New research shows hunter-gatherers maintained extensive exchange networks using ostrich eggshell beads
When I was younger, we had ostriches. They were large, peculiar, dangerous, fast (and incredibly stupid) birds. I remember waiting patiently for them to lay their first eggs, marveling at the painted ostrich egg I had in my home, and hoping to try to paint my own. However, due to circumstances beyond our control, both died before they ever produced an egg.
For thousands of years, southern African hunter-gatherers have recognized the strangeness of these birds and the robusticity of their eggs. These hunter-gatherers used their meat, bones, and shells for many purposes, including manufacturing ostrich eggshell (OES) beads.
It is likely, the bird’s peculiarities were symbolically associated with the OES beads, many of which can also be found in the Maloti-Drakensberg mountains of southeastern southern Africa, where the birds are not endemic.
A study by archaeologist Prof. Peter Mitchell and his colleagues examines how these OES beads moved across the landscape, challenging previous assumptions about ancient exchange networks.
Their research methodology included analyzing the mythology and cultural significance of the ostrich and OES beads in hunter-gatherer society. This included historical and archaeological evidence of OES trade and manufacture. Additionally, the study employed cutting-edge strontium isotope analysis to determine the origin of OES beads at two sites in the Lesotho highlands.
OES Beads and Past Research
OES beads are among the most common forms of jewelry found in pre-colonial southern Africa, some of which were made as early as over 50,000 years ago. Their first evidence of production during ca 57–25 thousand years ago (kya) seemingly coincides with the reappearance of human populations in southern Africa’s interior after a period of absence.
The raw material from which OES beads are made is abundant and can be fashioned into durable ornaments at a relatively low cost compared to other raw materials, such as mollusk shells, which are less readily available across the landscape and less durable.
Beads were often used as jewelry or sewn onto clothing or skin bags, and their exchange facilitated the maintenance of social networks between different hunter-gatherer populations.
Whilst being manufactured, the size of the bead can be easily controlled, and their manufacturing technique is usually transmitted from one generation to the next within a group. Because of this, different bead sizes may be linked to distinct communities. However, while ethnographic studies in the twentieth century in the Kalahari support these points in part, the overall size of the beads is usually more associated with their intended purpose. Nonetheless, some archaeologists have interpreted varying sizes as being attributed to different ethnic affiliations between various groups in southern Africa.
For example, some researchers (such as Dr. Jennifer Miller, Dr. Elizabeth Sawchuck, and Dr. Yiming Wang) claim, based on bead size, that OES bead-making was introduced to southern Africa from East Africa based on size differences alone, which were then traded to sites over 2700km away, across landscapes such as Mozambique, Zambia and Zimbabwe, which at the time (~33kya), lack any evidence of ostrich bone, and OES beads.
Further, the researchers maintain that a trade connection between East and Southern Africa was sustained during MIS3 until its sudden disruption due to environmental factors, including drought in East Africa and flooding of the Zambezi River, which resulted in Southern African beads becoming smaller than East African counterparts.
However, this connection is further unsupported by the lack of similar lithic technologies (stone tool types made in a similar way) between the areas, which may have provided evidence of a long-distance connection between the regions. Finally, these previous researchers propose that OES beads ‘virtually disappear from the archaeological record,’ ignoring several sites with OES beads and preforms (unfinished beads) between 33–19kya.
However, Prof Mitchell and his colleagues point out issues in how these previous studies were conducted and how they reached their conclusions, including the failure to account for mesh size. When archaeological material is recovered, the sediment excavated is sieved. The meshes through which they are sieved can be 5mm (with a diagonal length of 7mm) to 1mm in size, while the beads themselves are often between ~3,7 and 5,2mm. In previous decades, these larger meshes (~5mm) were more often employed, which means that most of the smaller beads likely went missing during the excavation.
The missing beads are attested by previous excavations at Sehonghong in the 70s, which only recovered 43 beads, compared to later excavations at the same site with smaller meshes that recovered 529. Additionally, the previous research fails to account for the pH of the soil in which the OES beads were buried, which can affect beads, making them smaller with time. Finally, this prior research only relied on 14 beads, two of which were unfinished.
Prof. Mitchell and his colleagues argue that bead measurements alone cannot prove exchange networks. Researchers need multiple lines of evidence — including isotope analysis, manufacturing techniques, and other material cultures to prove or disprove such networks.
Thus, their study included multiple lines of evidence. First, they examined ethnographic evidence to understand the cultural and supernatural significance of the ostrich and its eggshell beads. Then, they focused their research on southeastern southern Africa, a region that had no ostrich populations, meaning all beads found there must have been imported. Finally, they used strontium isotope analysis to trace the geographic origins of these beads, providing direct evidence of their origin.
The Ostrich and the Hunter-Gatherer
Ostriches are the largest bird on Earth. Their size and small wingspan make them unable to fly, so they must walk bipedally (on two legs), just as humans do. They are fast, with top speeds of up to 90 km/h or 55.9 miles/h, and incredibly strong, with a kick three times as powerful as an elite boxer (~141kg cm-2).
In southern Africa, ethnographic accounts from local Bushman peoples show that some groups believed the ostrich created all humans, provided them with the knowledge of fire (and metaphorically sex), and once ruled over all animals (it seems the lion was not, in fact, the king of the jungle).
They are also associated with rebirth and resurrection, a fundamental concept for many Bushman groups, including the now-extinct /Xam (the / denotes a dental click). In these groups, the shamans wishing to enter trance (altered state of mind) would need to ‘die’ to enter the spirit world and ‘resurrect’ themselves to return to the mortal world.
This connection between shamans and the spirit world is exhibited by some rock paintings in which ostriches occur, such as the Namibian rock art of the /Ui-//aes (// denotes a lateral click). The art depicts four ostriches moving among dancing shamans, who have various attributes showing they are in a trance, including partial transformation and having wings and no legs as if feeling weightless.
Like other animals, it is believed that the ostrich’s various attributes would carry over into the items made from them. For example, arrow points made from ostrich leg bones would have the strength, speed, and stamina of an ostrich.
Similarly, the OES beads, created by the Gemsbok People (mythical people who existed at the beginning of time) and thus associated with humans and the Bushman identity, would be worn during trance to signal to the spirits the wearer’s humanness and beauty.
Additionally, the OES beads were believed to have healing powers, which are important during healing/trance dances. However, the spiritual potency (power) of the beads could also be dangerous, and as such, OES beads had to be removed during first-time childbirth or when a child fell ill. Young hunters and prepubescent girls were forbidden from using OES containers or eating ostrich meat until they were old enough to have had five children.
Given the deep spiritual and cultural significance of OES beads, it’s not surprising that they played a central role in one another important social custom — the hxaro exchange system.
Among the Ju/hoãnsi (!Kung) of the Kalahari, hxaro is a delayed gift exchange system.
Usually maintained between one individual and ten to sixteen exchange partners, the networks facilitate the exchange of information and resources and even help arrange marriages across 100 km or more distances. One of the most commonly exchanged gifts are OES beads, which is particularly interesting given that ‘hxaro’ also translates to ‘ostrich eggshell beadwork’.
Now that we know how vital OES beads were, what about their existence at sites where ostriches did not historically occur? How did they get there, and did they originate from East Africa?
Research and Results
To answer this question, Prof. Mitchell and his colleagues identified and analyzed the region in which their study was to be conducted. They chose two sites, Sehonghong (~32kya to < 1300 Before Present) and Melikane (< 3300 BP), located in the Maloti-Drakensberg Mountains of Lesotho.
Together, they and some surrounding parts of KwaZulu-Natal and the Eastern Cape make up an area around the size of the UK, in which historically and archaeologically, no ostriches nor their unmodified eggs ever occurred. Additionally, rock art in the area, which is incredibly abundant, shows that of around 650 rock art sites, not a single one shows a single depiction of an ostrich, indicating that ostriches likely never occurred in the region (although some non-local animals are sometimes depicted, ostrich was not one of them). Therefore, any OES beads found at these sites must have been brought in from somewhere else.
Using strontium isotope analysis on 16 beads from Sehonghong and another 11 from Melikane, the origin of the ostriches that had laid the eggs could be determined.
This was possible because the ratio of strontium isotopes, in this case, 87Sr and 86Sr, do not undergo fractionation as they pass through the food chain. Think of it like this: the strontium isotope ratios are like a geological fingerprint, with different rock formations having unique ratios that remain exactly the same no matter how many times it is transferred.
Therefore, the ratio will remain constant in the soil it forms in, the grass that grows on that soil, the animals that eat that grass (such as ostriches), and the eggshells those ostriches produce.
The results indicated that all beads were from non-local origins and were produced in areas usually 109–164 km away, with three coming from as far as 325 km away. These findings strongly suggest that there were long-distance exchange networks, which were particularly significant for the procurement of OES beads, as ostriches did not occur locally.
The research also shows that, unlike previous studies that relied solely on bead size to propose extensive trade networks spanning over 2700 km between East and southern Africa, OES beads were traded through regional networks spanning hundreds of kilometers within southern Africa itself, as demonstrated through concrete isotopic evidence.
The study by Prof. Mitchell and his colleagues challenges previous assumptions about exchange networks and OES manufacturing. It highlights the importance of using multiple lines of evidence — including cultural analysis, archaeological context, and scientific testing — when studying the origin and dispersal of OES beads.
Prof. Mitchell and colleagues established that OES beads from two sites in southeastern southern Africa were obtained from regional networks spanning distances between 109 and 325 km, challenging previous assumptions that OES exchange networks spanned south and East Africa over thousands of kilometers despite no other connection such as lithics, or waypoints with evidence of OES beads between these two areas at the time existing that could support this connection.
The research highlights the importance of multi-faceted approaches to studying ancient exchange networks to get more accurate and detailed insights into the lives of ancient hunter-gatherers and the importance of OES beads to them.
Now, taking all the newfound knowledge about ostriches and their eggs to heart, I have an important mission. At the moment, a friend is rather sick; I think I will get my ostrich egg and perform a healing dance. There is a slight possibility she will ask me to leave her house, but at least I tried.
What do you think about the symbolic power attributed to ostriches by ancient hunter-gatherers? Do you think these beliefs carried over into regions where the birds didn’t exist or was there another reason for their use of OES beads?
References:
Mitchell, P. J., Stewart, B. A., Hopper, C., Dewar, G., & Schillaci, M. A. (2024). Making connections: ostrich eggshell beads as indicators of precolonial societal interaction in southeastern southern Africa. Azania: Archaeological Research in Africa, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/0067270X.2024.2411138
Stewart, B.A., Zhao, Y., Mitchell, P.J., Dewar, G., Gleason, J.D. and Blum, J.D., 2020. Ostrich eggshell bead strontium isotopes reveal persistent macroscale social networking across late Quaternary southern Africa. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(12), pp.6453–6462.
Comentarios