Measuring change: Cattle and caprines from iron age farming sites in Southern Africa

INTRODUCTION Lagomorph, Artiodactyla and Turkey indices are commonly Cattle and caprines (sheep and goats collectively) appeared used in the American Southwest (Szuter & Bayham 1989; in southern Africa about two millennia ago (Plug & Voigt 1985; Driver 2002; Driver & Woiderski 2008; Badenhorst & Driver Plug 1996a; Plug & Badenhorst 2001; Robbins et al. 2005,2008). 2009). Ratios have been used in southern Africa to compare The role of cattle (Bos taurus) and caprines (Ovis aries, Capra caprines to cattle. For example, at Broederstroom, caprines hircus, Ovis/Capra) among Iron Age farming communities in outnumber cattle at a ratio of 42 to 1 (Huffman 1993). However, southern Africa have been a point of debate (e.g. Hall 1986, it is difficult to make comparisons on a regional scale using this 1987a, 1987b; Huffman 1998,2001,2007,2010; Badenhorst 2008, ratio. As a result, I propose an index to measure the ratio 2009a,b, 2010). Two different opinions have emerged. Those between cattle and caprines, which I call the'Cattle Index'. The favouring the Central Cattle Pattern have maintained that Cattle Index (CI), using NISP, is calculated as: cattle were the most important domestic animal since the first Cattle farmers settled in southern Africa during the Early Iron Age Cattle Index (CI) = cattle + £aprines in the first millennium AD. The direct historical approach features strongly in these arguments. A central argument for The advantage of the CI is that values can only range these archaeologists has been that the numbers of bones of between 0 and 1. Values near 0 denote samples with few cattle cattle and caprines are irrelevant to infer the cultural meaning but many caprines, whereas a CI value nearer 1 indicates of these animals (e.g. Huffman 2001, 2007, 2010). On the other samples where cattle significantly outnumber caprines. For the hand are those that have taken an empirical approach, indicatindex, all caprines (Ovis aries, Capra hircus, Ovis/Capra) are ing that cattle generally begin to dominate domestic faunas in included. Faunal analysts often include the prefix 'cf to taxon southern Africa only during the Late Iron Age in the second identifications, indicating a possible identification ('compara millennium AD. According to this view, the number of liveble to'). For example, 'cf. Bos taurus' means 'possibly cattle. ' I stock bones is an indication of their cultural significance (e.g. included all specimens denoted 'cf under their respective taxa, Badenhorst 2008,2010). My purpose in this paper is to propose assuming that such specimens actually belong to that particular and apply a quantification method to investigate the changing taxon. role of cattle and caprines over time, which would allow for a A regional overview must make use of faunal samples that better understanding of this complex issue. My purpose is not were identified by various analysts. Since the inception of to deliberate on the cultural meaning of bone numbers of livezooarchaeology in the mid 1970s (Voigt 1981), identification stock at Iron Age sites (Huffman 2010), an issue which I hope to procedures have improved (Plug 2000:118) with morphological address in future. research greatly aiding identification of closely-related taxa A longstanding debate in zooarchaeology during the past (e.g. Peters 1986, 1988). Since most faunal assemblages from four decades has been faunal quantification. A number of southern Africa are heavily fragmented, a large number of methods have been proposed, of which some of the comspecimens can only be identified to family level. However, it monly-used ones include the Number of Identified Specimens, cannot always be assumed that indeterminate Bov II and III Minimum Number of Individuals, Minimum Number of (Brain 1974) specimens are necessarily all caprines and cattle Elements, Minimal Animal Units, Meat Weights and Quantifirespectively, particularly during the Early and Middle Iron able Skeletal Parts. All methods have unique advantages and Ages (cf. Plug 2000; Hutten 2005; Voigt 1983; pace Fatherley disadvantages (e.g. Brumley 1973; Perkins 1973; Casteel 1977; 2009). As a result, no family identifications were included in Watson 1979; Lie 1980; Grayson 1984; Driver 1985; Plug 1988; my study. Each settlement has had its own unique taphonomic Plug & Plug 1990; De Wet 1993; Reitz& Wing 1999; Beukes 2000; history, with variations in preservation, screen sizes used in O'Connor 2000; De Ruiter 2004; Lyman 2008). The primary excavation and locations of excavations. However, such varia form of quantification is the Number of Identified Specimens tions between assemblages should not be overstated, and they (NISP) and all the other methods of quantification derive from do not a priori preclude regional comparisons (Driver 2002; NISP (cf. O'Connor 2000; Reitz & Wing 1999). In the case of Badenhorst & Driver 2009). Samples from different areas at large samples, the results of many methods will mimic NISPs sites such as kraals, middens and huts were lumped together (e.g. Bayham 1987). for this paper because samples from individual living areas are often too small to reveal meaningful patterns. THE CATTLE INDEX Zooarchaeologists are well aware that large samples are A common approach to measure change of animal repredesirable for comparisons. Small samples are a serious concern, sentation in faunal samples is to use ratios, which measure For example, Mhlopeni in KwaZulu-Natal dating to the Early changes between two or more taxa. For example, the Iron Age, only yielded 28 specimens (Voigt 1984), and was not