Advertisement

African Archaeological Review

, Volume 33, Issue 4, pp 353–361 | Cite as

Beware the Springbok in Sheep’s Clothing: How Secure Are the Faunal Identifications upon Which We Build Our Models?

  • K. Ann HorsburghEmail author
  • Jayson Orton
  • Richard G. Klein
Original Article

Abstract

Lively debate surrounds the introduction of non-indigenous domestic livestock to southern Africa. Despite disagreements regarding process, the archaeological community agrees, with unusual unanimity, on the broad chronology. Indeed, the certainty with which the timing is known (admittedly within the limits of radiocarbon dating) has been celebrated, because with these underpinning data in hand, issues of process can be explored in a serious and empirically grounded manner. Recently published ancient DNA (aDNA) research in southern Africa now calls into question the reliability of many faunal identifications upon which this debate rests. These data build on earlier ecological data, suggesting that some faunal identifications at sites crucial to the debate may be unreliable. A number of morphologically identified domesticate bones were chosen for aDNA sequencing to explore the relationships among southern Africa’s early domestic stock. Unfortunately, a large proportion yielded DNA sequences indicating a wild origin. This led us to consider the potential scale of the problem and the implications for existing models regarding the introduction of herding to the subcontinent. The issue may originate largely from the optimistic identification of specimens retaining too few key morphological markers. We acknowledge that reconstructions of the past are likely to be biased by discarding potential zooarchaeological data through overly conservative identification. We argue, however, that the potential ramifications of building models on unreliable data are far greater than those of being forced to acknowledge gaps in our data and are calling for further research.

Keywords

Zooarchaeology Data quality Ancient DNA Domestic stock 

Résumé

Des discussions animées portent sur la question de l’introduction des animaux domestiques en Afrique australe. S’il existe des désaccords au sujet des processus d’introduction, la communauté archéologique s’accorde néanmoins dans son ensemble sur la chronologie de ces évènements, dans le cadre d’un consensus qui est plutôt inhabituel. Ces certitudes (certes dans le cadre des limites de datation radiocarbone) sont à l’origine de l’élaboration de scénarios rigoureux et empiriques. Toutefois, les dernières recherches sur des échantillons d’ADN anciens venant d’Afrique australe remettent en question la fiabilité de nombreuses identifications fauniques sur lesquelles repose le débat. Ces recherches se construisent sur d’anciennes données écologiques et suggèrent que certaines identifications d’espèces, dans des sites clés, seraient erronées. Un grand nombre d’os d’animaux domestiques identifiés sur des bases morphologiques ont été sélectionnés pour des séquençages ADN afin d’explorer la question des relations au sein des premières populations d’animaux domestiques d’Afrique australe. Or, une grande proportion des séquences d’ADN ancien indiquent une origine sauvage. Ceci nous conduit à envisager l’ampleur potentielle du problème et ses implications sur les modèles actuels relatifs à l’introduction de l’élevage sur le sous-continent. Le problème trouve certainement sa source dans l’identification optimiste de certains spécimens associés à un trop faible nombre de marqueurs morphologiques. Nous reconnaissons que les reconstructions du passé sont biaisées par la disparition de certaines données zoo-archéologiques et par un trop grand nombre d’identifications à l’identique. Mais nous soutenons néanmoins que les conséquences induites par des modèles construits sur des données discutables sont plus importantes que celles pour des modèles volontiers enclins à reconnaitre la fragilité des données et appelant à poursuivre la recherche.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Annie Antonities, Karin Scott, and Evin Grody for the invitation to participate in this special issue and Guillaume Porraz for translating the abstract for us.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Beck, C., & Jones, G. T. (1989). Bias and archaeological classification. American Antiquity, 54(2), 244–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bousman, C. B. (1998). The chronological evidence for the introduction of domestic stock into southern Africa. African Archaeological Review, 15, 133–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bousman, C. B. (2005). Coping with risk: Later Stone Age technological strategies at Blydefontein Rock Shelter, South Africa. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 24, 193–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bousman, C. B., Mauldin, R., Zoppi, U., Higham, T., Scott, L., & Brink, J. (2016). The quest for evidence of domestic stock at Blydefontein. Southern African Humanities. In press.Google Scholar
  5. Domínguez-Rodrigo, M., Pickering, T. R., & Bunn, H. T. (2012). Experimental study of cut marks made with rocks unmodified by human flaking and its bearing on claims of ∼3.4-million-year-old butchery evidence from Dikika, Ethiopia. Journal of Archaeological Science, 39(2), 205–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Driver, J. C. (1992). Identification, classification and zooarchaeology. Circaea, 9, 35–47.Google Scholar
  7. Fagan, B. M. (1967). Iron Age cultures in Zambia (Vol. 1). London: Chatto and Windus.Google Scholar
  8. Gilbert, M. T. P., Bandelt, H. J., Hofreiter, M., & Barnes, I. (2005). Assessing ancient DNA studies. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 20(10), 541–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gobalet, K. W. (2001). A critique of faunal analysis: Inconsistency among experts in blind tests. Journal of Archaeological Science, 28, 377–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Horsburgh, K. A. (2015). Molecular anthropology: The judicial use of genetic data in archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Science, 56, 141–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Horsburgh, K. A., & Moreno-Mayar, J. V. (2015). Molecular identification of sheep at Blydefontein Rock Shelter, South Africa. Southern African Humanities, 27, 65–90.Google Scholar
  12. Horsburgh, K. A., & Rhines, A. (2010). Genetic characterization of an archaeological sheep assemblage from South Africa’s Western Cape. Journal of Archaeological Science, 37, 2906–2910.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Horsburgh, K. A., Moreno-Mayar, J. V., & Gosling, A. L. (2016). Revisiting the Kalahari debate in the highlands: Ancient DNA provides new faunal identifcations at Sehonghong, Lesotho. Azania: Archaeological Research in Africa. doi: 10.1080/006720X.2016.1169041.Google Scholar
  14. Jerardino, A., Fort, J., Isern, N., & Rondelli, B. (2014). Cultural diffusion was the main driving mechanism of the Neolithic transition in southern Africa. PloS One, 9(12), e113672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kaestle, F. A., & Horsburgh, K. A. (2002). Ancient DNA in anthropology: Methods, applications and ethics. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology, 45, 92–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Klein, R. G. (1979). Paleoenvironmental and cultural implications of late Holocene archaeological faunas from the Orange Free State and North-Central Cape Province, South Africa. South African Archaeological Bulletin, 34, 34–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Klein, R. G. (1984). The large mammals of southern Africa: Late Pliocene to recent. In R. G. Klein (Ed.), Southern African prehistory and paleoenvironments (pp. 107–146). Rotterdam: A. A. Balkema.Google Scholar
  18. Lyman, R. L., & VanPool, T. L. (2009). Metric data in archaeology: A study of intra-analyst and inter-analyst variation. American Antiquity, 74(3), 485–504.Google Scholar
  19. Matisoo-Smith, L., & Horsburgh, K. A. (2012). DNA for archaeologists. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.Google Scholar
  20. Mulligan, C. J. (2006). Anthropological applications of ancient DNA: Problems and prospects. American Antiquity, 71(2), 365–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. O’Rourke, D. H., Hayes, M. G., & Carlyle, S. W. (2000). Ancient DNA studies in physical anthropology. Annual Review of Anthropology, 29, 217–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Orton, J. (2015). The introduction of pastoralism to southernmost Africa: Thoughts on new contributions to an ongoing debate. Azania: Archaeological Research in Africa, 50(2), 250–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Orton, J., Hart, T., & Halkett, D. (2005). Shell middens in Namaqualand: Two Later Stone Age sites at Rooiwalbaai, Northern Cape Province, South Africa. South African Archaeological Bulletin, 60(181), 24–32.Google Scholar
  24. Orton, J., Klein, R. G., Mackay, A., Schwortz, S., & Steele, T. E. (2011). Two Holocene rock shelter deposits from the Knersvlakte, southern Namaqualand, South Africa. Southern African Humanities, 23, 109–150.Google Scholar
  25. Orton, J., Mitchell, P., Klein, R. G., Steele, T., & Horsburgh, K. A. (2013). An early date for cattle from Namaqualand, South Africa: Implications for the origins of herding in southern Africa. Antiquity, 87, 108–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pinhasi, R., Fort, J., & Ammerman, A. J. (2005). Tracing the origin and spread of agriculture in Europe. PLoS Biology, 3(12), 2220–2228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pleurdeau, D., Imalwa, E., Detroit, F., Lesur, J., Veldman, A., Bahain, J. J., & Marais, E. (2012). “Of sheep and men”: Earliest direct evidence of caprine domestication in southern Africa at Leopard Cave (Erongo, Namibia). PloS One, 7(7), e40340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Plug, I. (1993). The macrofaunal remains of wild animals from Abbot’s Cave and Lame Sheep Shelter, Seacow Valley, Cape. Koedoe, 36(1), 15–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Robbins, L. H., Campbell, A. C., Murphy, M. L., Brook, G. A., Srivastava, P., & Badenhorst, S. (2005). The advent of herding in southern Africa: Early AMS dates on domestic livestock from the Kalahari Desert. Current Anthropology, 46(4), 671–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Russell, T. M. (2004). The spatial analysis of radiocarbon databases: The spread of the first farmers in Europe and of the fat-tailed sheep in southern Africa. Oxford: Archaeopress.Google Scholar
  31. Sadr, K. (1998). The first herders at the Cape of Good Hope. African Archaeological Review, 15, 101–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sadr, K. (2003). The Neolithic of southern Africa. Journal of African History, 44, 195–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sadr, K. (2015). The impact of coder reliability on reconstructing archaeological settlement patterns from satellite imagery: A case study from South Africa. Archaeological Prospection. doi: 10.1002/arp.1515.Google Scholar
  34. Sampson, C. G. (1970). The Smithfield Industrial Complex: Further field results. Bloemfontein: National Museum.Google Scholar
  35. Scott, L., & Bousman, C. B. (1989). Palynological analysis of hyrax middens from southern Africa. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 76, 367–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Scott, K., & Plug, I. (2016). Osteomorphology and osteometry versus aDNA in taxonomic identification of fragmenary sheep and sheep/goat bones from Blydefontein Rock Shelter, South Africa. Southern African Humanities. In press.Google Scholar
  37. Sealy, J., & Yates, R. (1994). The chronology of the introduction of pastoralism to the Cape, South Africa. Antiquity, 68(258), 58–67.Google Scholar
  38. Sealy, J., & Yates, R. (1996). Direct radiocarbon dating of early sheep bones: Two further results. South African Archaeological Bulletin, 51, 109–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Shortridge, G. C. (1942). Field notes on the first and second expeditions of the Cape Museum’s mammal survey of the Cape Province; and descriptions of some new subgenera and subspecies. Annals of the South African Museum, 36, 27–99.Google Scholar
  40. Skead, C. J., Boshoff, A., Kerley, G., & Lloyd, P. (Eds.) (2011). Historical incidence of the large mammals in the broader Western and Northern cape (2nd ed.). Port Elizabeth: Centre for African Conservation Ecology, Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University.Google Scholar
  41. Skinner, J. D., & Chimimba, C. T. (2005). The mammals of the southern African subregion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Smith, A. B. (1992). Pastoralism in Africa: Origins and development ecology. London: Hurst.Google Scholar
  43. Smith, A. B. (1998). Keeping people on the periphery: The ideology of social hierarchies between hunters and herders. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 17, 201–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Smith, A. B. (2006). Excavations at Kasteelberg and the origins of the Khoekhoen in the Western Cape, South Africa. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports International Series 1537.Google Scholar
  45. Webley, L. E. (1992). The history and archaeology of pastoralism and hunter-gatherer settlement in the North-Western Cape, South Africa. PhD dissertation, University of Cape Town.Google Scholar
  46. Webley, L. (2002). The re-excavation of Spoegrivier Cave on the west coast of southern Africa. Annals of Eastern Cape Museums, 2, 19–49.Google Scholar
  47. Welker, F., Collins, M. J., Thomas, J. A., Wadsley, M., Brace, S., Cappellini, E., Turvey, S. T., Reguero, M., Gelfo, J. N., Kramarz, A., et al. (2015). Ancient proteins resolve the evolutionary history of Darwin’s South American ungulates. Nature, 522(7554), 81–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Young, D., & Bamforth, D. B. (1990). On the macroscopic identification of used flakes. American Antiquity, 55(2), 403–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • K. Ann Horsburgh
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Jayson Orton
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
  • Richard G. Klein
    • 6
    • 7
  1. 1.Department of AnthropologySouthern Methodist UniversityDallasUSA
  2. 2.School of Geography, Archaeology and Environmental StudiesUniversity of the WitwatersrandWitsSouth Africa
  3. 3.ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd.MuizenbergSouth Africa
  4. 4.Department of ArchaeologyUniversity of Cape TownCape TownSouth Africa
  5. 5.Department of Anthropology and ArchaeologyUniversity of South AfricaPretoriaSouth Africa
  6. 6.Program in Human BiologyStanford UniversityStanfordUSA
  7. 7.Natural History Collections DepartmentIziko Museums of South AfricaCape TownSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations