limpet gathering strategies in the later stone age along the cape west coast, south africa

This article was downloaded by: [University of York]On: 25 April 2013, At: 12:11Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Journal of Island and CoastalArchaeologyPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uica20

Limpet Gathering Strategies in the LaterStone Age Along the Cape West Coast,South AfricaJohn Parkington a , John W. Fisher Jr. b & Katharine Kyriacou aa Archaeology Department, University of Cape Town, Rondebosch,South Africab Departments of Sociology and Anthropology, Montana StateUniversity, Bozeman, Montana, USA

To cite this article: John Parkington , John W. Fisher Jr. & Katharine Kyriacou (2013): LimpetGathering Strategies in the Later Stone Age Along the Cape West Coast, South Africa, The Journal ofIsland and Coastal Archaeology, 8:1, 91-107

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15564894.2012.756084

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

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

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.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uica20

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15564894.2012.756084

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

Journal of Island & Coastal Archaeology, 8:91–107, 2013Copyright © 2013 Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1556-4894 print / 1556-1828 onlineDOI: 10.1080/15564894.2012.756084

Limpet GatheringStrategies in the LaterStone Age Along the CapeWest Coast, South AfricaJohn Parkington,1 John W. Fisher Jr.,2 and Katharine Kyriacou1

1Archaeology Department, University of Cape Town, Rondebosch, South Africa2Departments of Sociology and Anthropology, Montana State University,

Bozeman, Montana, USA

ABSTRACT

Past archaeological investigations into the impact of shellfish gather-ing by hunter-gatherers on shellfish stocks, particularly on shellfish size,generally have emphasized long-term change visible in stratigraphicsequences. We propose that short-term exploitation of shellfish by LaterStone Age hunter-gatherers who briefly inhabited the Dunefield Midden(DFM) campsite on the Atlantic Coast of South Africa had impacts, attime scales measured likely in days or weeks, that are expressed byspatial variability in the size and relative proportions of two speciesof limpet across a horizontally large excavated area encompassing arefuse dump and a likely domestic area. We link variability to choicesby the site occupants to collect the largest limpets first and gather thesmallest individuals late in an occupation event when only small shell-fish remained available. Environmentally driven change in shellfishsize or species proportions is unlikely at DFM given the short occupationspan of the site. Behavioral factors might be relevant for understandingshellfish variability at other sites where excavation has not uncovereda sufficiently large horizontal area to detect pertinent patterns.

Keywords shellfish, hunter-gatherers, spatial variation, Western Cape, South Africa

INTRODUCTION

Coastal archaeology in South Africa has along and, we believe, successful record ofexcavation, analysis, and interpretation of

Received 4 May 2012; accepted 9 October 2012.Address correspondence to John Parkington, Archaeology Department, University of Cape Town, PrivateBag, Rondebosch 7701, South Africa. E-mail: [email protected]

Stone Age behavioral traces through thestudy of shell middens and their contents.From the pioneering work of the late Eliza-beth Speed (later Voigt, to whom we ded-icate this paper) and on through Graham

91

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 1

2:11

25

Apr

il 20

13

John Parkington et al.

Avery,PeterRobertshaw,FrancisThackeray,and W. F. (Bill) Buchanan to Antonieta Jer-ardino and ourselves, a number of issueshave been addressed. One that we deal withhere is the likely impact of shellfish gather-ing on existing stocks. We also draw atten-tion to another topic relevant to shell middeninvestigation—the importance of large-scalehorizontal archaeological excavation forstudying intra- and inter-site variation in thesize of shellfish and the meaning of size vari-ation within and between sites.

Shellfish, of course, present a variety ofmore or less attractive gathering targets forStone Age people depending on their distri-butional and lifestyle characteristics. Clamsor sand mussels (Donax serra) that liveburied in intertidal sandy stretches differmarkedly frommussels thatcling to the rockson rocky shores as well as from limpets thatgrazeonthesesamerocks.Wefocushereandin future papers on whether all of the stockis visible and available to the gatherer andwhethertactics favor individualorclumpcol-lection. In this paper, we concentrate on thegathering strategies applied to two particu-lar species of limpets, all individuals of whichgraze in the intertidal, and are visible and ac-cessible on a daily basis. These are the granu-lar limpet (Scutellastra granularis) and thegranite limpet (Cymbula granatina).

We tackle the question of “impact,” theextent to which gathering by Stone Age peo-ple made some inroads into the availableshellfish stocks as demonstrated by some as-pect of the shellfish record, most notably thesizes of the individuals gathered. This hasa long and globally reflected history (e.g.,Braje et al. 2007; Claassen 1998; Erlandsonet al. 2008; Jerardino et al. 1992; Manninoand Thomas 2002; Milner et al. 2007; Park-ington 1976; Swadling 1976), growing outof the commercial fishing literature on theimpact of sustained exploitation (Hancockand Urqhart 1965). It arises from the obser-vation that archaeological shells from shellmiddens are sometimes smaller than the sam-ples of large specimens that can be gath-ered today from neighboring, unexploitedshorelines. The debate is usually phrased asa competition between environmental andbehavioral explanations. The shells from the

past are believed to be smaller either becausegrowth conditions were different then or be-cause people had impacted stocks leadingto the availability of only smaller individu-als. We argue here that the situation is bothmore complex and, potentially, more sim-ple than this. Above all, it means distinguish-ing short-term from long-term impact. Morespecifically we ask four related questions: 1)Can collecting have a detectable impact onshellfish size over short periods of time, andif so, is this visible archaeologically?; 2) Didpeople collect the largest individuals first?;3) How would we know if they did?; and 4)Why would it help to know this?

This article emphasizes human be-haviors for interpreting shellfish remains.We agree unreservedly, nonetheless, withClaassen’s (1998:51) dictum that archaeol-ogists should entertain multiple hypotheseswhen seeking to explain changes in shell-fish sizeor speciescomposition.Wementionhere briefly some environmental factors thatare relevant in this regard. These include: 1)effects of predation by non-humans; 2) habi-tat dissimilarities between different shellfishprocurement locations in factors such as ex-posure to wave action, turbidity, or the avail-ability of foods consumed by shellfish; and 3)changing environmental conditions throughtime at shellfish procurement locations infactors such as water temperature or wa-ter salinity (Claassen 1998; Jerardino et al.2008).

SITE STRUCTURE AT DUNEFIELDMIDDEN

We present here an analysis of shellfish re-mains recovered during excavation over aspan of 11 years at the Dunefield Midden ar-chaeological site (DFM). DFM is located onthe west coast of South Africa about 2 kmnorth of the mouth of the Verlorenvlei Riverat Elands Bay (Figure 1). The Dunefield Mid-den archaeological site combines high spa-tial resolution across a large excavated areaof 859 m2 with short temporal duration ofoccupations. DFM consists of the remains ofseveral Later Stone Age campsites, all of them

92 VOLUME 8 • ISSUE 1 • 2013

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 1

2:11

25

Apr

il 20

13

Limpet Gathering Strategies in the Later Stone Age

Figure 1. Location of Dunefield Midden site, Elands Bay, South Africa.

brief and falling within a short span of time—for the most part about a century betweenroughly AD 1300 and 1400. A set of 27 cali-brated radiocarbon dates shows tight cluster-ing and averages AD 1354 (Parkington et al.2009). We argue elsewhere that DFM seemsto represent visits that can be examined at arelatively high resolution of spatial integrity(Parkington et al. 2009). Shellfish remains,amounting to nearly 2,500 kg (Tonner 2005),constitute a major portion of the archaeolog-ical remains recovered from DFM. Stone ar-tifacts (some 18,287 specimens) and animalbones and teeth (more than 10,000 identi-fied specimens) also occur in large quanti-ties, while ostrich eggshell beads, artifacts ofbone and of shell, and ceramics are less abun-dant (Parkington et al. 2009; Stewart et al.2011).

We identify a probable “main dump”area that is made up of high densitiesof shell, animal bone, and stone artifacts(Figure 2). It is approximately linear in itsconfiguration, oriented roughly north-south,and widens at its southern end, where thereis probably most overlapping of visits. Sevenespecially high concentrations of shell occurwithin the main dump (Figure 2, numbers 1–7). We identify a likely domestic area to theeast of the main dump. It includes a ratherarcuate, linear arrangement of hearths some38 m long running from northwest to south-east. This domestic area probably consistedof shelters and associated hearths, althoughno direct evidence of windbreaks survives.Artifacts and food waste are spatially associ-ated with some hearths in the domestic areaand appear to reflect specific behaviors and

JOURNAL OF ISLAND & COASTAL ARCHAEOLOGY 93

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 1

2:11

25

Apr

il 20

13


Figure 2. Plan map of DFM excavation showing the main dump (shaded squares), seven especiallyhigh concentrations of shell (numbers 1–7), and hearths that are situated in the inferreddomestic area.

activities of site occupants (Parkington et al.2009). We also recognize 111 ashy featuresthat we classify into seven types: ash patch,hearth, roastingpit, crustedash, ashydumps,ash and charcoal basins, and stone-packedhearths (Parkington et al. 2009).

ETHNOARCHAEOLOGY OF REFUSEDISCARD BEHAVIOR BY FORAGERS

Discard behavior and campsite maintenancehave important implications for thestructureand content of materials across a campsite.The distinction between “foragers” and “col-lectors” with respect to subsistence and set-tlement patterns (Binford 1980, 1983; Kelly1995; O’Connell 1995) highlights a usefuldivision—albeit distributed along a contin-uum rather than as two discrete categories—

that has archaeological implications for foodrefuse production and discard behaviors.

Foragers generally inhabit lower lati-tudes with less seasonal variation in foodavailability while collectors live at higherlatitudes with more pronounced seasonalavailability of food resources. Foragers areless reliant on stored foods, gather foods ona daily basis, and practice “residential mo-bility” whereby they move their residentialcampsite (base camps) at fairly frequent in-tervals to position themselves near to foodresources. Collectors are more reliant onstored foods and practice “logistical mobil-ity” whereby they move their residentialcampsite less frequently and carry out spe-cialized food procurement trips to gain ac-cess to food resources, and create a greaternumber of site types across the landscape.Foragers carry out most campsite activities athousehold areas that are similar in structure

94 VOLUME 8 • ISSUE 1 • 2013

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 1

2:11

25

Apr

il 20

13


and content to one another throughout theresidential campsite. They create relativelyfew special activity areas. Collectors makegreater use of special activity areas for carry-ing out campsite activities—including thoseassociated with processing food (see Bin-ford’s [1978:157–163] description of pro-cessing caribou limb bones for bone greaseamong Nunamiut of Alaska). We infer thatrefuse heaps at residential campsites inhab-ited by foragers will be more generalized andrepetitive in content one to another across aresidential campsite whereas refuse heaps ofcollectors will be more specialized and lessrepetitive in content one to another across aresidential campsite.

The Efe, inhabitants of the tropical rainforest of central Africa, exemplify the foragerpattern (Fisher and Strickland 1989, 1991).They move their residential camp at fairly fre-quent intervals (averaging about 6 weeks).Refuse heaps at Efe residential campsites aregeneralized in their content (that is, all man-ner of refuse generated at residential camp-sites ends up in a refuse heap) and these con-tents are repetitive across the site. Refuseheaps, most of which are situated adjacentto dwellings, begin their life when vegeta-tion is cut down to create a clearing for thenew campsite. Camp refuse, such as foodwaste, broken or worn out implements, andashes cleared from fireplaces, is discardedonto refuse heaps throughout the occupa-tion of the site. An exception to this occursin the final hours or days of campsite occupa-tion when refuse, including that adjacent tofireplaces, might be left where it lies ratherthan re-depositing it onto the refuse heap.Refuse heaps grow in size both horizon-tally and vertically during the life of a camp,and adjacent refuse heaps sometimes mergetogether.

Several lines of evidence support theproposition that the settlement and subsis-tence systems of the DFM occupants fall intothe forager portion of the forager-collectorcontinuum.Sanhunter-gatherers fromsouth-ern Africa after European colonization aregenerally regarded by anthropologists as ex-emplifying forager subsistence and settle-ment organization (e.g., Binford 1980:5).The generalized content of the “main dump”

at DFM, which contains a mix of shell, animalbone, stone tools, and other artifacts (Park-ington et al. 2009; Stewart et al. 2011), is con-sistent with our expectations for the organi-zation of forager refuse disposal practices.There is some repetition, in what we infer tobe the “domestic area” of DFM, in the associ-ation of several hearths with concentrationsof stoneartifacts (Parkingtonetal.2009:116–119). This repetition is consistent with theobservation that household areas at foragerresidential campsites are similar to one an-other in structure and content. Stone artifactconcentrations near hearths might representmaterials deposited toward the end of the oc-cupation that had not been cleaned up andre-deposited onto the dump. Alternatively,the tiny quartz waste was simply too small to‘get in the way’ and was simply left whereit fell. Similarly, several hearths are associ-ated with concentrations of ceramic sherds,ostrich eggshell fragments, or tortoise cara-pace bowl fragments (Stewart et al. 2011).

We suggest that food will have been pro-cured at daily or near-daily intervals by theDFM inhabitants, and that long-term foodstorage was not practiced. We further sug-gest that foodrefusewillhavebeendiscardedonto refuse heaps at frequent, perhaps daily,intervals. The content of individual discardevents of food refuse will represent refusefrom food procured in the recent past (i.e.,hours or days previously).

SHELLFISH AT DFM

The geographic location of DFM is such thatany rocky shore limpets must have been col-lected at least 2 km south of the site near themouth of the Verlorenvlei or beyond, andcarried to the point of consumption and dis-card. There are no such opportunities todayfor limpet gathering in the 8 kilometers ofsandy shore north of the site nor are therelikely to have been during the time DFM wasoccupied (Parkington et al. 1992; Parkingtonet al. 2009). Shellfishing expeditions, we pre-sumeconsistingmostlybutnotexclusivelyofwomen and young people, would have beenplanned to the rocky shore exposures with


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 1

2:11

25

Apr

il 20

13


the explicit goal of finding and gatheringshellfish and transporting them back to DFM.We have carried out substantial transects andsurveys along this particular shoreline andhave good information on population densi-ties and distributions (Rebelo 1982 and ownobservations). The reasons why people wereprepared to transport quite heavy loads, in-cluding inedible shell, are the subject of an-other article (Parkington 2012).

As we have outlined elsewhere(Parkington 2006; Parkington et al. 1992;Parkington et al. 2009), our excavations atDFM cover a little over 850 m2 and allowus to access domestic behaviors over asubstantial area including many fireplaces,dumps, and associated spaces. The result is acontiguous record that is sensitive to spatialorganization, but not seriously overprintedby multiple re-occupations. It allows us toask questions about, for example, the impactof shellfish gathering on local stocks froman expressly spatial perspective. As well ascontributing to the long-term stratigraphicpicture in the Elands Bay area, the presenceof deposits from several short-term occupa-tions at DFM allows for the study of impactin the medium term (that is, throughout thedifferent episodes of occupation) and shortterm (during each relatively short episode).

We chose not to sample shells during ex-cavation, but to return all shellfish remainsto the laboratory and identify, count, weigh,and measure them there. All residues from3 mm and 1.5 mm mesh sieves were retainedand are mapped to m2 across the whole ex-cavated area. Every fragment, as far as waspossible, was assigned to a species. We can,thus, look at the square by square patterningin a range of shellfish residue characteristicsincluding species frequencies, shell size, andshell weight. Many other items, of course, in-cluding hearth features, artifacts, and food-waste, were mapped more precisely.

At DFM some 60% of all shellfish byweight is made up of limpet residue, and 90%of that consists of two species of limpet, thegranite limpet (Cymbula granatina) and thegranular limpet (Scutellastra granularis),formerlyof thePatellagenus.Theseboth liveentirely intertidally and are exposed com-pletely by every low tide. No individuals

dwell below the low water level and, exceptfor timesofextremelybadweather,all arepo-tentially visible to an intertidal gatherer. Thegranite limpet reachesa largermaximumsizethanthegranularbut the latter,being“taller,”achieves a slightly higher body weight bysize at small and medium sizes. The “domed”shape of Scutellastra granularis is an adap-tation to prevent desiccation through waterloss. The granular limpet lives higher up theintertidal and is more inclined to live com-pletely exposed to the sun. Juveniles of thisspecies are confined to the lower reaches ofthe shore, but migrate upwards upon reach-ing maturity. The granite limpet prefers theshade of intertidal rocks or the shelter of anintertidal pool (Branch 1974).

FromtheDFMexcavationswehavemea-sured over 53,000 whole shells from thesetwo limpet species, length being defined asthemaximumdimensionacross themouthofthe shell. Along with the broken, unmeasur-able limpet remains (weighed and counted),these individuals translate into several hun-dred kilograms of live flesh, a substantialcomponent of the DFM food intake. Some400 of the excavated squares have more than600 g of shell and thus contribute reliablemeasures of species composition and meanshell length. Although we have hundreds ofsimilar observations from small excavationsor grab samples from shell middens aroundthe Cape coast (Buchanan et al. 1978; Park-ington 1976, 2006), DFM presents the onlyopportunity so far to understand the domes-tic and spatial context of species frequencyand mean size variation. It is this opportunitywe bring to bear on the issue of impact.

Parkington (2006, 2008) and Tonner(2005) have referred to the mean size bygrid square of both Cymbula granatina andScutellastra granularis and argued for thecoherent spatial patterning of these num-bers. These means and their interpretation,however, are constrained by the superim-position of activities, including dumpingepisodes, and the subsequent palimpsest ef-fect even in a briefly occupied site like DFM.Here, then, we have chosen to map the 700largest and 700 smallest measured individu-als of each of the two species and to look atthe resultant ‘snapshots’ (the choice of about

96 VOLUME 8 • ISSUE 1 • 2013

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 1

2:11

25

Apr

il 20

13


Figure 3. Distribution of the 697 largest excavated specimens of Cymbula granatina.

700 was arbitrary and was made to includeenough shells to make the point that, indeed,large and small are differently located). InFigures 3, 4, 5, and 6 we map the distri-butions of these and argue that the coher-ent patterning allows us to make inferencesabout shellfish gathering and disposal prac-tices. Our first observation is that these setsof the largest and the smallest shells are notevenly nor randomly distributed. Rather, byanalogy with a chessboard, black and whitesquares are clumped together, the smallestand largest limpets are localized in sets ofadjacent squares.

It might be argued, however, that theseconcentrations simply reflect the concentra-tions of shell generally in the core areas of re-peated dumping episodes (the main dump).A square with 20 kg of shell is likely tohave more of the largest, and the smallest,shells than one with only 1 kg or less. To as-sess this, we have identified 18 patches of

contiguous squares, a total of 169 squares inall, some of which reflect concentrations ofthe largest shells and some concentrations ofthe smallest shells. These patches are shownin Figure 7 and illustrate a very coherent pat-tern of placement across the site.

The characteristics of these patches aretabulated (Table 1) and show that althoughthe largest and smallest limpet shells are, asexpected, located within the areas of mostshell, the precise locations of the largest dif-fer from the locations of the smallest. It isalso clear that as the shellfish collected getsmaller there is a shift in preference towardthesmaller species,visible in theproportionsof the shellfish assemblages. Because thehighest shellfish concentrations reflect thegreatest level of over-dumping, these pat-terns are easier to see in squares with moremodest but still substantial shell weights, andalso in the areas at the north of the site. A shiftin dumping focus toward the west through


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 1

2:11

25

Apr

il 20

13


Figure 4. Distribution of the 703 smallest excavated specimens of Cymbula granatina.

the course of occupation is clearly visible.Note also the two patches in the northeast-ern corner that probably reflect late patchesthatwerenever transferredtothemaindumpin the manner described by Fisher and Strick-land (1991).

In Table 1, to clarify, the average %(frequency) for Scutellastra granularis forthe site is 16%, meaning a 16 to 84 ratiofor the frequency of Scutellastra granularisto Cymbula granatina (excluding all otherlimpets). Because Scutellastra granularis is,on average, smaller in size than Cymbulagranatina, we predict that early in an oc-cupation event, before limpet foraging hashad an impact on limpet size in the limpetstock, foragers will preferentially select thelarger limpets, and as a consequence Scutel-lastra granularis will have a lower relativefrequency compared toCymbula granatinaat DFM. However, after the larger limpetshave been eliminated by ongoing foraging

from the available stocks and as foragersshift to collecting smaller limpets, we pre-dict that the relative frequency of Scutellas-tra granularis, the smaller limpet species,will increase at DFM. In order to show theassociation of high Scutellastra granularisrelative frequencies with low Scutellastragranularis and Cymbula granatina sizeswe raised the bar from 16% to 21% (an arbi-trary figure) and then showed for each patchhow many of the square meters containedin that patch have Scutellastra granularisfrequencies over 21%. Thus, in Table 1 theentry “2 out of 12 > 21%” means that 2 outof 12 squares in this patch contained Scutel-lastra granularis in relative frequencies thatexceed 21%. Overall, only 6 out of 70 squareslabeled ‘early’ have such large percentages,whereas 51 out of 89 labeled ‘late’ do. Thisassociation of size with relative frequency isa major finding as it virtually on its own ren-ders environmental explanations unlikely.

98 VOLUME 8 • ISSUE 1 • 2013

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 1

2:11

25

Apr

il 20

13


Figure 5. Distribution of the 696 largest excavated specimens of Scutellastra granularis.

Clearly, in our view: large shells areclustered; large shells of one species are lo-cated in the same squares as those of theother species; small shells are clustered;small shells of one species are located inthe same squares as those of the other; largeshells of each species are NOT located in thesame squares as small shells of these species;squares with the smallest shells also havehigher frequencies of the smaller species(Scutellastra granularis). This is a remark-able and important set of patterning.

DISCUSSION

These patterns could not have been formedunless twobehavioral ruleswere followedbythe site occupants. First, gatherers must havecollected shellfish by size, similar ones on thesameday. Second,eachday’s collectionmusthave been discarded in one place, or a small

set of places depending on the number ofcollectors in the party. If either of these ruleswere not followed, no clustering of similarsized individuals would accrue. The patternsare repeated, albeit in more cluttered, less re-solved form due to superimposition, at otherlocations across the DFM site. Now, whilewe cannot distinguish between a strategy ofgathering the smallest on the first day andthe largest on the last from the reverse ofthis, it seems very likely that large individu-als were targeted first. It is almost impossibleto imagine how the reverse strategy couldhave been coordinated. The patterning wediscern atDFMwouldnotbe visible, and thusthe conclusion not possible, if shell middensare sampled in small excavations and if shell-fish analyses are represented by occasional,small subsets from selected squares (e.g.,Erlandson et al. 2008; Milner et al. 2007).

Some support for these behaviors comesfrom the somewhat sparse ethnography of


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 1

2:11

25

Apr

il 20

13


Figure 6. Distribution of the 690 smallest excavated specimens of Scutellastra granularis.

shellfish gathering. According to Betty Mee-han (1982), who observed and recordedshellfish collecting among the Anbarra peo-ple of Australia for a year, most of the shell-fish collected on any given day were moreor less the same size. Shellfish were col-lected from a specific location on a sin-gle occasion, and tended to be from a sin-gle species. Betty Meehan (1982) reportsthat older collectors repeatedly told chil-dren not to collect smaller, immature spec-imens that were often discarded at source.This focus on larger individuals first makessense, and has often been implicitly assumedby archaeologists. Collecting the largest firstvery likely took place at DFM in the caseof limpets, and seems related to the realitythat gatherers can choose individuals froma wide spectrum of available targets of dif-ferent sizes. Each limpet is selected individ-ually by gatherers who exercise informedchoice.

Because of the short duration of occupa-tion at DFM, there can be no question of en-vironmental changes or altered growth ratesthrough time having any impact on the rangefrom large to small individuals across thedomestic space. The correlation of limpetsize changes with a shift in limpet speciesfrequencies makes it equally clear that asavailable shellfish sizes decreased gatherersshifted from the larger to the smaller species.Such patterning likewise can have nothingto do with environment. The suggestion thatdifferent sizes of limpets from different partsof the same site may have to do with visits todifferent shoreline localities (Jerardino andHorwitz 2010) is far less persuasive at DFM. Itis hard to imagine why DFM residents wouldpass through the sheltered bay with its sup-posedly larger limpets to forageontheshoresat the point of Cape Deseada with its suppos-edly smaller ones. In any event, Branch andOdendaal’s (2003) meticulous comparisons

100 VOLUME 8 • ISSUE 1 • 2013

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 1

2:11

25

Apr

il 20

13


Figure 7. Sets of adjacent squares exhibiting concentrations of either the largest (implied early) orthe smallest (implied late) individual limpets gathered.

of limpet growth rates and sizes on shel-tered and exposed shorelines shows that anydifferences disappear under the pressure ofexploitation.

What underlies this conclusion is a re-finement of the notion of ‘impact’. Most ar-chaeologists (ourselves formerly included),perhaps because of the lack of precision inradiocarbon dating, a pre-occupation with‘sequence’, and because shell midden site in-vestigationstendtoemphasizetheverticaldi-mension over the horizontal, have assumedimpact to mean a relatively long-term drivingdown of the mean available sizes of shell-fish on shorelines (Braje et al. 2007; Claassen1998; Erlandson et al. 2008; Jerardino et al.1992; Mannino and Thomas 2002; Milneret al. 2007). Such a focus then draws atten-tion to shifts in mean size of shells through adated sequence in a stratigraphic rather thana horizontal spatial strategy. This kind of im-

pact indeed may happen if the frequency ofvisits and extent of exploitation exceeds thecapacity of the stocks to recover (Hancockand Urquhart 1965). Effectively, then, thelong-term visible pattern is the cumulativeresult of a series of short-term events such asthose we highlight here.

The much shorter scale of impact is onethat happens during the few days or weeks ofeven a short but continuous period of shell-fish gathering at one place. Our surveys nearDFM make it very clear that the number oflarge, andhenceold, limpet individuals alongany rocky stretch is limited to a very smallpercentage of the total population (Branch1974). Six- and seven-year-old Cymbula gra-natina may constitute far less than 1% ofthe individuals of that species and only anindividual or two on each running meter ofshoreline. They are very easily and quicklygathered and, even if some are missed at first,


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 1

2:11

25

Apr

il 20

13

Ta

ble

1.

Fre

qu

enci

eso

fla

rge

and

smal

llim

pet

s,an

dp

erce

nta

ges

of

the

smal

ler

spec

ies

for

sets

of

adja

cen

tsq

uar

es.

Scu

tell

ast

ra

Cym

bu

laSc

ute

lla

stra

gra

nu

lari

s

gra

na

tin

ag

ran

ula

ris

per

cen

tage

s

Sets

of

adja

cen

tsq

uar

esla

rge

vs.s

mal

lla

rge

vs.s

mal

lb

ysq

uar

esSu

gges

tio

nP

atch

ELA

71,E

LA72

,ELA

73,E

LA81

,ELA

82,

ELA

83,E

LA91

,ELA

92,E

LA93

,NIC

01,

NIC

02,N

IC11

232

241

2o

uto

f12

>21

%Ea

rly

occ

up

atio

nd

ebri

sb

PET

33,P

ET34

,PET

35,P

ET36

,PET

42,

PET

43,P

ET44

,PET

45,P

ET46

648

1444

9o

uto

f9>

21%

Late

occ

up

atio

nd

ebri

sa

ELA

17,E

LA26

,ELA

27,E

LA28

,ELA

372

112

165

ou

tof5

>21

%La

teo

ccu

pat

ion

deb

ris

d

ELA

58,E

LA59

,ELA

60,E

LA67

,ELA

68,

ELA

69,E

LA70

,ELA

77,E

LA78

,ELA

79,

ELA

80,K

IR51

,KIR

61.

2012

325

2o

uto

f13

>21

%Ea

rly

occ

up

atio

nd

ebri

se

NIC

6,N

IC7,

NIC

14,N

IC15

,NIC

16,N

IC

17,N

IC24

,NIC

25,N

IC26

,NIC

27

2236

1837

9o

uto

f10

>21

%La

teo

ccu

pat

ion

deb

ris

c

NIC

8,N

IC9,

NIC

10,N

IC18

,NIC

19,N

IC

20,N

IC29

737

912

0o

uto

f7>

21%

?La

teo

ccu

pat

ion

deb

ris

f

KIR

92,K

IR93

,AN

N1,

AN

N2,

AN

N3,

AN

N4,

AN

N11

,AN

N12

,AN

N13

1024

1738

1o

uto

f9>

21%

Late

occ

up

atio

nd

ebri

sg

KIR

16,K

IR17

,KIR

184

01

01

ou

tof3

>21

%?

Earl

yo

ccu

pat

ion

deb

ris

h

AN

N7,

AN

N8,

AN

N9,

AN

N10

,AN

N17

,

AN

N18

,AN

N19

,AN

N20

,JA

C1

616

713

1o

uto

f9>

21%

Late

occ

up

atio

nd

ebri

si

KIR

70,K

IR79

,KIR

80,F

RA

61,F

RA

62,

FRA

63,F

RA

64,F

RA

71,F

RA

72,F

RA

73

4740

4835

0o

uto

f10

>21

%Ea

rly

occ

up

atio

nd

ebri

sj

JAC

21,J

AC

22,J

AC

23,J

AC

24,J

AC

25,

JAC

31,J

AC

32,J

AC

33,J

AC

34,J

AC

35

323

520

4o

uto

f10

>21

%La

teo

ccu

pat

ion

deb

ris

k

SYL

85,S

YL

94.S

YL

95,S

YL

96,F

RA

4,

FRA

5,FR

A6

3316

3216

0o

uto

f7>

21%

Earl

yo

ccu

pat

ion

deb

ris

l

102

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 1

2:11

25

Apr

il 20

13

FRA

9,FR

A10

,FR

A18

,FR

A19

,FR

A20

,

FRA

26,F

RA

27,F

RA

28,F

RA

29,F

RA

30

5624

6113

0o

uto

f10

>21

%Ea

rly

occ

up

atio

nd

ebri

sm

FRA

47,F

RA

48,F

RA

49,F

RA

50,F

RA

58,

FRA

59,F

RA

60,F

RA

69,F

RA

70,F

RA

80

266

157

0o

uto

f10

>21

%Ea

rly

occ

up

atio

nd

ebri

sn

JAC

6,JA

C7,

JAC

8,JA

C9,

JAC

10,J

AC

17,

JAC

18,J

AC

19,J

AC

20,J

AC

27,J

AC

28,

JAC

29,J

AC

30

866

1136

7o

uto

f13

>21

%La

teo

ccu

pat

ion

deb

ris

o

BER

8,B

ER9,

BER

10,B

ER17

,BER

18,B

ER

19,B

ER20

,BER

27,B

ER28

,BER

29,

BER

30,B

ER37

,BER

38,B

ER39

,BER

40,E

LA11

,ELA

21

613

1112

15o

uto

f17

>21

%?

Late

occ

up

atio

nd

ebri

sp

ELA

86,E

LA95

,ELA

96,E

LA97

,NIC

4,

NIC

5

276

2123

1o

uto

f6>

21%

?Ea

rly

occ

up

atio

nd

ebri

sq

SYL

66,S

YL

67,S

YL

68,S

YL

76,S

YL

77,

SYL

78,S

YL

86,S

YL

87,S

YL

88

1615

339

0o

uto

f9>

21%

?Ea

rly

occ

up

atio

nd

ebri

sr

103

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 1

2:11

25

Apr

il 20

13


are likely not available after three weeks ofsystematic collecting aimed at large individu-als. Imagine five collectors each making fourcollections of 6 kg each during the first weekof occupation and choosing the largest theycould find. This will remove several thou-sand large animals from the available stockand definitely impact what is available in thesecond week. However, if people do not visitthis part of the shoreline for a few years, say adecade, the stock has completely recoveredand can be “impacted” similarly again. Butany tendency to revisit before the impact hasbeen “repaired” by growth means that theimpact is compounded, resulting in a smallermean size. “Impact” in the sense used here isa matter of supply and demand and happensvery quickly. The long-term driving down ofmean sizes is a cumulative effect of the short-term impacts we recognize at DFM.

We have shown that when gatherers cansee the whole available stock and must makeindividualdecisionsas towhat togather, theyselect by size, the largest first, and strategi-cally shift species targets when only smallerindividuals are available. People also discardeach day’s collection in a confined place thatis analytically recoverable in the context ofhorizontally extensive archaeological exca-vation. Such conclusions allow us to makesense of more spatially and/or volumetri-cally restricted observations at other Capecoastal sites and have implications for re-constructionsofcoastal settlementdecisions(Jerardino et al. 2009; Parkington 2012).

To illustrate the likely widespread impli-cations of the DFM patterning for other morelimited samplings of archaeological sites,we offer the following sets of observationsfrom the region. First, Peter Robertshaw(1977) published tables of observations (re-produced here as Table 2) from his exca-vations at Paternoster shell midden, some70 km south of DFM. He found a remark-able, and at the time relatively enigmatic, cor-relation of the mean sizes of Cymbula gra-natinaandScutellastragranulariswithoneanother and with the relative frequenciesof the two, clearly distinguishing level 1 fromthe five below. This is a remarkable fit withthe observations we report here from DFM,where size changes and species shifts arecorrelated in the same way and in the samedirection. Second, we briefly visited openshell middens during a field survey in 1977along the Vredenburg Peninsula coastline inthe same vicinity as Paternoster (Buchananet al. 1978). We counted and measured allshells in meter squares from open sites weencountered. Plots of the mean size of Scutel-lastra granularis against the percentage oc-currence of this species and against the meansize of Cymbula granatina (Table 3) showa negatively correlated pattern between theformer (Spearman r = −.7094) and a posi-tively correlated pattern between the meansizes (Spearman r = .7001). These relation-ships in our grab samples from these sites,both significant, are entirely consistent withwhat we have found at DFM.

Table 2. Limpet frequencies and mean sizes from Paternoster shell midden (Robertshaw1977). Note that only the numbers for Scutellastra granularis and Cymbulagranatina are included for purposes of comparability to DFM.

Cymbula granatina Scutellastra granularis

Layer Mean Number % Limpet Mean Number % Limpet

1 57.71 410 62.40 38.82 247 37.60

2 47.91 391 35.97 36.85 696 64.03

3 46.85 1126 41.72 36.55 1573 58.28

4 49.68 1018 37.00 35.92 1733 63.00

5 50.67 855 37.78 36.16 1408 62.22

6 50.94 289 39.92 36.14 435 60.08

104 VOLUME 8 • ISSUE 1 • 2013

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 1

2:11

25

Apr

il 20

13


Table 3. Correlations between mean sizes and species percentages from Vredenburgmiddens.

Site Mean size % Site Mean size Mean size

acronym S. granularis S. granularis acronym C. granatina S. granularis

GPN1B 30.6 71.5 WB11 65 46.79

GPN1A 31.7 72.1 JB5 63.67 34.86

CC12A 33.6 31.5 JB6A 61.88 40.97

JB2 34.23 66.8 JB6B 61.74 39.75

PB4A 34.29 26.2 DE6A 59.44 39.71

PB4B 34.35 66.1 WB6B 59.21 39.14

JB5 34.86 30.4 WB3 59.07 38.83

PNB6B 36.82 32.2 PB4A 57.33 34.29

WB6A 37 45.8 Sneus A 56.22 44.21

NWB7 37.9 34.1 Sneus B 56.22 42.81

CC12B 38 42 NWB1A 55.07 39.86

WB3 38.8 35.2 WB6A 54 37

WB6B 39.14 31.2 NWB7 53.06 37.91

DE6 39.71 18.8 PB4B 52.74 34.35

JB6B 39.76 44.3 CC12B 49.4 38

NWB1A 39.86 44.4 PNB6 48.8 36.82

JB6A 40.97 28.7 JB2 48.72 34.23

SneusB 42.81 13.6 CC12A 44.6 33.6

SneusA 44.21 8.8 GPN1A 42 31.7

WB11 46.79 26 GPN1B 41.2 30.6

p = <.05 r = −.7094 p = <.05 r = .7001

We present these cases here becauseall of the observations were gathered morethan a decade before DFM was excavated butall are entirely consistent with subsequentDFM material. They implicate, in a very spe-cific form, changes in species frequenciesand mean sizes in shellfish gathering tactics.These patterns quite plausibly have every-thing to do with shellfish gathering behaviorand nothing to do with shifts in environmen-tal parameters. We submit that this impliesthat many aspects of Later Stone Age limpetsizes and species frequencies are likely tomake sense in light of DFM interpretations.

What also emerges from the DFM andcontemporary observations is the fact that inLate Holocene shell midden contexts meansizes of Cymbula granatina vary between

about 65 mm and 45 mm from differentplaces at the same site (DFM), betweengrab samples from nearby sites (VredenburgPeninsula) and at different levels from withinexcavated stratified middens (Elands BayCave [Parkington 1976]). Scutellastra gran-ularis varies similarly between about 45 mmand 34 mm. In the case of both species,the hypothesis of short-term impact from ex-ploitation by forager populations deservescareful consideration, along with alternativehypotheses, when seeking to explain ob-served variation during the Holocene be-tween these limits.

We will also need this insight to un-derstand the differences between LaterStone Age Holocene and Middle StoneAge Pleistocene limpet measurements, a


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 1

2:11

25

Apr

il 20

13


circumstance where the environment versusbehavior debate still rages (Parkington 2003,2008; Sealy and Galimberti 2008). Scutellas-tra and Cymbula do not vary between theselimits at Pleistocene Middle Stone Age sites(they are larger), but may have their own pat-terning related to different levels of exploita-tion or different frequencies of visits (Averyet al. 2008; Klein 2009). We can also expectshellfish sizes to vary somewhat geograph-ically if the extent and duration of coastalsettlement varies with the attractiveness ofcoastlines. In the future, it may be possibleto address the question of longer term im-pacts on shellfish stocks by repeated short-termexploitationanddistinguishthese inthearchaeological record.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank all those individuals who mea-sured shellfish from DFM, especially Deb-bie Adams and Dolores Jacobs; and To-bias Tonner for compiling the DFM shellfishdatabase. We are grateful to Neil Rusch forcreating the illustrations. The logistical andfinancial support of the University of CapeTown is also acknowledged. JWF thanksMontana State University for providing asabbatical during which this manuscriptwas prepared.

REFERENCES

Avery, G., D. J. Halkett, J. Orton, T. E. Steele,M. Tusenius, and R. G. Klein. 2008. The Ys-terfontein 1 Middle Stone Age Rock Shelter andthe evolution of coastal foraging. South AfricanArchaeological Society Goodwin Series10:66–89.

Binford, L. R. 1978. Nunamiut Ethnoarchaeol-ogy. New York: Academic Press.

Binford, L. R. 1980. Willow smoke and dogs’tails: Hunter-gatherer settlement systems andarchaeological site formation.American Antiq-uity 45:4–20.

Binford, L. R. 1983. In Pursuit of the Past: De-coding the Archaeological Record. London:Thames and Hudson.

Braje, T. J., D. J. Kennett, J. M. Erlandson, and B. J.Culleton. 2007. Human impacts on nearshoreshellfish taxa: A 7000 year record from SantaRosa Island, California. American Antiquity72(4):735–756.

Branch, G. M. 1974. The ecology of Patella Lin-naeus from the Cape Peninsula, South Africa, 3:Growth rates. Transactions of the Royal Soci-ety of South Africa 41(2):161–193.

Branch, G. M. and F. Odendaal. 2003. The effectsof marine protected areas on the populationdynamics of a Southern African limpet, Cym-bula oculus, relative to the influence of waveaction. Biological Conservation 114(2):255–269.

Buchanan, W. F., S. L. Hall, J. Henderson, A.Olivier, J. M. Pettigrew, J. E. Parkington, and P.T. Robertshaw. 1978. Coastal shell middens inthePaternosterarea, southwesternCape.SouthAfrican Archaeological Bulletin 33:89–93.

Claassen, C. 1998. Shells. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Erlandson, J. M., T. C. Rick, T. J. Braje, A. Stein-berg, and R. L. Vellanoweth. 2008. Human im-pacts on ancient shellfish: A 10,000 year recordfrom San Miguel Island, California. Journal ofArchaeological Science 35:2144–2152.

Fisher, J. W., Jr. and H. C. Strickland. 1989. Eth-noarchaeology among the Efe Pygmies, Zaire:Spatial organization of campsites. AmericanJournal of Physical Anthropology 78:473–484.

Fisher, J. W., Jr. and H. C. Strickland. 1991.Dwellings and fireplaces: Keys to Efe Pygmycampsite structure. In EthnoarchaeologicalApproaches to Mobile Campsites: Hunter-gatherer and Pastoralist Case Studies (C. S.Gamble and W. A. Boismier, eds.):215–236.Ann Arbor, MI: International Monographs inPrehistory, Ethno-archaeological Series 1.

Hancock, D. A. and A. E. Urqhart. 1965. The deter-minationofnaturalmortalityandits cause inan exploited population of cockles (Cardiumedule L.) Fishery Investigations Series II XXIV(2). London: Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheriesand Food. Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.

Jerardino, A., G. M. Branch, and R. Navarro. 2008.Human impact on precolonial west coast ma-rine environments of South Africa. In HumanImpacts on Ancient Marine Ecosystems: AGlobal Perspective (T. C. Rick and J. M. Er-landson, eds.):279–296. Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press.

Jerardino, A., J. C. Castilla, J. M. Ramirez, andN. Hermosilla. 1992. Early coastal subsistencepatterns in Central Chile: A systematic studyof the marine-invertebrate fauna from the site

106 VOLUME 8 • ISSUE 1 • 2013

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 1

2:11

25

Apr

il 20

13


of Curaumilla-1. Latin American Antiquity3(1):43–62.

Jerardino,A. andL.KolskaHorwitz.2010.Onhowwe understand limpet sizes, a reply to Parking-ton, SAAB 64, December 2009. South AfricanArchaeological Bulletin 65:105–107.

Jerardino, A., L. Kolska Horwitz, A. Mazel, andR. Navarro. 2009. Just before Van Riebeeck:Glimpses into terminal LSA lifestyle at ConniesLimpet Bar, west coast of South Africa. SouthAfrican Archaeological Bulletin 64(189):75–86.

Kelly, R. L. 1995. The Foraging Spectrum: Diver-sity in Hunter-gatherer Lifeways. Washington,DC: Smithsonian Institution.

Klein, R. G. 2009. The Human Career, 3rd ed.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Mannino, M. A. and K. D. Thomas. 2002.Depletion of a resource? The impact of pre-historic human foraging on intertidal mollusccommunities and its significance for human set-tlement, mobility and dispersal. World Archae-ology 33(3):452–474.

Meehan, B. 1982. Shell Bed to Shell Midden. Can-berra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.

Milner,N., J.Barrett, andJ.Welsh.2007.Marinere-source intensification in Viking Age Europe: themolluscan evidence from Quoygrew, Orkney.Journal of Archaeological Science 34:1461–1472.

O’Connell, J. F. 1995. Ethnoarchaeology needs ageneral theory of behavior. Journal of Archae-ological Research 3:205–255.

Parkington, J. E. 1976. Coastal settlement be-tween the mouths of the Berg and OlifantsRivers, Cape Province. South African Archae-ological Bulletin 31:127–140.

Parkington, J. E. 2003. Middens and moderns:Shellfishing and the Middle Stone Age of theWestern Cape Province, South Africa. SouthAfrican Journal of Science 99:243–247.

Parkington, J. E. 2006 Shorelines, Strandlopersand Shell Middens. Cape Town: KrakadouwTrust.

Parkington, J. E. 2008. Limpet sizes in StoneAge archaeological contexts at the Cape, SouthAfrica: Changing environment or human im-pact? In Early Human Impact on Megamol-luscs (A. Antczac and R. Cipriani, eds.): 169–178. BAR International Series 1865. Oxford:Archaeopress.

Parkington, J. E. 2009. Rethinking shellfish mea-surements: How do we understand limpetsizes? South African Archaeological Bulletin64(190):193–196.

Parkington, J. 2012. Mussels and mongongonuts: Logistical visits to the Cape west coast,South Africa. Journal of Archaeological Sci-ence 39:1521–1530.

Parkington, J. E., J. W. Fisher, Jr., and T. W. W.Tonner. 2009. “The fires are constant, the shel-ters are whims”: A feature map of Later StoneAge campsites at the Dunefield Midden site,Western Cape Province, South Africa. SouthAfrican Archaeological Bulletin 64(190):104–121.

Parkington, J. E., P. J. Nilssen, C. Reeler, andC. Henshilwood. 1992. Making sense of spaceat Dunefield Midden campsite, Western Cape,South Africa. South African Field Archaeology1:63–71.

Rebelo, A. G. 1982. Biomass Distribution of Shell-fish at Elands Bay. Unpublished Field Report,ZoologyDepartment,UniversityofCapeTown.

Robertshaw, P. T. 1977. Excavations at Pa-ternoster, southwestern Cape. SouthAfrican Archaeological Bulletin 32:63–73.

Sealy, J. and M. Galimberti. 2008. Shellfishing andthe interpretation of shellfish sizes in the Mid-dle and Later Stone Ages of South Africa. InTrekking the Shore: Changing Coastlines andthe Antiquity of Coastal Settlement (N. Bicho,J.Haws,andL.Davis,eds.):405–419.NewYork:Springer.

Stewart, B. A., J. E. Parkington, and J. W. Fisher,Jr. 2011. The tortoise and the ostrich egg:Projecting the home base hypothesis into the21st century. In Casting the Net Wide: Pa-pers in Honor of Glynn Isaac and His Ap-proach to Human Origins Research (J. SeptandD.Pilbeam,eds.):255–278.Oxford:OxbowBooks, and Peabody Museum, Harvard Univer-sity: American School of Prehistoric ResearchMonograph Series.

Swadling, P. 1976. Changes induced by human ex-ploitation in prehistoric shellfish populations.Mankind 10:156–162.

Tonner, T. W. W. 2005. Later Stone Age shellfish-ing behaviour at Dunefield Midden (WesternCape, South Africa). Journal of Archaeologi-cal Science 32:1390–1407.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 1

2:11

25

Apr

il 20

13

limpet gathering strategies in the later stone age along the cape west coast, south africa

Documents