rock paintings in lesotho: site characteristics

South African Archaeological Society

Rock Paintings in Lesotho: Site CharacteristicsAuthor(s): L. G. A. SmitsSource: The South African Archaeological Bulletin, Vol. 38, No. 138 (Dec., 1983), pp. 62-76Published by: South African Archaeological SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3888638 .

Accessed: 25/06/2014 00:31

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

South African Archaeological Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toThe South African Archaeological Bulletin.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 62.122.78.91 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 00:31:09 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=saas

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3888638?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


62 The South African Archaeological Bulletin

ROCK PAINTINGS IN LESOTHO: SITE CHARACTERISTICS*

L. G. A. SMITS ARAL Project, National University of Lesotho, Roma 180, Lesotho

ABSTRACT

Characteristics of rock painting sites that have been recorded by the ARAL Project in four areas in Lesotho are examined. Site distribution is correlated with aspects of the physical environment such as altitude, geology and distance from water. Preferences with respect to exposure, location, aspect, dimensions and spacing are investigated. The occurrence of other cultural remains in the sites is noted and the relative importance of sites in terms of the number of paintings per site is assessed. Differences in subject matter between the four study areas are analysed and attention is drawn to the resulting contrast between east and west Lesotho.

* Manuscript received July 1983

Introduction Rock art contains a wealth of information on the culture of its

makers. This paper is an attempt to extract information on the culture of the extinct //KuI/e San or Baroa of Lesotho from the location and other characteristics of rock painting sites recorded between 1979 and 1982 by the ARAL - Analysis Rock Art Leso- tho - research project. During that period, areas in different parts of Lesotho were searched exhaustively and all rock painting sites discovered were recorded comprehensively by means of colour slides, site reports and free-hand sketches of panels. It is estimated that in the areas concerned, 90% of the still surviving rock painting sites have been located and recorded. Fig. 1 indicates the location of the ARAL study areas that are the subject of this report.

Map 1

A Y..~~~~~~~~N l I I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I

2 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~2

30'00'S/ayN-^'k

N~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

_ _ _ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ARAL tdy-.,.

2 Shlqhoa..

27?0000'.11E 29?00'E

l I II

Fig. 1. Lesotho: distribution of the Clarens Formation and location of the ARAL study areas.

S. Afr. archaeol. Bull. 38: 62-76. 1983



The South African Archaeological Bulletin 63

C2 2 0. _

SIN

Fig. 2. Phuthiatsana study area: physical features and location of rock painting sites.

Location Factors The location of rock painting sites within the study areas, as

shown on Figs. 2-9, is obviously closely related to altitude, to outcrops of the Clarens Formation (formerly known as the Cave Sandstone) and to river courses. However, a more detailed exami- nation makes it clear that these close associations are only indirect

ones. The critical factor for the distribution of rock painting sites is the availability of 'suitable' rock surfaces; in other words, the presence of cliffi, overhangs and caves. Altitude, geology and drainage patterns are only relevant in as far as they influence the location of boulders, outcrops and escarpments.




29S X ,,,.-

//S'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~- -3An,

M.P 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~ K3

"-3 ~ ~ ~ "Y

;~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~- Fi *.T-IT.-NA... A > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~w->..55_ ....... f~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~P...q

Fig. 3. Phutiatsana study area: rock painting sites, polygons and Clarens Formation.

Aloude Figs 2, 4, 6, 8: In the Phuthiatsana, Qhoqhoane and Sebapala

study areas, where the Clarens Formation occurs up to approximately 1 850 m, the rock painting sites can be found fairly close to the 1 750 m contour, while the higher altitudes seem to have been

avoided. However, in the Sehlabathebe study area, where the Clarens Fornation occurs up to an altitude of 2 550 m, the rock painting sites are concentrated near the 2 350 m contour showing that the higher altitude itself is not a prohibiting factor.




271l 5' E Map ...~.

~~~~~~~~~~~~. ,,.....

QHQQHQANE Study-area,

N ~~~~~~~Boundary _yi'*

* Rock painting site ( i | 1 ~~~~~1750m and above _ )v

0 1 2 3 4 5km p

Fig. 4. Qhoqhoane study area: physical features and location of rock painting sites.




Map 5

I %~~~~~~~~~~~%

>1t/5~ 5:<3o

C X l. r_3

I[4 ,@' J

/) QHOQHOANE Study- ar *

_ ~ ~~~~~~~ S 27,15'E~~~~~~~~~

Fig 5 Qoqoae tuy re: oc pinin ste, olgos ndClres oraton




MAP 6

...~~~~~~~~~~~~>....~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ A~~~~~~~~~..~..ii

..... . ....... Rok a~c~g ~t 750o, ood aboce~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. ..........

Fig. 6. Sebapala study area: physical features and location of rock~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~...... ........... painting sites.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.........

Geology Figs 3, 5, 7, 9: While it is true that the majority of the rock art

sites is located in the Clarens Formation, it is clear from Table 1 that sites are not restricted to it. The underlying Elliot (formerly Red Beds), Molteno and Burgersdorp Formations also contain several, though often less well preserved, rock art sites, and a few

sites can even be found on sandstone lenses in the overlying Leso- tho (or Drakensberg Basalt) Formation. The superior characteristics of the Clarens Formation for the preservation of rock paintings, together with the numerous rock shelters so typical of this formation, explain the present concentration of sites in it.




Map 7

IsX '

3030'S

$1

SEBAPALA Study-area \% %.

- Boundary rock painting site number of paintings

mug Clarens Formation 0 -9

Thiessen Polygon 10 - 24 ) a25 -49

N * 50 - 99 Se

j W * 100 - 199 S

* 200 +

0 1 2 3 4 5km

28`00' E

Fig. 7. Sebapala study area: rock painting sites, polygons and Clarens Formation.

Water While the distribution of rock painting sites clearly follows the

river courses in some parts, it equally clearly deviates from the drainage pattern in others, e.g. near the edges of plateaux. It is only where the drainage pattern has influenced the local relief that it corresponds with the location of painting sites. Nearness to water does not seem to have been a decisive location factor in Leso-

tho with its relatively high annual rainfall, its many perennial streams and its abundance of permanent springs. Similar conclu- sions are reached by Lewis-Williams (1972:49) in his analysis of 42 sites in the Giant's Castle area, where "most of the sites are within 200 ft of water", and by Vinnicombe (1976:135), who found that "water is normally easily accessible" at the 308 sites she located in the Drakensberg/south-eastem Lesotho area.




Map 8

\ A \ ' / I ::::: ::::>

/ .. a ' IS S 2500 and above Table 1. Geology

For... :mmgation FrainFrain om to om to

n.I of no. o

ss ss s s % ss %

Po oodten rstial Sitesd

Th Irsneo 'siabe Rockin sur ace o is ovoule cii

29055'S ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~2~b

Fig.e8 Sehatbathebe stud arrea:r physvrical feat uresand locationt of

ptnilrock painting sites.Novriarcksfceanbrud

Table 1. Gistance tology w

no fsites % ax s its %sitanes %ea sistanes %wstes %tst

Phuthiatsana 285 1 1900 73 12 5 28 11 150 Qhoqhoane 04 0 820201 1937 50=839 Sebapala 05 30 334 74 6 0 1 0 050 Sehiabathebe 065 5 8201 186 0 7010%

Total 283 6 12700 84 17251 94 219

Potential SitesSHLBAHEE tuy-re

cal precnditonfor rockart andany facoudryifunig hswl

potential r~~~~~~~~0 ock painting site. ovria oksraecnb ue

m 0manabv Phuhiasaa.29.100105 64.25 Qhoqhoane. 94 80 137 2=13 Sebpal 7.30 7 1115 Sehabthbe 65 80 16 .=11

Total 493 100~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~0 112 9 4=19%

of *

% ''"'290 55'' . % Tb

~~' 0 ~~~~SEHLABATHEBE Study-area

Boundary Club Clarens Formation

Thiessen Polygon

rock pain tig ste nu bet of, poaintngs

*10-24 025-49

*50 -99 100 - 199

0 1* 2 3 4 29km'

Fig. 9. Sehiabathebe study area: rock painting sites, polygons and Clarens Formation.

fieidworkers to be promising enough to be searched for sites are accepted as the equivalent of potential sites and the following is an attempt to establish preferences for specific locations amongst those potential sites.

Preferences

Exposure The chances that rock paintings have survived on rock surfaces

without protection against the elements are clearly less than opti- mal and the fact that some paintings are still visible today on surfaces that are exposed to rain, hail, snow, dust storms and the like, indicates that shelter, while obviously preferred (Table 3), cannot be regarded as a prerequisite. Rock shelters, whether caves or overhangs, distinguish themselves from exposed surfaces by the presence of a drip-line and a ceiling. The distinction between caves and overhangs is blurred in borderline cases, but overhangs are in general wider than they are deep and caves are always deeper than they are high. In addition, the rain cannot reach the back wall in caves.

Table 3. Exposure

no. of sites exposed overhang cave

Phuthiatsana 259 4% 93% 3% Qhoqhoane 94 2% 97% 1% Sebapala 75 3% 88% 9% Sehlabathebe 65 0% 97% 3%

Total 493 3% 93% 4%

Ndedema (after Pager 147 1% 99% 1971: 51)

Location Rock paintings have been found in a variety of locations: on the




massive boulders or isolated blocks rolled down from the mountain side; on the rocky outcrops or isolated ledges close to the rivers and along the mountain slopes; on the cliffs or kranses that form the main escarpments of the plateaux and in the valleys of Lesotho.

The height of the sites above or below the general terrain also shows great diversity. As the number of potential sites on cliffs and outcrops greatly outnumbers those on boulders, no specific preference for any one location may be deduced (Table 4).

Table 4. Location

no. of no. of height above/below sites boulder outcrop cliff sites general terrain in m

excl.' max mean

Phuthiatsana 259 11% 42% 47% 26 +150/-130 +58/-37 Qhoqhoane 94 21% 55% 23% 18 +210/-75 +55/-12 Sebapala 75 4% 41% 55% 11 +160/-160 +42/-29 Sehlabathebe 65 5% 71% 25% 15 +200/-25 +79/-9

Total 493 11% 48% 41% 70 +210/-160 +58/-29

Ndedema (after Pager 147 21% 79% 1971:51)

1) 65 sites are at the level of the general terrain, while the information is not available for 1 site in Sebapala and 4 sites in Sehlabathebe.

Aspect It would have come as no surprise if, among the potential sites,

those facing the sun in the course of the day would have been preferred, for this is clearly the case with the 308 sites located by Vinnicombe (1976:135) in the Drakensberg/south-eastem Lesotho area. She reports that "the majority of the shelters are on slopes with a northerly or easterly aspect." The sites studied by Lewis- Williams and by Pager show a similar preference (see Table 5).

Table 5. Aspect

no. of %N %NE %E %SE %S %SW %W %NW sites

Phuthiatsana 259 18 14 17 15 9 6 9 13 Qhoqhoane 94 11 7 13 12 26 14 15 3 Sebapala 75 27 12 9 7 15 9 11 11 Sehlabathebe 65 11 26 28 6 6 14 2 8

Total 493 17 14 16 12 12 9 10 10

Ndedema 1) 147 17 24 21 5 0 0 7 26 Giant's Castle 2) 42 15 29 22 7 0 2 4 21 Barkly East 3) 38 11 18 34 0 0 3 8 26 Olifants River Valley 4) 75 16 13 21 9 15 7 14 5

1) after Pager 1971:49 2) after Lewis-Williams 1972:51 3) after Lewis-Williams 1981:133 4) after Parkington 1979a: fig. 6.

However, in the four ARAL study areas and in the Olifants River Valley in the western Cape, any such preference for specific compass directions is far less obvious. Nevertheless, a moderate

tendency for the sunnier directions of the view from the sites may still be observed. For example, in the Sebapala area where the streams, flowing from the east into the Sebapala River, result in many north and south facing slopes, a marked preference for the north facing sites can be observed. While the reason for the many south facing sites in the Qhoqhoane area is not clear, the conclusion for the ARAL study areas as a whole must be that aspect, the compass-direction of the view from the site, has at the most been a minor contributing factor in the selection of sites. As seems to be the case in the Verlore Vlei area in the western Cape (Park- ington 1979b:27), "there is little in the 'preferred orientation' of rock art sites which cannot be explained by local geological factors."

The preference for sites facing the sun is however more noticeable among some of the rock painting sites that also contain other cultural remains (see below).

Dimensions Measurements taken at the ARAL sites show that a wide range

of shelters were acceptable as rock painting sites (Table 6). While preferences for specific locations amongst the potential

sites may have existed, so far no pattern of selection has been identified from the data on the physical characteristics of the rock painting sites in the ARAL study areas and the presence of potential sites is obviously the dominating factor in the distribution of rock painting sites. This conclusion is rather similar to the one arrived at in studies of the Verlore Vlei, western Cape (Parking- ton 1979b:27), and the Olifants River valley (Parkington 1979a:8).

Spacing In order to test the conclusion that within areas of potential

sites no pattern of selection can be recognized, reflexive nearest- neighbour values for points along a line (Haggett et al. 1977:442ff) have been calculated to assess the spacing, the distribution of sites along the -rock surfaces searched for sites by the ARAL field- workers.

Table 7. Spacing

no. of reflexive nearest-neighbours: observed proportion sites

first second third order; pattern order; pattern order; pattern

Phuthiatsana 259 0,618 grouped 0,394 random 0,263 random Qhoqhoane 94 0,660 random 0,383 random 0,298 random Sebapala 75 0,667 random 0,320 grouped 0,240 grouped Sehlabathebe 65 0,677 random 0,338 grouped 0,185 grouped

The values for the observed proportion in Table 7 should be compared with the expected proportion for points randomly located on a line. These are: 0,667 for the first order reflexive nearest-neighbours, for points

that are mutually each other's nearest-neighbour, 0,370 for second order reflexive nearest-nieghbours, points that

are mutually each other's second nearest-neighbour, 0,272 for third order reflexive nearest-neighbours, points that are

mutually each other's third nearest-neighbour. Values higher than the random value are thought to indicate uni-

Table 6. Dimensions

width in m depth in m height of ceiling in m habitable floor area in m' no. of no. of max min mean no. of max min mean no. of max min mean max mean none sites sites sites sites

excl.') excl.I) excl.')

Phuthiatsana 259 1 150 1.0 29 7 30 0.5 5 7 20 0.7 5 2000 102 lox Qhoqhoane 94 1 100 3.0 15 2 10 0.5 3 2 15 0.9 3 300 31 3x Sebapala 75 0 80 3.0 23 2 11 1.0 4 2 20 1.5 4 300 60 2x Sehlabathebe 65 0 120 4.5 19 0 17 2.0 4 0 25 1.0 4 1320 70 lx

Total 493 2 150 1.0 24 11 30 0.5 4 11 25 0.7 4 2000 78 16x

1) the measurements concerned cannot be calculated in some exposed sites.




formity, while lower values suggest grouping in the pattern. Zones representing the random pattern are bounded by the proportional value above and below the exact random value of two sites (one reflexive pair) in the study area with the smallest number of rock painting sites, i.e. Sehlabathebe: first order random expectation 0,667 + 2/65 = 0,636 - 0,698 second order random expectation 0,370 + 2/65 = 0,339 - 0,401 third order random expectation 0,272 + 2/65 = 0,241 - 0,303.

The observed proportions for the first order nearest-neighbours show that in three of the four study areas the number of reflexive pairs is characteristic for a random distribution of sites along the line of search. The exception is the Phuthiatsana study area where a pattern of grouping is suggested. This tendency towards grouping of the sites in the Phuthiatsana study area may well find its explanation in the importance of distance to the so-called core sites in that area (see below).

The values for higher order reflexive nearest-neighbours describe the spacing of the pairs of nearest-neighbours of the first order. These values indicate a tendency towards grouping in the Sebapala and Sehlabathebe study areas and suggest that the pairs of nearest-neighbours of the first order are spaced in a random manner in the Phuthiatsana and Qhoqhoane study areas.

Though no test of their significance is available, the reflexive nearest-neighbour values strengthen the impression that we have a random pattern of distribution of the rock painting sites within the areas of potential sites, and that no clear pattern of selection can be identified for the ARAL study areas as a whole. An explanation for the inclination towards grouping of groups of neighbour- ing sites in the Sebapala and Sehlabathebe study areas would, however, still be desirable.

Other Cultural Remains The distribution of actual painting sites versus potential sites

may be random, but is there any correlation with the distribution of other cultural remains?

Because the ARAL research project restricts itself to rock art sites, the overall distribution of archaeological deposits, surface artefacts, cave dwellings and stone walling in its study areas is still unknown, but records have been kept during fieldwork of the presence of such cultural remains in the rock painting sites found.

The aspect of the sites containing other cultural remains has been analysed in the light of Carter's conclusion (1977:219) that "the aspect of the occupied site is a major restraint affecting both modem and prehistoric settlement in eastern Lesotho." Table 9 shows that in most study areas the slight preference for sites facing the sun, already observed in Table 5, is indeed more pronounced in sites also containing other cultural remains. A further breakdown of the data indicates however that this is above all true for sites with cave dwellings and stone walling, which we assume were built in recent times by the Basotho and their immediate predeces- sors. The selection of sites with a more sunny aspect is less obvious among the rock painting sites with only archaeological deposits and/or surface artefacts present.

Table 8 indicates that perhaps not all, but certainly the majority of, the rock painting sites may also have been used for other pur- poses at one time or another. Pager's conclusion (1971:51) for the Ndedema research area that "the distribution pattern of the painting sites ... does ... reflect to a high degree the availability of habitable rock shelters" may well describe the situation in the ARAL study areas.

The data regarding cave dwellings and stone walling reflect the

Table 8. Other cultural remains

archaeological number archaeological surface deposits and/or cave stone of deposits artefacts surface artefacts dwellings walling sites % present % ? 4) % present % ? 4) % present % ? 4) % present % present

Phuthiatsana 259 50,6 14,7 27,0 11,2 51,0 15,1 4,6 50,6 Qhoqhoane 94 60,6 9,6 31,9 8,5 61,7 8,5 0,0 28,7 Sebapala 75 65,3 4,0 29,3 4,0 65,3 4,0 6,7 42,7 Sehlabathebe 65 43,1 24,6 27,7 26,2 44,6 23,1 33,8 66,2

Total 493 53,8 13,4 28,4 11,6 54,4 13,2 7,9 47,3

Barkly East 1) 38 87,8 n.a. 75,8 n.a. 90,9 n.a. n.a. n.a. Giant's Castle 2) 20 n.a. n.a. 55 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Ndedema 3) 147 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 6,8

1) after Lewis-Williams 1981: 134 2) Lewis-Williams 1981: 17 3) after Pager 1971: 51. 4) unknown due to vegetation cover

Table 9. Aspect of sites with other cultural remains

All Cultural remains') Present') sites absent present Deposits/surface cave stone

artefacts dwellings/walling

Phuthiatsana no. of sites 259 57 182 133 132 E(50%)-NE-N-NW-W (50%) 57% 56% 61% 61% 64% E(50%)-SE-S-SW-W (50%) 43% 44% 39% 39% 36%

Qhoqhoane no. of sites 94 25 64 58 27 E(50%)-NE-N-NW-W (50%) 35% 22% 37% 34% 44% E(50%)-SE-S-SW-W (50%) 65% 78% 63% 66% 56%

Sebapala no. of sites 75 17 56 49 32 E(50%)-NE-N-NW-W (50%) 59% 71% 58% 54% 55% E(50%)-SE-S-SW-W (50%) 41% 29% 42% 46% 45%

Sehlabathebe no. of sites 65 9 50 29 47 E(50%)-NE-N-NW-W (50%) 59% 72% 63% 60% 62% E(50%)-SE-S-SW-W(50%) 41% 28% 37% 40% 38%

Total no. of sites 493 108 352 269 238 E(50%)-NE-N-NW-W (50%) 54% 52% 56% 54% 60% E(50%)-SE-S-SW-W (50%) 46% 48% 44% 46% 40%

excluding "unknown due to vegetation cover"




use made by Basotho of the rock shelters in more recent times. Until recently Sehlabathebe was a cattle post area with very few permanent settlements. The rock shelters were used in the sum- mer months by the herders as living quarters and as kraals for their calves, sheep and goats. This and the fact that the area is now a National Park explain the presence and survival of so many cave dwellings and stone walls in its rock shelters. The high proportion of sites where the presence of archeological deposits is "unknown due to vegetation cover" in Sehlabathebe is also an effect of the establishment of this National Park.

Relative Importance of Sites We may assume that not every rock painting site was equally

important to the /IKuIle San (Duggan-Cronin & Bleek 1942:6; Butzer et al. 1979:1210), the probable makers of the paintings in Lesotho. Such differences in relative importance, whether they re- present differences in function or in length of use, may well be reflected in the quantity and the content of the rock paintings at the various sites.

Number of paintings per site As Table 10 shows, the mean number of paintings per site var-

ies considerably between research areas. One or a few important sites may result in the high averages in some areas (e.g. Pager 1971:1) and the median number of paintings per site may therefore be a more useful figure. One factor explaining differences in the average number of paintings per site in an area is the fact that some areas, among them the Olifants River Valley and the ARAL study areas, have been searched exhaustively for rock painting sites and as a result practically all surviving sites have been included. On the other hand, no such survey has yet taken place in other areas. For example, in north-eastern Lesotho many of the important and thus better known sites are already part of the sample, while most smaller sites are still waiting to be discovered and included. The low number of paintings per sq km in three of the four ARAL areas, apparent in Table 10, can be part- ly explained by the method used to delimit the study areas. ARAL has mainly chosen natural boundaries, like river courses and watersheds. Extensive areas without rock painting sites in the basalt regions and in areas lacking vertical rock surfaces have thus been included in the calculations.

The number of recognizable paintings per site ranges from none to more than 1 000. While time and an unequal rate of preservation may have reduced the original number of paintings unevenly in the various sites and can thus have influenced the original pattern of relative importance, it is assumed that sites which dominate this pattern today were also the more important sites in the past and that in fact the pattern has not been affected fundamen- tally.

No of sites

50

40

30

20

10

lo~~~ L~ d oL

20 40 60 80 100 1 20 140 160 200 +

Number of paintings per site

Fig. 10. Number of paintings per site in the ARAL study areas.

Fig. 10 has been constructed from information on the free-hand panel sketches of the 493 ARAL sites, and remnants of paintings with no longer recognizable subject matter have been excluded. As was to be expected, the resulting exponential curve indicates many sites with few paintings and few sites with many paintings, and the sites have thus been assigned in Table 11 to size-groups of a semi-exponential nature that contain a similar number of paintings per study area.

Table 11. Size groups number of paintings per site

0-9 10-24 25-49 50-99 100+ sites paintings s. p. S. p. S. p. S. p.

Phuthiatsana 53% 7% 24%12% 10%13% 9% 22% 4% 46% Qhoqhoane 64% 14% 20% 21% 7%16% 6% 29% 2%21% Sebapala 44% 5% 31% 21% 9%16% 12% 32% 4% 26% Sehlabathebe 65% 11%17%19% 11% 26% 6%31% 2%13%

Total 55% 8% 23% 15% 10%15% 9% 25% 3% 37%

Ndedema 1) 31% 2% 19% 4% 16% 6% 13% 10% 20% 78%

size-groups 1-10 11-50 51-100 101+

Drakensberg/ SE. Lesotho2) 32% 1% 35% 7% 14%13% 17% 79%

1) after Pager 1971:52-3. 2) after Vinnicombe 1976:138

There is surprisingly little variation per size group in the site percentages among the ARAL study areas. The data for the Nde- dema and Drakensberg/south-eastem Lesotho research areas are

Table 10. Number of paintings

Area no.of no.of no.of paintings no.of no. of in km2 sites paintings per site sites paintings

(excl. per km2 per km2 remnants) mean mediun

Phuthiatsana 824 259 7591 29 9 0,3 9 Qhoqhoane 387 94 1463 16 6 0,2 4

Sebapala 367 75 1830 24 13 0,2 5 Sehiabathebe 72 65 953 15 4 0,9 13

Total ARAL 1650 493 11837 24 8 0,3 7

N.W. Lesotho 1) n.a. 20 1935 97 60 n.a. n.a. Barkly East 2) n.a. 38 2361 62 n.a. n.a. n.a.

Giant'sCastle3) n.a. 20 1335 67 n.a. n.a. n.a. Ndedema 4) 196 147 11371 77 23 0,8 58 Drakensberg/S.E. Lesotho5) n.a. 150 8478 57 n.a. n.a. n.a. Olifants R. Valley 6) 60 75 1597 21 n.a. 1,3 27 Brandewijn R. system: E. of Clanwilliam 62 46 2822 61 n.a. 0,7 46 over Pakhuis Pass 7)

1) Smits 1971:15. 2) after Lewis-Williams 1974:96. 3) after Lewis-Williams 1972:49. 4) after Pager 1971:52-4, 321. 5) after Vinnicombe 1976: 135. 6) after Parkington 1979a:7,8. 7) after Maggs 1967:100, 103.




also very similar to each other. A real contrast exists however between the ARAL areas on the one hand and the Ndedema and Drakensberg/south-eastern Lesotho areas on the other, specifically in the importance of the very small and the very large sites. In the ARAL study areas approximately half of the total number of sites have less than 10 recognizable paintings and these sites contribute a fair percentage to the total number of paintings. In the Nde- dema and the Drakensberg/south-eastem Lesotho research areas less than one-third of all sites have fewer than 10 paintings and they add very little to the total number of paintings. At the other end of the scale, sites with more than 100 paintings contribute less than half of the total number of paintings in the ARAL study areas, while these sites dominate the Ndedema and the Drakens- berg/south-eastern Lesotho totals with 78% and 79% respectively. The reasons for these contrasts are not clear unless differences in completeness of the surveys concerned are involved.

In Figs 3, 5, 7 and 9 sites belonging to the various size groups have been represented by means of proportional circles.

Core sites In order to picture the distribution of the less numerous sites

with many paintings within the study areas and to test the impression that each of them is surrounded by smaller sites, Thiessen polygons (Haggett et al. 1977:436) have been constructed around sites with 50 or more rock paintings. The area within a polygon includes sites nearer to its core site than to any other with 50 or more rock paintings. While the decision to use sites with 50 or more paintings as core sites is obviously an arbitrary one, in view of Fig. 10 and Table 11, 50 paintings seems a realistic cut-off point, separating lesser from major sites. The method using Thies- sen polygons is fraught with problems, one being the fact that only 11 of the 53 polygons constructed are complete as they alone are fully within the boundaries of the study areas. Another shortcom- ing is the fact that 58 sites with 50 or more paintings have only produced 53 polygons. Three polygons have twin cores, with secondary core sites of 51, 52 and 54 paintings respectively, and one polygon contains a triple core, made up of sites with 377, 95 and 91 paintings. In these polygons the major sites involved are so close together that no separate polygons could be constructed.

Whatever their defects, the polygons visualize the distribution of major sites within the study areas and enable us to allocate smaller sites to specific core sites. The distribution of core sites has been analysed with the help of nearest-neighbour statistics.

It must however be realized that one condition assumed in nearest-neighbour analysis - that of homogeneous study areas - is not fulfilled in the ARAL study areas. In addition, "the interpre- tation of the results of an order-neighbour analysis must be treated with considerable caution if N < 20" (Aplin 1983:6), and only the results for the Phuthiatsana study area in Table 12 are therefore really meaningful.

The value of the first order nearest-neighbour statistic for Phuthiatsana in Table 12 indicates a tendency towards grouping of the core sites in that area. This value and the less reliable values for Qhoqhoane : second order and Sebapala: first order are how-

ever the only single values in Table 12 that challenge the hypothesis that the core sites are randomly distributed throughout the study areas.

An analysis of the cumulative frequency distribution of the nearest-neighbourstatistics (Aplin 1983:17ff), an approach which permits a more detailed description of distribution patterns than the single values of the nearest-neighbour statistics for the various orders, resulted in 'random' verdicts at the oc = 0,05 level of significance for all three orders in all four study areas.

Fig. 11 shows the results of this analysis for the Phuthiatsana study area in graphic form. The different verdicts on the first order nearest-neighbour statistics for Phuthiatsana that result from both methods employed are puzzling, even if we consider the shortcomings of using nearest-neighbour analysis in our context, mentioned already. We nevertheless conclude that core sites seem to be distributed randomly within the ARAL study areas and that distance from other major sites was not a dominant consideration for the painters.

99

98

9 5

9 0

8 0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~s Expected cumulative frequency

70 |.--/ - for random pattern

60

( Upper oc= 0.05 X

40 limit /

Lower OC =O 0 5 2 0 limit

1 0~~~~1 / / / First Order

/ / / --- Second

5 / / / __-- Third

2 Critical values of two - sample

Kolmogorov -Smirnov tests

C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I n CD LOC OonC OC

Square roots of distance values S 0 units

Fig. 11. Spacing of core sites: cumulative frequency graph of the nearest-neighbour statistics for the Phuthiatsana study area.

Table 12. Spacing of core-sites

Nearest-neighbour statistics, corrected for bounded areas cumulative frequency distribution single values

No. of core-sites first order second order third order first order second order third order

Phuthiatsana 30 0,714: grouped 1) 0,877: random 2) 0,904: random 2) random 5 random 5 random 5 Qhoqhoane 7 0,880: random 2) 1,707: dispersed 1) 1,435: ? dispersed/ random 5) random 5) random 5)

random 4) Sebapala 11 0,477: grouped 1) 0,977:: random 2) 0,949: random 2) random 5 random 5 random 5 Sehlabathebe 5 1,452: random 2) 1,419: dispersed/ 1,517: ? dispersed/ random 5) random 5) random 5) ____________ random 3) random 4)

_. 1) Hypothesis of randomness rejected, level of significance X= 0,01 2) Hypothesis of randomness accepted, level of significance X= 0,05 3) Hypothesis of randomness rejected at x = 0,05, accepted at oc = 0,01 4) Ambiguous: value could be from either a random or a dispersed pattern 5) Distribution does not differ significantly from the expected normal distribution: significance tested by two-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests.




Smaller sites With regard to the number of smaller sites around core sites,

Fig. 12 and Table 13 reflect neither an extremely uneven nor a very even distribution of sites per polygon. No clustering of the number of sites per polygon at both extremes of the scale, which would indicate grouping of the minor sites near a few major sites, or around one intermediate value, representative of an even distribution of minor sites among the major sites, is apparent in Fig. 12. This supports the conclusion that the lesser sites are distributed in a random manner among the core sites.

No of polygons

I10

LAi 10 20 30 40

Number of sites per polygon

Fig. 12. Number of sites per polygon in the ARAL study areas.

Concerning the location of the lesser sites within the polygons, Carter (1977:189ff), in his analysis of the location of rock art sites in eastern Lesotho and southern Natal, observed a marked clustering of sites between 1 and 5 km from a home base. He suggests "the possibility that the distribution of rock painting could reflect some form of territorial marking, particularly the marking of a core territory" (Carter 1977:193). Calculations similar, though not identical, to those made by Carter were undertaken for the ARAL sites; Carter's "home base" or "preferred site location" within a site territory has been replaced by ARAL's "core site" with 50 or more rock paintings.

Though Carter's findings and the ARAL data are not fully comparable, especially because of the number and size of the polygons/territories involved, it is nevertheless clear that the ARAL data fail to confirm a clustering of painting sites similar to the one observed by Carter. While Table 14 and Fig. 13 suggest that the ARAL sites are characterized by an exponential decrease in the number of painting sites with increasing distance from the core sites, a breakdown of the data per study area depicted in Fig. 14 reveals that distance from core site is of little significance in the Sehlabathebe, Qhoqhoanbe and Sebapala study areas.

By contrast, distance is indeed an important factor in the Phuth- iatsana area, with a concentration of 42% of the lesser sites between 250 and 1 250 m from the core sites. Within a radius of 750 m from the core sites we find however a smaller number of sites than could be expected if the relationship number/distance were an exponential one. Beyond 1 750 m from the core sites the pattern in Phuthiatsana reverts to the one already observed in the other three study areas with little relationship between distance and number of sites. While the reason for the difference between Phuthiatsana and the other three study areas is not obvious, the

Table 13. Total number of sites per polygon

no. of mean area in km2 no. of sites per polygon polygons per polygon max. min. mean

Phuthiatsana 30 27,5 39 1 8,6 Qhoqhoane 7 55,2 23 6 13,4 Sebapala 11 33,3 14 4 6,8 Sehlabathebe 5 14,4 31 5 13,0 Total 53 31,1 39 1 9,3

No of sites

40

30

20

10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7km

Oist from core -site

Fig. 13. Distance of sites from core-site in the ARAL study areas.

contrast in the importance of distance to core site may well explain the difference observed in Table 7, first order pattern, where a random distribution of rock painting sites along the lines of search in the Sehlabathebe. Qhoqhoane and Sebapala areas con- trasted with a pattern of grouping in the Phuthiatsana area.

Subject matter of the sites The relative importance of sites for the painters may also be

reflected in the content of the rock paintings at the various sites. Most paintings do not occur in isolation but in groups. Often a number of people and animals are painted near to one another. They seem to be related to each other and form a composition or scene. While ultimately content will have to be approached through an analysis of the themes represented in the various com- positions or scenes depicted, we can not yet properly distinguish between true and false groupings, or between assembled and in- tentional scenes (Smits 1971:17). At present we still lack the crite- ria to allocate specific paintings to certain groups and to determine the boundaries of each set of paintings that we think belong together. In this light the following must therefore only be regarded as an initial and incomplete analysis of the subject matter as represented in the individual paintings at the various sites in the ARAL study areas. It is based on the information available in the free- hand panel sketches of the ARAL site reports.

Table 14. Distance of sites from core-site/home base

No. of polygons/ no. of 0-1 km 1-2 km 2-3 km 3-4 km 4-5 km 5-6 km 6-7 km 7-8 km mean territories sites % % % % % % % % distance involved

Phuthiatsana 229 41 26 11 13 5 5 - - 1,46 29 Qhoqhoane 87 21 16 13 13 11 13 9 5 3,10 7 Sebapala 64 41 22 20 13 5 - - - 1,47 11 Sehlabathebe 60 42 25 20 10 3 - - - 1,27 5

Total 440 37 23 14 12 6 5 2 1 1,66 52

Moshebi's Shelter 1) 51 10 35 18 14 10 8 3 2 2,85 1 Khomo Patsoa 1) 25 20 24 28 16 12 - - - 2,29 1 Melikane 1) 12 17 17 42 7 - - - 17 2,89 1 Sehonghongl) 39 5 5 15 33 26 5 11 - 3,85 1 Ndedema 2) 49 8 10 20 30 20 8 - - 3,20 1

1) Carter 1977:195. 2) Carter 1977:195 from Pager 1971




sites

Sehlabathebe 10

1 2 3 Om

No of Ohoqhoane sites

10 -

1 2 3 4 5 6 7km

N o of sites

Sebapala

10

1 2 3 4km

No of sites J Phuthiatsana

20

10

1 2 3 4 5 6km

01st from core - site

Fig. 14. Distance of sites from core-site in the individual study areas.

Table 15 shows a striking overall similarity in the subject matter depicted in the various areas, despite the differences in average number of paintings per site and the large distances separating some regions, especially if we take into account the fact that the Drakensberg/south-eastern Lesotho sample contains a large number of domesticated animals under 'other' (10% of all its paintings), and that the Brandwyn River area is characterized by many handprints (33% of all paintings). A further analysis of the small differences in subject matter between study areas can, however, still be very informative.

The subject matter depicted in the four ARAL study areas has been examined using site percentages instead of the absolute number of paintings per site and the variation in subject matter per site in the study areas is taken into account. The mean of the site

percentages of subject matter in an area can differ considerably from the percentage of paintings of that subject in the area, as a comparison of Table 16 with Table 15 shows.

Table 16. Subject-matter: mean of the site-percentages

% Human-like % Antelope-like % Other

Phuthiatsana 70 19 11 Qhoqhoane 74 19 6 Sebapala 55 37 8 Sehlabathebe 60 34 5

Total 67 23 9

The comparison, made in Table 17 between each pair of study areas and using Z-values to test the difference between the means at a 5% significance level (Yeomans 1968:70ff), indicates that the means of the percentages for the various subjects depicted in the sites do not differ significantly between Sebapala and Sehlabath- ebe, while Phuthiatsana and Qhoqhoane are also similar. There are however significant differences between Phuthiatsana and Qhoqhoane with high percentages of human-like paintings on one hand, and Sebapala and Sehlabathebe with high percentages of antelope-like paintings on the other. It seems therefore that, on the basis of subject matter depicted, we can identify at least two distinct regions in Lesotho: one in the west and one in the east.

While corroboration and further evidence for such a conclusion is obviously needed, it will in due course be very interesting to see (a) whether this distinction between western and eastern Lesotho also expresses itself in themes depicted in the paintings, in painting styles, etc.; (b) if other distinct regions can be identified in Leso- tho and elsewhere once the necessary data become available; (c) what the nature of the contact area between regions is, for example, zones of transition or sharp breaks in characteristics, representative of similar or of sharply different painting traditions.

An analysis of the subject matter depicted in the individual sites within the study areas shows that those with very few recognizable paintings are disproportionately numerous among the sites with exceptional subject matter.

The sites with exceptional subject matter, i.e. sites in which the subject matter differs from the mean % of that subject for the study area concerned by more than one standard deviation, are characterized by a very low mean (11) and median (4) number of paintings per site. By contrast, there is a mean of 26 and a median of 9 paintings per site in all the ARAL sites with recognizable paintings. Nevertheless, the 149 sites with exceptional subject matter show an exponential curve for the number of paintings per site similar to the one that characterizes all 493 sites recorded (see Figs 10 and 15). A comparison of the geographical distribution within the study areas of sites with exceptional subject matter and all recorded sites reveals no obvious differences between the two.

Table 15. Subject-matter

no. of no. of paintings subject-matter no. of sites 1) recognizable per site 1) human-like antelope-like other

paintings mean median % % % Phuthiatsana 247 7591 31 9 75 16 9 Qhoqhoane 88 1463 17 6 80 15 5 Sebapala 69 1830 27 15 65 25 10 Sehlabathebe 55 953 17 6 67 27 6 Total 459 11837 26 9 74 18 9 N-W Lesotho 2) 20 1935 97 60 65 22 13 Ndedema 3) 147 11371 77 23 56 27 18 Barkly East 4) 38 2361 62 n.a. 54 40 6 Giant's Castle 5) 20 1335 67 n.a. 60 36 4 Drakensberg/S-E Lesotho 6) 150 8478 57 n.a. 53 22 25 Olifants R. Valley 7) 75 1597 21 n.a. 76 11 13 Brandewijn R. system, E of Clanwilliam over Pakhuis Pass 8) 46 2822 61 n.a. 52 8 40

1) excluding sites that have no paintings with recognizable subject-matter. 2) Smits 1971:15. 3) after Pager 1971:321. 4) after Lewis-Williams 1974:96. 5) after Lewis-Williams 1972:51. 6) after Vinnicombe 1976:135, 362-4. 7) after Parkington 1979a:7,8. 8) after Maggs 1967:100, 103.




Table 17. Z-values comparing subject-matter between study-areas

Phuthiatsana Qhoqhoane Sebapala Human Ante- Other Human Ante- Other Human Ante- Other

lope lope lope Qhoqhoane -1,03 -0,21 +2J10

Sebapala +3,36 -4,01 +1,89 +3,58 -3,26 -0,41

Sehlabathebe +2,13 - +2,56 +2,56 - +0,43 +0,92 -0,43 -0,88

underlined: values indicating differences that are statistically significant at a 5% level: 1,96 is the critical Z-value at x = 0,05.

No of sites

40

30

20

10

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Number of paintings per site

Fig. 15. Number of paintings per site in sites with exceptional subject matter in the ARAL study areas.

The percentage of sites with exceptional subject matter in the various study areas presents however an interesting contrast: it shows a clear distinction between Phuthiatsana (25%) and Qhoq- hoane (22%) on the one hand and Sebapala (54%) and Sehla- bathebe (58%) on the other. This distinction is intriguing in the light of the differences already noted between western and eastern Lesotho in the spacing of groups of sites and in subject matter depicted.

Conclusion In the ARAL study areas the effect of the physical environment

on the distribution of rock painting sites is limited, apart from the obvious importance of the availability of painting surfaces. While sheltered locations were clearly preferred, other features such as dimensions and specific location of the sites show very little sign of selection. Even the influence of aspect on the choice of sites, so important elsewhere, is less than expected.

The spacing of painting sites is dominated by a random pattern in the four study areas. Relative location, the distance from other sites, is the only factor that in some instances has a noticeable effect on the pattern in that the spacing of groups of sites in Seba- pala and Sehlabathebe shows some clustering. In addition, the smaller sites in Phuthiatsana are markedly concentrated at a distance of 250 - 1 250 m from the major sites, recalling Carter's finding (1977:191) of the clustering of sites, in his case at a distance of 1 to 5 km from the home base. Distance between smaller and major sites is however of little significance in the other ARAL study areas and the analysis of the spacing of the major sites gives guarded support to the hypothesis that they too are randomly distributed.

An unexpected contrast with research areas in the Natal Dra- kensberg for which comparable data are available is the consistent- ly greater number of very small sites and the lesser importance of very large sites in the ARAL study areas. This contrast is however not reflected in the subject matter. The by now well-known concentration on human-like and antelope-like subjects in rock paintings is again strongly confirmed in the ARAL study areas. Statistical tests nevertheless reveal that the differences in number of human-like and antelope-like paintings between the Phuthiat- sana and Qhoqhoane study areas in western Lesotho on one hand, compared to the Sebapala and Sehlabathebe study areas in eastern Lesotho on the other, are significant.

Further research will be needed to confirm the existence of distinct rock art regions within Lesotho and whether other differences between western and eastern Lesotho - a random distribution of groups of sites on Phuthiatsana and Qhoqhoane versus a tendency towards clustering in Sebapala and Sehlabath- ebe; a low percentage of sites with exceptional subject matter in western Lesotho compared to a high percentage in eastern Leso- tho - may be related to this distinction. Acknowledgements

Initial research was carried out while in receipt of grants from WOTRO, the Netherlands Foundation for the Advancement of Tropical Research, and from the Directorate of Technical Assis- tance, Ministry of Development Cooperation, the Netherlands.

I wish to express my appreciation to past and present members of the ARAL team: J. Alfers, Mrs P. N. Bardill-January, I. Gumbo and T. F. Tesele for their various contributions. Acknowl- edgement is also due to the Trustees, Director and Financial Secretary of the Leverhulme Trust for their present financial support for rock art studies in Lesotho, and to the National Univers- ity of Lesotho for its assistance. References APLIN, G. 1983. Order-Neighbour anaysis. Norwich: Geo

Books. BUTZER, K. W., FOCK, G. J., SCOTT, L. & STUCKEN-

RATH, R. 1979. Dating and context of rock engravings in southern Africa. Science 203:1201-14.

CARTER, P. L. 1977. The prehistory of eastern Lesotho. Un- published Ph.D. thesis: University of Cambridge.

DUGGAN-CRONIN, A. M. & BLEEK, D, F. 1942. The Bush- man tribes of southern Africa. Kimberley: The Alexander McGregor Memorial Museum.

HAGGETT, P., CLIFF, A. D. & FREY, A. 1977. Locational analysis in Human Geography. Second edition. London: Ed- ward Arnold.

LEWIS-WILLIAMS, J. D. 1972. The syntax and function of the Giant's Castle rock-paintings. S. Afr. archaeol. Bull. 27:49-65.

LEWIS-WILLIAMS, J. D. 1974. Superpositioning in a sample of rock-paintings from the Barkly East District. S. Afr. archaeol. Bull. 29:93-103.

LEWIS-WILLIAMS, J. D. 1981. Believing and seeing. London: Academic Press.

MAGGS, T. M. O'C. 1967. A quantitative analysis of the rock art from a sample area in the western Cape. S. Afr. J. Sci 63:100-4.

PAGER, H. 1971. Ndedema. Graz: Akademische Druck- u. Ver- lagsanstalt.

PARKINGTON, J. 1979a. Report on research in the Olifants River Valley 1978. In Soaqua: reports on research into the Late Stone Age of the western Cape: 1-9. Cape Town: Department of Archaeology, University of Cape Town.

PARKINGTON, J. 1979b. Report on research in the Verlore Vlei 1976-9. In Soaqua: reports on research into the Late Stone Age of the western Cape: 1-31. Cape Town: Department of Ar- chaeology, University of Cape Town.

SMJTS, L. G. A. 1971. The rock paintings of Lesotho, their content and characteristics. S. Afr. J. Sci. Spec. Publn. 2:14-9.

VINNICOMBE, P. 1976. People of the Eland. Pietermaritzburg: University of Natal Press.

YEOMANS, K. A. 1968. Applied statistics. Harmondsworth: Pen- guin Books.



rock paintings in lesotho: site characteristics

Documents