Ferdinand Mizambwa (Antiquities Division, Tanzania) for his support andenthusiasm throughout the fieldwork, as well as the staff and students of Ufana Secondary Schoolfor their hospitality. We are especially thankful to eleven students from the University of Dar esSalaam for their devotion to the project. Finally, we gratefully acknowledge the fact that threeanonymous reviewers put considerable time and effort into comments that have improved thequality of this paper. Any errors or omissions are our own.

Note1. Individual dates in this paper are presented as uncalibrated years BP or calibrated years BC/AD

within the 2-sigma range, using the SHCal04 curve in OxCal Version 4.2 (McCormac et al.2004). Date ranges before present (e.g. 3500-2000 BP) are intended to provide a generalframework and do not imply precision.

Notes on contributorsMary E. Prendergast is a professor in the Department of Sociology and Anthropology at SaintLouis University in Madrid, Spain. Her research focuses on Holocene subsistence strategies andforager-food producer relationships. She has conducted fieldwork and zooarchaeological analyses inKenya and Tanzania since 2005.

Audax Z.P. Mabulla is Associate Professor of Archaeology at the University of Dar es Salaam. Hisresearch interests include modern human origins, foraging and pastoralism, rock art and culturalheritage management. He is co-director of the Olduvai Palaeoecological and PalaeoanthropologicalProject and also co-directs fieldwork in the Serengeti and in the Eyasi Basin.

Katherine M. Grillo is Assistant Professor of Archaeology at the University of Wisconsin-LaCrosse. Her research interests centre on the material culture of African pastoralism. She hasconducted ethnoarchaeological research in Samburu, Kenya, and is currently co-director of theLater Prehistory of West Turkana Project.

Lee G. Broderick is a zooarchaeologist and ethnoarchaeologist based at zooarchaeology.co.uk anda postgraduate researcher at the University of York. He has a particular research interest inpastoralism as well as in taphonomy and palaeoecology, including the interaction of environmentand subsistence. He has conducted fieldwork in Mongolia, Ethiopia, Tanzania and South Africa.

Agness O. Gidna is Senior Curator in Palaeontology at the National Museum and House of Culturein Dar es Salaam. Her research focuses on vertebrate taphonomy and Plio-Pleistocene homininevolution, with a current project studying carcass modification by modern African felids andimplications for studies of early human subsistence behaviour.

Oula I. Seitsonen has been studying the archaeology of northern Tanzania since 2002 andspecialises in lithic and XRF analyses and the use of Geographical Information Systems. He is thedirecting archaeologist of Arkteekki Ltd, Finland, and currently works at the ArchaeologicalMuseum, University of Stavanger, Norway.

Diane Gifford-Gonzalez is Professor of Anthropology at the University of California, Santa Cruz.She has worked with African faunas since the 1970s and is a member of the Committee of Honourof the International Council of Archaeozoology.

ReferencesAmbrose, S.H. 1982. “Archaeology and linguistic reconstructions of history in East Africa.” In TheArchaeological and Linguistic Reconstruction of African History, edited by Christopher Ehretand Merrick Posnansky, 104–157. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Ambrose, S.H. 1984. “The introduction of pastoral adaptations to the highlands of East Africa.” InFrom Hunters to Farmers: The Causes and Consequences of Food Production in Africa, editedby J.D. Clark and S.A. Brandt, 212–239. Berkeley: University of California Press.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mar

y Pr

ende

rgas

t] a

t 02:

33 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2013

Ambrose, S.H. 1998. “Chronology of the Later Stone Age and food production in East Africa.”Journal of Archaeological Science 25: 377–392.

Bower, J. 1973. “Seronera: excavations at a stone bowl site in the Serengeti National Park,Tanzania.” Azania 8: 71–104.

Bower, J. and Chadderdon, T.J. 1986. “Further excavations of Pastoral Neolithic sites in Serengeti.”Azania 21: 129–133.

Bower, J. and Nelson, C.M. 1978. “Early pottery and pastoral cultures of the Central Rift Valley,Kenya.” Man 13: 554–566.

Causey, M. 2010. “Delineating pastoralist behaviour and long-term environmental change:a GIS landscape approach on the Laikipia Plateau, Kenya.” DPhil. diss., University of Oxford.

Dale, D. 2007. “An archaeological investigation of the Kansyore, Later Stone Age hunter-gatherersin East Africa”. PhD diss., Washington University in St Louis.

Ehret, C. 1982. “The first spread of food production to southern Africa.” In The Archaeological andLinguistic Reconstruction of African History, edited by Christopher Ehret and MerrickPosnansky, 158–181. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Gifford, D., Isaac, G.L., and Nelson, C.M. 1980. “Evidence for predation and pastoralism atProlonged Drift: a Pastoral Neolithic site in Kenya.” Azania 15:57–108.

Gifford-Gonzalez, D. 1998. “Early pastoralists in East Africa: ecological and social dimensions.”Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 17: 166–200.

Gifford-Gonzalez, D. 2000. “Animal disease challenges to the emergence of pastoralism in Sub-Saharan Africa.’ African Archaeological Review 17: 95–139.

Gifford-Gonzalez, D. 2011. “East African pastoralism: routes, outcomes, questions.” In People andAnimals in Holocene Africa: Recent Advances in Archaeozoology, edited by H. Jousse andJ. Lesur, 27–42. Frankfurt: Africa Magna Verlag.

Inskeep, R.R. 1962. “The age of the Kondoa rock paintings in the light of recent excavations atKisese II Rock Shelter.” In Actes Du IVe Congres Panafricain De Prehistoire Et De I"Etude DuQuaternaire, Leopoldville, edited by G. Mortelmans and J. Nenquin, 249–256. Tervuren:Annales du Musée Royale de I’Afrique Centrale Série IN-8o (Sciences Humaines).

Lane, P.J. 2004. “The ‘moving frontier’ and the transition to food production in Kenya.” Azania39: 243–264.

Marshall, F., Grillo, K.M. and Arco, L. 2011. “Prehistoric pastoralists and social responses toclimatic risk in East Africa.” In Sustainable Lifeways: Cultural Persistence in an Ever-ChangingEnvironment, edited by N. Miller, K. Moore, K. Ryan, 38–73. Philadelphia: University ofPennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology.

Masao, F. 1976. “The Later Stone Age and the rock paintings of central Tanzania.” PhD diss.,Simon Fraser University.

McCormac, F.G., Hogg, A.G., Blackwell, P.G., Buck, C.E., Higham, T.F.G. and Reimer, P.J. 2004.“SHCal04 Southern Hemisphere calibration, 0-11.0 cal kyr BP.” Radiocarbon 46: 1087–1092.

Mehlman, M. J. 1989. “Later Quaternary archaeological sequences in northern Tanzania.” PhDdiss., University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Meindertsma, J.D. and Kesslet, J.J. 1997. Towards Better Use of Environmental Resources:A Planning Document of Mbulu and Karatu Districts, Tanzania. Mbulu: Mbulu DistrictCouncil.

Merrick, H. 1973. “Aspects of the size and shape variation of the East African stone bowls.” Azania8: 115–130.

Merrick, H. and Brown, F.H. 1984. “Obsidian sources and patterns of source utilization in Kenyaand northern Tanzania: some initial findings.” African Archaeological Review 2: 129–152.

Mturi, A. 1986. “The Pastoral Neolithic of West Kilimanjaro.” Azania 21: 53–63.Odner, K. 1971. “An archaeological survey of Iramba, Tanzania.” Azania: Archaeological Researchin Africa 6: 151–198.

Odner, K. 1972. “Excavations at Narosura, a stone bowl site in the southern Kenya Highlands.”Azania 6: 25–92.

Onyango-Abuje, J.C. 1977. “A contribution to the study of the Neolithic in East Africawith particular reference to Nakuru-Naivasha Basins.” PhD diss., University of California(Berkeley).

Prendergast, M.E. 2008. “Forager variability and transitions to food production in secondarysettings: Kansyore and Pastoral Neolithic economies in East Africa.” PhD diss., HarvardUniversity.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mar

y Pr

ende

rgas

t] a

t 02:

33 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2013

Prendergast, M.E. 2011. “Hunters and herders at the periphery: the spread of herding in easternAfrica.” In People and Animals in Holocene Africa: Recent Advances in Archaeozoology, editedby H. Jousse and J. Lesur, 43–58. Frankfurt: Africa Magna Verlag.

Prendergast, M.E., Mabulla, A.Z.P., Seitsonen, O., Grillo, K.M., Broderick, L.G. and Gidna, A.O.2013. “Archaeological investigation of a ‘moving frontier’ of herding in northern Tanzania.Report on fieldwork in Arusha and Manyara Districts, July-August 2012.” Unpublished reportsubmitted to the Tanzanian Commission on Science and Technology, Dar es Salaam.

Prendergast, M.E. and Mutundu, K. 2009. “Late Holocene archaeological faunas in East Africa:ethnographic analogues and interpretive challenges.” Documenta Archaeobiologiae 7: 203–232.

Prendergast, M.E., Seitsonen, O. and Mabulla, A.Z.P. 2012. “Obsidian movement and herdermobility in eastern Africa.” Unpublished paper given at the 11th Biannual Meeting of the Societyof Africanist Archaeologists, 20–23 June 2012, Toronto.

Robertshaw, P.T. 1990. Early Pastoralists of South-Western Kenya. Nairobi: British Institute inEastern Africa.

Robertshaw, P.T., Pilgram, T., Siiriäinen, A. and Marshall, F. 1990. “Archaeological surveys andprehistoric settlement patterns.” In Early Pastoralists of South-Western Kenya, edited byP.T. Robertshaw, 36–51. Nairobi: British Institute in Eastern Africa.

Seitsonen, O. 2005. “Stone Age observations in the Engaruka area.” Nyame Akuma 63: 27–32.Seitsonen, O. 2006. “Archaeological research in the northern Lake Manyara Basin, Tanzania2003–2004.” Azania 41: 26–52.

Seitsonen, O. 2009. “Prehistoric landuse in the Loita-Mara Region, southwest Kenya: a preliminaryGIS Site Catchment Analysis.” Nyame Akuma 71: 46–53.

Western, D., and T. Dunne. 1979. “Environmental aspects of settlement site decisions amongpastoral Maasai.” Human Ecology 7: 79–98.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mar

y Pr

ende

rgas

t] a

t 02:

33 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2013

Pastoral Neolithic sites on the southern Mbulu Plateau, Tanzania

Documents