Jowrd

oj Archeological

Sciwce (1995) 22, 727-740

Seal Bones as Indicators of the Timing and Duration of

Hunter-Gatherer Coastal Visits
Stephan Woodborne, Ken Hart and John Parkington
Spatial Archaeolog)) Research Unit, Department of Archaeology, University of Cape Town. Private Bag,
Rondebosch, 7700 South Aji?ca
(Received 7 February 1994, revised manuscript accepted I July 1994)
This study addressesthe seasonality and duration of seal hunting at archaeological sites near Elands Bay on the west
coast of South Africa. Mandible dimensions of modern sealsare used to establish a method of determining the age at
death of seals from archaeological sites. Cape Fur Seals have a restricted birth season. Relating the age of
archaeological specimens to the date of birth provides the season of death, and hence the season of occupation of the
sites. The distribution of seasonal determinations through the year and the coherence between predictions for first and
second year animals provide an indication of the duration of sealing. A change from the exploitation of second year
animals during the early Holocene to the exploitation of first year animals during the late Holocene is noted. This is
associated with a change from occupation without any seasonal focus, to occupation most likely during the spring
months of August to November. The changes in the age structure and the seasonal signature of the Elands Bay seal
assemblagesare related to changes in the environment as the sea level rose during the Holocene, and to changes in the
0 1995AcademicPressLimited
mobility patterns of the inhabitants of the region.
WESTERN CAPE (SOUTH AFRICA), SEASONALITY, SEALS, DUNE FIELD MIDDEN SITE,
ELANDS BAY CAVE.

Keyworrfs:

Introduction
n some earlier papers Parkington (1972, 1976,
1977, 1981) suggested that through much of the
Holocene period, hunter-gatherer groups visited
the western Cape coast seasonally, most likely in the
winter or early spring. Part of the evidence offered was
the age at death of seals represented in the fauna1
assemblages at coastal sites. He compared measurements of archaeological mandibles with modern bones
to estimate the month of death of the seals and by
implication the timing of the coastal visits.
Stable carbon isotope readings from archaeological
human skeletons appeared to contradict this suggestion (Sealy & van der Merwe, 1985, 1986, 1988; Sealy,
1986). Marine and terrestrial foods have very different
isotopic signals, reflected with minor modifications in
the skeletons of consumers. People who mostly lived
inland and made relatively short, seasonal visits to the
coast would have consumed similar amounts of marine
and terrestrial foods during their lifetimes wherever
they died and were buried. The expectation was clearly
that inland and coastal skeletons would show similar
readings if seasonal settlement shifts occurred. The
differences that emerged between coastal and inland
skeleton samples have convinced some, but not others
(Parkington,
1986, 1991), that the hypothesis of
seasonal mobility is unfounded.

0305~4403/95/060727+14

$12.00/O

In this analysis we re-examine the procedure for

determining seasonality from archaeological seal mandibles. Three flaws that marred earlier work have been
eliminated. First, we are now able to work with a
substantial and growing sample of mandibles from
modern animals tagged soon after birth. We can see
that some of the age estimates for modern specimens
upon which Parkington relied are wrong. Secondly, we
are able in almost all cases, both modern and archaeological, to recognize the sex of the seals from morphological characteristics of their mandibles. Males and
females have different growth rates, producing quite
distinct estimates of age from the same mandible
measurement. Thirdly, whereas previously we had to
aggregate measurements from several different depositional units in order to obtain a statistically viable
sample, we now have at least one large sample from
what we believe to be a briefly occupied camp. The
combined impact of these points is that we can derive
a better measure of ontogenic age for archaeological
seal specimens and apply it to highly resolved and
historically meaningful archaeological assemblages.

The Cape Fur Seal (Arctocephalus pusillus)

The basis for our hypothesis is the predictable annual
changes in the age and sex composition of the Cape
0 1995AcademicPressLimited

728

et al.

S. Woodborne

28

Port Nolloth
\

30

tStrandfontein

Cape
Province

pt.

Elands Bay

\n

Cave

Atlantic
Ocean
32

\
Great Paternoster

Duie Field
Midden

2km-

Pt.

Figure 1. Map showing the present distribution of breeding and non-breeding seal colonies along the coast of South Africa (after David, 1989).
(0): Breeding colonies; (0): non-breeding colonies. The map insert shows the position of major archaeological sites near Elands Bay.

Fur Seal population at various places along the coast

(Figure 1). The Fur Seal breeding cycle governs their
dispersal and aggregation (Rand, 1956) and huntergatherers will certainly have factored this into their
exploitation strategies.
The breeding cycle is rigidly seasonal. It begins in
late September when the bulls arrive to establish individual territories at the breeding colonies. The sexually
mature cows come ashore during October and early
November and immediately the males attempt to herd
them into harems on their territories. Bulls patrol their
territories, physically restraining the cows from leaving, repelling the advances of other males and always
seeking an opportunity to herd more cows onto their
territory. Fierce competition develops during which
small and immature males are excluded to the fringes
of the colony.
The mature cows are pregnant from the previous
breeding season and they drop their pups in the

last two weeks of November or the first week of

December. The timing of pupping was recorded
over a 7-year period at the Van Reenen Bay breeding
colony, and this indicates how consistent and concentrated this event is. Of the observed births, 90%
occurred between 22 November and 17 December
(David, 1989).
Mating takes place about a week after parturition.
By this time the bulls have spent up to 8 weeks on land
with vigorous exercise but no access to food. After
mating they return to sea and remain dispersed and
essentially inaccessible until the next breeding season.
Cows make occasional foraging trips to sea after the
birth of the pups, but they remain bound to the
colonies until the pups can hunt for themselves. Foraging trips become more frequent and of longer duration between May and August by which time the pups
are more or less independent of their mothers for food.
By August the pups begin to spend more time at sea

Seal Bones as Indicators

729

30
22 25
;Ei 20
P 15
dp-A---

10
5
45
Figure 2. Buccal view of left seal mandible indicating the dimensions
measured in this study. We use the relation between the short length
and the age of the animal to predict the age at death of archaeological specimens.

and to disperse widely from the colony. The cows

return to sea with a growing foetus and stay there until
the next breeding season.
Although some pups still use their natal colony as a
base after 2 years, there is little advantage in competing
for space at the breeding colony and very large groups
of immature seals migrate to where the pressure is less
intense. Here they form hauling out colonies. Thus
the composition of hauling out colonies is distinct
from that of breeding colonies, and indeed that of
breeding colonies varies considerably throughout the
year. With the reduction in numbers of predators such
as jackals and brown hyaenas in recent times, large and
rapidly growing breeding colonies have been established on the mainland, whereas previously most
colonies were on offshore islands.
Due to this seasonal cycle, the Cape Fur Seal population comprizes distinct annual cohorts. The implication is that at any point in time there is a cohort of
animals aged less than 12 months, referred to as the
first year cohort, another aged between 12 and 24
months, the second year cohort, and so on. The
difference in age between each cohort is always a
multiple of 12 months. The physical differences
between cohorts become less pronounced after the first
2 years of life.

Establishing Age at Death

The foundation of our technique for determining ontogenie age is the predictable relation between age and
mandible size, in the absence of usable patterns of
tooth eruption or wear (Rand, 1956). In order to
establish this relation, we measured several mandibular
dimensions on modern specimens of known age at
death (Figure 2). The most useful relation is between
age and what we call short length (SL). This is the
linear distance between the lateral tip of the mandibular condyle and the posterior edge of the rearmost
post-canine tooth socket measured on the buccal side

50

_________ ----__-.

60
65
55
Short length (mm)

70

-.
I5

Figure 3. For the tagged sample of male seals the variability in size
with age for the first cohort is best described by the equation
AGE= IO MONTHS (- - -), but this model misrepresents the seddnd
and third cohorts. A simple regression based on the first three
cohorts is also influenced by the variability within the first cohort
and the age of second and third year animals is underestimated. A
regression technique that models the variability between, and not
within, groups of points is required.

of the mandible. This dimension also tends to survive

on fragmentary archaeological specimens.
We had at our disposal the South African Museum
and Department of Sea Fisheries collections of mandibles from known aged individuals. The Department
of Sea Fisheries tags seal pups within 6 weeks of birth
at some colonies. The pups carry a distinct black coat
until their first moult in March (Rand, 1956) so there
is no doubt about their year of birth. We measured
mandibles from 170 culled specimens comprising 111
males and 59 females. Seals exhibit a substantial degree
of size related sexual dimorphism that is manifest soon
after birth, and it is imperative to make this distinction.
Whereas Sea Fisheries recorded the sex of the tagged
animals, we use morphological
attributes of the
mandibles to detemline the sex of the archaeological
specimens. Female mandibles have relatively narrow
canines and are gracile in comparison with those of
males, especially in the vicinity of the canine root.
The Rand collection of seal skeletons housed at the
South African Museum was also available for our
scrutiny. These were not tagged animals, but Rand did
record the date of death and an estimate of age for
each specimen. Where the Rand collection animals are
older than a few years the age estimates may be a year,
or, in the case of very old specimens, several years in
error. There can be little doubt that the age of animals
presumed to have been in their first year is valid. The
length of the canines relative to the post-canines confirms this. During the first year the canine is shorter
than the post-canines in both males and females
(Meyer, pers. comm.). For animals aged less than 4
months Rand made no error since these pups are
black. The addition of the Rand collection animals in
their first year makes the total for known age males
to 122 and to 83 for females.

730

S. Woodborne

et al.

Table I. Calculation
of the ontogenic age of each seal in the DFM and DFM Estension
assemblages from the mandible short length using equations
(5a) and (56). The values are used to generate age profiles.
Where the age is less tharr 3 years. n~ontlr of dearll (Monrh)
is calculated
using
equations
(6a) and (66)
Provenance
DFM
Seals
Cohort
1
Tom
Tom
Ann
Pet
Ber
Ela
Ela

78
78-13
13
9
50
80
85

Kir 70
Ela 98-l
Ela 85
Cohort
Ela
Ela
Ela
Ber
Tom
Tom
Kir
Nit
Tom

Ela
Ela
Kir
Ber

1
2

52
77
86
58
99-17
99
70
15
90-30

85
59
92
18

Age

Males

(64

55.5
55.5
54.8
54.6
54.45
53.4
50.8

10.9
10.9
10.1

Females

(6b)

54.6
54.4
54.4

10.7
10.4
10.4

Males

@a)

63.3
63.2
62.85
62.73
62.3
61.7
59.2
58.1
57.8

21.7
21.5
20.9
20.7
20.0
19.0
15.3
13.9
13.5

Females

(6b)

;f
8.8
6.6

60.8
58.3
56.5
55.7

23.6
17.5
13.9
12.5

Males

(64

54.6
54.7
55.9
z66.9

9.4
9.5
10.7
10.8
11.8

Females

(6b)

52.6
53.1
55.7
56
56.2

6.6
7.2
10.9
11.4
11.8

Males

(64

58
13
46
61
82
61
96
62DP
62
62DP

57.3
57.8
58.3
59.5
59.5

12.3
12.9
13.6
15.3
15.3
21.3
21.5
21.8
21.8
22.4

DFM Extension
Cohort
1
Dfm
Fra
Fra
Sha
Sha

4
58
72
41
l/14

Sha
Sha
Fra
Fra
Fra

62DP
62DP
65
66
85

Cohort
Fra
Sha
Fra
Fra
Fra
Fra
Fra
Sha
Fra
Sha

SL

z.1
63.2
63.2
63.5

Month

uL*

LL*

IS.8
18.8
17.6
17.3
17.0
15.4
11.8

6.0
6.0
5.6
5.5
5.4
4.8
3.4

Age

(54
10.9
10.9
10.1
9.9
9.8
8.8
6.6

10.6
10.6
10.0
9.8
9.7
8.8
6.8
(5b)

10.7
10.4
10.4

29.7
28.9
28.9

3.3
3.2
3.2

9.4
9.1
9.1
(5a)

;::
8.9
;:;
;I;
1.9
1.5

36.6
36.3
35.3
35.0
33.8
32.2
26.1
23.7
23.1

12.6
12.5
12.1
12.0
11.6
11.0
8.7
7.9
7.6

19.8
19.6
19.1
19.0
18.4
17.6
14.5
13.2
12.9
(5b)

11.6
5.5
1.9
12.5

63.0
47.0
37.8
34.2

9.4
9.5
10.7
10.8
11.8

17.7
17.9
20.1
20.2
22.1

;I;
4.6
4.0

19.7
14.9
12.0
10.8

(5a)
4.6
4.7
5.4
2:;

;:;
11.0
11.1
12.0
(5b)

6.6
1i.Z
11.4
11.8

28.2
30.4
44.3
46.3
47.6

;:;
1.9
5:;

7.1
7.6
10.8
11.2
11.5
(54

12.3
12.9
1.6
;::
;:;
;:;
10.4

22.9
24.1
25.2
28.3
28.3
39.3
39.7
40.1
40.1
41.2

;:;
;1:;
8.0
11.5
11.6
11.7
11.7
12.1

12.4
12.9
13.4
14.8
14.8
19.3
19.5
19.6
19.6
20.0

Seal Bones as Indicators 731

1. Continued

Tuble

Provenance

Fra
Fra
Sha
Fra

86
96
52
86

Cohort 3
Sha 4
>Cohort 3
Sha 52

Sha 3

SL

Age

Females

(6b)

58.7
56.8
57.6
57.7

17.2
12.9
14.6
14.8

Males

(64

66.3

29.1

Males

(64

74.2

60.1

Females

(6b)

68.7

72.3

Month

uL*

LL*

4.;

68.2
51.9
58.2
59.1

;:;

Age
(5b)

;:;

2.9
3.0

15.6
12.4
13.7
13.8
G-4

5.1

53.6

15.9

24.4
(54

12.1

111.7

33.3

40.5
Gb)

12.3

283.6

18.7

43.9

*The UL and LL columns represent the upper and lower limit of the 95% error associated with each of these age predictions.

For each animal in the comparative sample, we have

the known date of death. Assuming a birth date of
December 1 for all seals, their known age will be in
error by perhaps a few days but certainly less than 2
weeks. This error will be relevant in any age predictions
based on this set of observations, but the statistical
procedure we employ accommodates it within the
confidence limits of the prediction. Nevertheless the
error is negligible inasmuch as a 2-3 month range for
the season of death is quite satisfactory. We express
age in months and decimals of months.
The nature of these samples significantly influences
the procedure for calculating the age at death for
archaeological mandibles. Regression analyses are only
valid if the data fulfil certain criteria. We therefore
need to consider some of the assumptions and problems associated with regressions and their application
in this instance.
We assume that the age/size characteristics of the
seal population have remained constant through time,
thus making any age prediction based on the modern
sample of animals also valid for archaeological seals.
Another assumption is that the animals used to establish the age/size relation reflect the allometric variance
of the entire population. In this respect our sample has
problems which are associated with the restricted birth
season of the animals. The restriction of culling to
some 4 months each year, implies that the modern
sample does not include certain age groups. The
number of tagged animals at or around the age of 9
months at death far exceeds that of animals at or
around 21 or 33 months at death, because commercial
culling focuses on first year pups. The killing of older
animals is incidental and altogether the first year pups
represent about half of the total sample population.
Clearly the comparative sample does not fully represent the size variance through the entire age continuum
of animals found in the modern seal population, nor
does it reflect the natural age structure.

Age and size are interdependent

variables and
graphic representation is advantageous in establishing
the regression relation between them. Since we measure
the mandible size in archaeological samples this should
be the independent variable whereas we predict age so
it should be the dependant variable. A plot of age
versus size illustrates the nature of the sampling problem discussed earlier (Figure 3). A simple regression
minimizes the accumulated differences between the
known age, and the age that the regression equation
predicts for the corresponding mandible size. At least
for the first cohort, the equation age= 10 months will
best satisfy this criterion, but it will grossly misrepresent the post-first year cohorts. Similarly the number of
first year animals biases the regression based on all the
data points, and the curve substantially underestimates
the age of older animals. The problem here is that the
variability within the first year cluster of points is
contributing more to the regression than the variability
between the clusters. The change in size through time,
not the variability in size at a single point in time, is
what we intend to model. A simple regression based on
such a biased population of data points is of little value
in predicting the age of seals.
The remedy to this problem relies on the fact that
age and size are interdependent variables. If we consider age to be the independent variable and size the
dependant variable, then there are multiple values of
the dependant variable for each value of the independent variable. The term group refers to comparative
animals with the same age at death. A special form of
regression calculates the best fit curve using the mean
mandible size in each group. Thus a single point
represents each group and the variability within the
group does not contribute to the regression. The basis
of the regression is then the variability between groups.
Only the confidence limits associated with the regression curve reflect the variability within the groups.
Sokal & Rohlf (1969: 428-440) provide an excellent

732

S. Woodborne

et

al.

Tuhle 2. The orlrogeuic

ages from
IO rrwke the seasonal detemirrrrrion
Provenance

EBC Upper
Cohort
I
Eddi
Eddi
Doll
Jech
Doll
Surf
Barn

G5
G5
El0
G7
El
Y6
FIO

Geob G4
Doll E9
Eddi G4
Geob G4
Cohort
Clgs
Ckee
Doll
Do12
Jech
Eddi

2
H2
F8
FIO
G9
G6
F8

which nge profiles ore cousrrucred,

/he ruonrlr of death and the 93% confidence
ore presented for rhe EBC Upper orrd EBC Lower seal assemblages
SL

Age

Males

(64

50.7
$7
5%
52.6
55.1
56.1

6.5
6.1
7.7
8.0
8.1
10.4
1 I.5

Females

(6b)

51.4
51.6
2:

6.7
6.9
9.9
Il.4

Males

(W

57.2
58
58.9
63.4
63.7
63.8

12.8
13.8
14.9
21.8
22.4
22.6

Month

UL

hits

LL

X6

Cohort

Eddi E6
Geob ES
Eddi G7
Kohort

Doll FlO
Jech G6
EBC Lower
Cohort
I
Bsbl
Bsbp

Clgs
Bsbb

C6
D5

F4

56.1

13.2

Females

(6b)

61.1
61.2
64.5

24.5
24.8
35.8

Females

(6b)

iA.

69.3
298.2

Males

(64

49.3
54.8

5.5
IO.1

Females

(6b)

48.8
54.5

4.3
IO.6

used

Age

(W
6.5
6.7
7.7
8.0
8.1
IO.4
II.5

I I.7
12.0
13.6
14.1
14.2
IS.1
19.8

3.4
3.5
4.1
4.3
4.3
21:

6.7
6.9
I.8
8.0
8.1
IO.2
II.2
(5b)

6.7
g:;
11.4

19.2
19.8
27.4
31.2

I.7
1.8

21.9
23.5
25.5
36.9
37.8
38.1

7.2
I.8
8.5
12.7
13.0
13.1

;:;

6.0
;::,
9.9
(54

12.8
I.8
;:;
IO.4
IO.6

(6b)
Neto

on he age prediction

12.3
13.1
14.1
19.9
20.3
20.5
(5b)

I.2

35.9

4.3

Il.4
(5b)

12.5
12.8
11.8

65.2
65.9
94.8

8.8
8.9
13.2

9.3
IO.2

183.8
811.1

26.4
114.2

20.4
20.6
29.2
(5b)
54.3
212.3

(W
I;.:

IO.0
17.6

2.8
5.6

5.8
IO.0
(5b)

13.1
29.3

0.8
3.3

3.9
9.2
Conrincted

explanation and description of this statistical approach. Resolving the comparative data in this way
transforms the clusters of points that make up each
cohort into several groups This reduces the bias
described earlier.
The method requires that groups have exactly the
same value for the independant variable. This is not
strictly the case in the seal data. We cannot assume that
animals that were killed on the same day and that were
bon in the same season are the same age since we do

not know that they were born on exactly the same day.
This problem technically invalidates the use of the
technique to predict age at death, but it must be noted
that our prime objective is to predict season of death.
The analysis could be executed in such a way that age
does not play a role. If the age that we have attributed
to the comparative seals is not considered as age in the
normal sense of the word, but instead as the duration of
time between I December and the death of the animal,

then animals born in the same season and killed on the

Seal Bones as Indicators 733

Table

2. Continued

Provenance

SL

Cohort 2

Males

Brne A3
Gban F4
Bsbp D3
Bsbl C4
Bsb2 C3
Nept A4
Bsbl E5
Bsb2 C6
Gban F4
Bsbp E3
Bsbp C2
Bene Y2
Nept 23
Nept A5
Nept A3
Bsb2 C4
Bene Y3
Nept A3
Bsb2 C6
Bsb2 C4
Bsbp D5
Jime E5

51.7
58.7
58.9
59.2
59.5
59.5
59.6
59.1
60.3
61.4
61.4
61.4
61.7
61.9
61.9
62.4
62.4
62.5
62.6
62.9
64.2
64.2

Age

Month

UL

LL

Age

64
;:;
14.9

2.9

3.9
4.0

;:;
18.5
19.0
19.3
19.3
20.1
20.1
20.3
20.5
21.0
23.3
23.3

6.5
6.5
7.0
7.3

;::
8.1
8.3
8.5
9.0
11.3
11.3

22.9
25.0
25.5
26.1
26.8
26.8
21.0
27.3
28.7
31.4
31.4
31.4
32.2
32.7
32.1
34.1

12.8
13.9
14.1
14-5
14.8
14.8
14.9
15.0
15.8
17.2
17,2
17.2
17.6
17-8
17.8
18.5
18.5
18.6

10.7
10.7

Il.0
11.2
11.2
11.7
11.7
11.8
11.9
12.2
13.6
13.6

34.1
34.4
34.6
35.5
39.3
39.3

18.8
19.2
21.1
21.1

(6b)
Bsbl C4
Bsbp E4
Bsbp E4
Dece B4
Bsbp E3
Bsbp D4
Bspb D4
Nept 24
Bsbpl C5

56.6
56.7
57.1
57.4
58.9
59.1
59.2
60.2
60.3

19.3
19.5
22.0
22,3

Cohort 3

Males

(64

Nept A3
Bsbp ES

Bsbp E4
Bsbl C5
Bsbp D4

14.1

2.1

14.3
15.0
15.6

2.3

18.8
10.0
10.3

38.2
38.1
40.7
42.2
50.5
51.7
52.3
58.8
59.5

24.8
26.2

12.8
2.2

41.8

61

24.2

12.2

zi.6

27.1
32.4

;:;

64.5
72.2
86.1

>Cohort 3
Bum A2

(5b)
5.0
5.3
6.5
6.7
6.8
7.8
7.9

12.1
12.2
12.9
13.3
15.9
16.3
16.5
18.5
18.7

145
15.3

22.3
23.4

;:;

20.2
22.5
26.6

4:;

44.1

11.9

(5b)

(6b)
78.9

141.9

same day do have the same age. In a strictly statistical

sense the predictions that are obtained from a regression phrased in these terms are not ontogenic age, but
rather a time period from 1 December. The best
representation for this would be as date of death, hence
the technique provides a direct method for predicting
season of death. The difference that emerges in the
analysis is entirely semantic and so we have retained
the use of the term age for simplicity. Where we use
the true ontogenic age (in age profiles) we accept that
there is an error associated with the prediction as was
discussed earlier.

9.9

379.6

545

106.1

Model Selection
Using this technique
regression relations:

we tested

four

SL=a+P(AGE);
log(SL) = a+ P(AGE);
SL=a+P(log(AGE+15));
log(SL)=a+
where a, P=population

P(log(AGE+ l-5));
parameters.

alternative
(1)
(2)

(3)
(4)

734

S. Woodborne

et

al.

(a)
120,

80

- 100
3
g 80
8
iz
2
cn

60

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Age (months)
100

-_

Age (months)
_---

20

40

60

80

120

---

140

80

-_

0
10
20
30
40
Age (months)
Age (months)
Figure 4. From the short length of a seal mandible it is possible to predict the age at death of the animal and the 95% error associated with
the prediction. Graphs (a) and (c) show regressions based on all the known aged animals available for analysis. Graphs (b) and (d) reflect
regressions based on the known aged animals that were less than three years old at death. (a): males (all animals); (b): males ~36 months;
(c): females (all animals); (d): females <36 months.
0

100

_---

For both the males and the females we had two

comparative data sets, (1) the tagged animals, and (2)
the latter set supplemented by the Rand animals. In
each case we tested the four models. This produced
eight possible equations and we had to select the best
for each sex. The regression analysis calculates the best
values of a and p for each equation, but it does not
establish which model best relates age and mandible
size. We use F, the variance ratio test (Zar, 1984; Sokal
& Rohlf, 1969), to measure goodness of fit. Consistently low F values for all model 3 regressions indicate
that this is an unsuitable option while model 4 is clearly
the best option. Including the Rand collection in the
comparative data set improves the regression by producing higher F values. Analysis of variance tables are
summarized in Appendix 1.
To predict age from mandible measurements the
inverse form of equation (4) is used (Zar, 1984). The
equations that best predict age over a wide range of
values are the following:

AGE = 10

(Log(SL)I - 0.2331-

AGE = 10 (

492

1.5 (males n = 122)

Log(sL)-o~l6l
I.571
) - 1.5

(females IZ= 83).

W
5b)

Confidence Limits
It is clear from the modern observations that all the
animals that achieve a particular size do not necessarily
do so at the same age. Thus it is inaccurate to associate
a single age with the SL measurement from any
archaeological mandible. The age predicted by the
equation is the most likely age at death for an animal.
The real age could have been older or younger, but the
probability of this being the case decreases as one
moves away from the prediction. The range that expresses the probable age of death is calculated using

Seal Bones as Indicators 735

10 3

B-

4
;

6-

42O-

JFMAMJJASOND

I
12 24 36 46 60 72 64 96 108 120 132 144 166 168 160192204 216 9.16

Month

Age (months)

(b)
DFM EXT.
3

10B- -

ales

4m

12 24 96 46 60 72 64 96 106120132144 166168160192204216>216

42Om

I
I
JFMAMJJASOND

12 24 66 46 60 72 64 96 106120192 144 166 166 160192204216>216

Month

Age (months)

Figure 5. (a) Sealing at DFM peaks in October when it is easy to find first year pups, weak after being weaned, dead or dying on the shore.
Although seals grow to ages in excess of IO years, the DFM age profiles show that the sample consists entirely of first and second year animals.
(b) The DFM Extension sample includes animals killed during the DFM occupation. The spring (September) seasonal signature from this site
is similar to that of DFM which suggests that the occupation of the other two sites that constitute the sample was at approximately the same
time of the year as DFM, although several centuries separate the occupations. The sample includes some third and fourth year animals, but
frst and second year animals still predominate. (m): cohort 1; (II): cohort 2; @I): cohort 3.

the form of the confidence

predictions:

equation

for inverse

where: K= p2-t2s2p; T=rnean age (modern sample);

jj=mean SL (modern sample); JJ,=SL of archaeological
sample; 11=modern sample size (Zar, 1984: 276).
The 95% confidence limits define the range that
would accommodate 95/ of the spread of ages for
animals of a given SL dimension in the seal population.
As seals get older their growth rate decreases and it
is not easy to distinguish between cohorts on the basis
of size alone. Correspondingly the confidence range for
age predictions increases. It is not possible to resolve

the season of death if the animals are older than about

3 years. Initial results using equations (5a) and (5b)
indicated that most of the archaeological specimens
were immature (Tables 1 and 2), and so we recalculated
the regressions for the sub-three year seals. While
excluding older animals made little difference to the
predicted age, it improved the confidence range quite
considerably.
For animals less than 3 years of age the following
equations gave the most accurate predictions:
AGE = 10 (
AGE = 10 (

Log(SL)-0.209
I.516

Log(SL)-0.161
1.514

1 - I.5

(males n = 90)

) - 1.5 (females n = 64).

Pa)

(6b)

tb,
I

E
-2
=
%

JFMAMJJ
MO&l

Fi-m
6. la) The EBC Upper seaI asseaxb!aa+
accumulated
OWF a Ion-m
period of time than hose in the DFiU
and DFSl
Extension
asmblages.
It is also the result of many more Gsits to &e site. The seasonal si-gamre
is that of spring
and &rsx and secwnd >-ear anin&
domiuare
&e sampk.
This suggests a coherent
strategy ofseasonzl
occupation
and xrt[ exploitation
in the he Holocene.
(b) The expkviratioo
of seaIs prior to !BXlO BP does not appear to be seasonal at Elands Bay Cave. Tbe age pro6la
show that the eariu Holocene
inhabitants
of
the cave obtained
mosUy second year animals, probabiy
from a hauling out coolony. -fbe lack of tint yeas anin&
idkites
tit
a breeding
colony did not es& in the Gzinity
during this tie
when SW Ievels were considerably
lower than at present.(1): cohort
I: (E): cohort
2:
(ET): cohoii
3.

When det ermining season of death we use equations

(6a) and (6b) to predict age and restrict the application
to animals that are younger than 40 months at death.
Besides the ability to deduce season of death, a,tig
archaeologijcal seals also allows us to construct age
(mortality) profiles for archaeological seal assemblages. Since the archaeological assemblages ofien
contain seals that were older than 40 months, we
used equations (5a) and (5b) to generate age profiles.
Both sets of equations are presented &graphically in
F&u-e 4.
It is important to note that age predictions do not
depend on direct analogy with the absolute values in
the sample population. Predictions are valid for mandible measurements even if animals with the corresponding age did not occur in the modem sample.

Conversely, the clustering of observations from animals a&& 9 months in the modern sample does not
impose a tendency to predict ases of 9 months for
unknown animals. We can also calculate the confidence limits for any age prediction.

Archaeological Results
Lhnefelcl

i&&&n

The site of Dunefield Midden @FM) is a pre-colonial

campsite in the dunes 2 km north of the mouth of
the Verlorenvlei, and 3 km from Elands Bay Cave
(Parkington er 01.. 1992). A number of radiocarbon
dates place the visit some 650 years ago. Excavations
have so far produced a sample of 23 measurable seal

mandiiles from what we take to be a single brief

occupation.
The DFM sample consists of two cohorts, one
about 10 months old, the other a year older (Figure
5(a), Table 1). The first cohort almost certkly
represents the seasonal mortality
of weaned seal
pups between June and October- The second cohort,
on the other hand is available year round. The
coherent seasonal signature from both cohorts is
an indication of the duration of the occupation at
DFM.
Both cohorts suggest occupation
between
June and January, but almost certainly
between July
and October. The predicted peak sampling period is
October.
DFM extension
In the course of excavating DFM we discovered, and
partially sampled, at least two similar campsites- These
overlap one another and also parMly
overlap the
DFM deposit, although they undoubtedly result from
occupations at dilTerent times. The older site dates to
approximately 9%) BP and the most recent to about

500 BP. Stratigraphically

it was not always possible to
distinguish the sites from one another and so we
treated the 31 seal mandiiles recovered fkom the
overlapping portions of the sites as a single entity and
called it, for the momen& DFPvf Extension. The vahre
of tbis sample is that it represents an accumulation of
several occupation events, similar to that found in carp
sites. We assume that the seals killed when DFM was
occupied but which were included in the DFM Extension deposits have the same seasonal signature as
DFM. We are thus in a position to assessthe averaging
effect in multicomponent
systems where we know the
seasonal signature for at least one of the occupations
It is not surprising that the DFM Extention seasonal
signatureissimilartoDFMwithapeakinSeptember
Fable 1 and Figure 5(b)]- There are fust year pups
represented through to December, and there is a better
representationofsecondandthirdyearanin&some
from the height of summer. Thisdeviationkomthe
DFMpattemmayresultfi-omatleastoneoftheDFM
Extension sites being occupkd at a later time of the
year, perhaps in December, or for a longer period of
time, or both.

738 S. Woodborne et al.

Elands Bay Cave (EBC) presenls a different scenario

from that at DFM but not very different from that
DFM Extension. Occupation debris accumulated from
many visits to the site over a substantially longer time
period. Because of the location of the Cave in a cliff
face overlooking a beach and rocky promontory, the
inhabitants of this site had easy access to seals. The
Elands Bay Cave seal assemblage is divided into two:
EBC Upper was deposited between 1400 BP and 500 BP
and is thus roughly comparable in age with DFM, and
EBC Lower dating to between 10,000 BP and 9500 BP.
The EBC Upper assemblage has very similar seasonal and mortality characteristics to that of DFM.
First year animals killed in the winter and spring
months dominate [Table 2 and Figure 6(a)]. This
implies that visits to the mouth of the Verlorenvlei by
hunter-gatherers in the immediate pre-colonial period
were part of a coherent seasonal strategy of occupation
timed for the winter and spring. Duration of visit is
only approximately predictable from the seal mandibles but is clearly in the order of weeks or months
rather than days or years. In our opinion (Parkington,
1991), this is not inconsistent with the carbon isotope
readings on human skeletons from this time period.
EBC Lower presents an entirely different sealing
signature. There appears to be no seasonal focus to the
occupation, and the seals that were taken were predominantly in their second year. This age (mortality)
profile is most likely to have derived from the exploitation of a hauling out site because this is where most
of the second year animals are to be found. The rocky
promontory at Baboon Point, which is overlooked by
EBC, is a likely location, and is also a site at which, on
recent field trips, we have seen seals hauling out.

Conclusions
The seasonal signature that characterizes the DFM
and EBC Upper seal assemblages appears to support,
in principle, Parkingtons notion of highly seasonal
occupation at the coast. The patterning indicates a
distinctly seasonal culling practice that contrasts
sharply with the EBC Lower assemblage. The late
winter, spring and early summer exploitation of seals
do not agree entirely with Parkingtons original prediction of winter occupation of the coast, nor do they
contradict it. At both the cave site and the open sites
the exploitation includes a high proportion of first year
animals that presumably reflects the availability of
tired or sick weaned pups foraging for themselves
during rough winter and spring seas. Regular monitoring of the beaches would have produced a consistent
supply of these animals as they washed ashore. During
excavations at the DFM site in early December 1990
we encountered 14 seals either still alive or very recently washed ashore along the 2 km stretch between
the Verlorenvlei river mouth and DFM. The evidence

from DFM and EBC appears to indicate a coherent

strategy of land use on a local and regional scale, and
the high proportion of seals in the fauna1 assemblages
from this time suggests that they played a large role in
defining this strategy.
It is almost certain that the poor representation of
first year animals in the EBC lower assemblage reflects
the lowered sea level at this time (Fairbanks, 1990).
Depth soundings taken oKshore from Elands Bay show
that the coastline in the area would have had many
of its modern characteristics through most of the
Holocene (Figure 7). A rocky promontory immediately
in front of the cave would have divided a sandy beach
to the South from a bay to the North. This feature is an
extension of the reefs presently located off Baboon
Point and South Point. Although
the sea was
apparently within exploitable range during the early
Holocene, it is likely that it was several kilometres
distant, and the occupants of the cave did not have the
same advantage for beach monitoring that the late
Holocene occupants enjoyed. The most reliable source
of seals for people that lived inland would be a hauling
out colony if there were one present, and the seasonal
pup wash-ups. The pups that currently wash ashore at
Elands Bay come from a breeding colony located at the
Great Paternoster Point (Figure 1). With lower sea
levels this colony would cease to exist. We have yet to
establish if any likely breeding locations existed along
the early Holocene shoreline. The results from EBC
suggest that there were none. The most likely scenario
is, therefore, the existence of a hauling out colony on
the paleo equivalent of Baboon Point.
The lack of any seasonality in the EBC Lower
assemblage implies that people did not occupy the site
as part of a seasonal transhumant strategy during the
early Holocene. There is no consistent season of abandonment when occupation might have shifted to the
coast or elsewhere. This may mean that people made
visits of short duration to the site, variously timed from
year to year, but a more acceptable scenario is that
of relatively sustained occupations, which show up
archaeologically as extremely dense concentrations of
diverse fauna1 and artefactual assemblages. The observation that the mean sizes of limpet species are here the
lowest in the site may support this scenario.

Acknowledgements
The fieldwork at DFM and EBC has been supported
by the Centre for Science Development, the University
of Cape Town Research Committee and the Swan
Fund. We thank Graham Avery of the South African
Museum for permission to examine and measure both
modern and archaeological seal bones in his care, and
Jeremy David, Herman Oosthuizen and Mike Meyer
of the Division of Sea Fisheries for access to tagged
seal mandibles. We are also grateful to members of
the Department of Mathematical
Statistics at the

Seal Bones ns Indicators 739

University of Cape Town, particularly Les Underhill,

June Juritz, Wally Zucchini and Lindsay McNeil1 for
guidance in quantitative methods. Invaluable help
was also provided by Antonieta Jerardino and Rene
Navarro. Richard Klein and Kathy Cruz-Uribe commented extensively on various drafts of this paper as
did several anonymous reviewers. The bathymetric
information is derived from surveys: Elands Bay to
Doornbaai and Elands Bay to St Helena Bay undertaken by the survey ship Protea. Access to this
information was by the kind permission of the South
African Navy hydrographic ofice. We owe, too, a debt
to Dr R. W. Rand whose initial observations and
writings led directly to our interest in seal aging.

David, I-1. J. (1989). Seals. In (A. 1. L. Payne & R. J. M. Crawford,

Eds) Ocecrfrs cd tijti ofl Sorrfherrl cljiicu. Cape Town: Vlaeberg
Publishers, pp. 288-302.
Fairbanks, R. G. (1990). The age and origin of the Younger
Dryas climate event in Greenland ice cores. Pn/~o~ecr,togrcrpl?),
5,
931-948.
Parkington, J. (1972). Seasonal mobility in the Late Stone Age.
Studies

31, 223-243.

Parkington, J. (1976). I;o//oI~~rite &II;

prelrisrory

Arclmolvgical

S&m

of llw solrth-wsrcrn

NII mrdysis
oJsecrso~w/ify
Cfipe, Chpe Proviiice,
Soirtlt

irr r/w

Aflico.

Ph.D. thesis, Cambridge: University of Cambridge.

Parkington, J. (1977). Soaqua: hunter-fisher-gatherers
of the
Olifants River Valley, western Cape. Sotrth AjGctrr Arc/rtreo/ugiccd
Btr/k!tCt 32, 150-I 57.
Parkington, J. (1981). The elrect of environmental change on the
scheduling of visits to the Elands Bay Cave, Cape Province, South

18, 33 l-342.

Parkington, J.. Nilssen, P., Vermeulen, C. t Henshilwood, C. (1992).

Making sense of space at Dunefeld Midden campsite, western
Cape, South Africa. Sultrlter~r Afiicmr Pidd rlrchmology
1, 63-70.
Rand, R. W. (1956). Die Kmpse p&rob
Arcroccplrctlrcs
plrsillus
(Sclrreber).
htr~~dd

err

Sy dgeuwtrc
kennwrke
or verhring.
Dcpcrrtcnwnl
wn
t~)werlreicl:
uJ&ling
visserye ondersoek
verlug No. 21,

Pretoria: State Press.

Schreber, J. C. D. (1776). Die Smcgcfhiere
Scaly, J. (1986). S~chle Cm-bon Isotopes
SOIO~I- Westerit

References

Ajhrrr

Africa. In (1. Hodder, G. Isat~c & N. Hammond, Eds) Pn//erns

o/ the POSI: Strt&.~ irr Honow
II/ David Clurke. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, pp. 341-359.
Parkington, J. (1986). On Isotope assessmentand seasonal mobility
in the south-western Cape of South Africa. Cwreur hrhrupology
28,91-93.
Parkington, J. (1991). Approaches to dietary reconstruction in
the western Cape: are you what you have eaten? Journul of

Cup

Province.

Sorrth

3, 314.
Prehistoric
Diets in the
AjiYccl. Cmnbridge
Mono-

or~d

grq1lr.s br Ajhwrr
ArchncologJ~
15. Oxford: BAR International
Series.
Scaly, J. & van der Merwe, N. J. (1985). Isotope assessment of
Holocene human diets in lhc south-western Cape, South Africa.
Ntrfrrre 315, 138-140.
Scaly. J. & van der Merwe, N. J. (1986). Isotope assessment and the
seasonal mobility hypothesis in the south-western Cape of South
Africa. Current Anrhropology
27, 135-l 50.
Scaly, J. d van der Merwe, N. J. (1988). Social, spatial and
chronological patterning in marine food use as determined by 6C
measurements of Holocene human skeletons from the southwestern Cape, South Africa. World Archeology
20, 87-102.
Sokal, R. R. & Rohlf, F. J. (1981). Bionw/ry.
San Francisco:
Freeman Press.
Zar, J. H. (1984). Biosrufisricd
mmlysis,
2nd Edition. London:
Prentice-Hall.

T&l1

llW7Qh

Model 1: all ages

Groups
24693.2
Linear
21717.9
Dev.
2975.3
Error
247.2
Total
24940.4
Model 2: all ages
Groups
24693.2
Linear
23013.4
Dev.
1679.8
Error
247.2
Total
24940.4
Model 3: all animals
Groups
1.07695
Linear
0.85727
Dev.
0.21968
Error
0.01406
Total
1~09101
Model 4: all animals
Groups
I .07695
Linear
I @I493
Dev.
0.03202
Error
0.01406
Total
1~09101
Model 1: animals aged
Groups
5107.4
Linear
4377.1
Dev.
730.3
Error
2122
Total
5319.5
Model 2: animals aged
Groups
5107.4
Linear
4778.1
Dev.
329.3
Error
212.2
Total
24940.4
Model 3: animals aged
Groups
0.32488
Linear
0.25685
Dev.
0.06804
Error
0.01297
Total
0.33786
Model 4: animals aged
Groups
0.32488
Linear
0.30865
Dev.
0.01623
Error
0.01297

ss

368.6
23013.4
25.45
4.58

67
I

0.0161
I .0449
0.0005
0.0003

67
I

119

fiz
121
~36 months
43
118.8
4:
4377.06
17.39
46
4.61
89
~36 months
43
118.8
1
4778.1
7.84
ti
4.61
89
~36 months
43
0.0076
I
0.2568
0.0016
tz
0.0003
89
~36 months
43
0.0076
1
0.3087
0.0004
ti
0.0003

6:
54
I21

0.0161
0.8573
0.0033
0.0003

67

E
121

1::

6:

368.6
21717.9
45.08
4.58

MS

67

d.f.

Males

n&A79

064007
0,6l I48
0.0286
0.00783

26.79
798.7
1.37

8393.25
7695.5
697.5
87.7
8481

25.75
-609.5
I.7

064007
0.57142
0.06865
0.00783
06479

8393.3
7860.3
532.9
87.7
17875.7

25.75
251.7
3.77

26.79
158.6
5.74

I.1361 I
1.08723
0.04889
0.01063
I.14675

I.1361 I
0.71376
0.42235
0.01063
I.14675

17714.5
16159
155.4
161.2
17875.7

17714.5
12484
5230.5
161.2
17875,7

SS

61.72
2154
1,863

61.72
257.6
12.78

80.5
904.2
5.56

80.5
481.8
9.85

Fs

::
6-2

38
1

::
63

38
I

1:
63

38
I

i:

3:

38

:i
82

54
1

;i
82

54
1

;i
82

54
1

5:
82

54
1

d.f.

Regression based on all animals

0.0168
0.61215
0.0008
0.0003

0.0168
0.5714
0.0019
0~0003

220.9
7695.5
18.86
3.51

220.9
7860.3
14.4
3.51

0.021
0.0872
0~0009
0.0004

0.02 I
0.7138
0.008
0.0004

328
16159
29.4
5.8

328
12484
98.68
5.76

MS

Females

53.79
791.17
2.47

53.79
308
5.93

62.96
408
5.38

62.96
545.7
4.11

55.4
I 178.7
2.43

55.4
89.57
20.98

56.98
550.6
5.1

56.98
126.5
17.14

Fs

n.rcrMo

0.13855
0,12413
0.01442
0.01 I94

0.13855
0.12154
0~01701
0.01 I94
0.15049

2669.3
2409
260.3
199.2
2869.2

2669.3
2396.3
273.9
199.9
2869. I

0.74627
0.71886
0.02741
0.01303
0.7593

0.74627
064058
0.1057
0.01303
0.74627

19440.8
18366.7
1074. I
235
19675.8

19440.8
17592
1848.4
234.9
19675.8

ss
58
I

d.f.

711

3:
44

34

ii
78

34
I

3:
44
78

34

i.i
78

34
I

::
II0

58
I

::
II0

58
I

2:
II0

58
I

0.0041
0.1241
0~0004
0~0003

0.0041
0.1215
0~0005
0~0003

78.51
2409
7.89
4.54

78.51
2396.3
8.27
4.54

0.0129
0,7189
0.0005
0.0003

0.0129
06406
0.0019
0.0003

335.2
18366.7
18.84
4.519

335.2
17592
32.43
4.52

MS

Males

15.021
284.03
I.61

15.02
235.81
I.9

17.28
305.4
I .74

17.28
289.7
I .82

51.37
I494,7
I.9199

51.37
345.5
7.4

74.18
974.6
4.17

74.18
542.5
7.18

Fs

n.ini2

0.09837
0.08979
0.00859
0.00292

0.09837
0.09232
0.00605
0.00292
0.1013

1850.2
1679.8
170.4
52
1902,2

1850.2
1743.1
107.1
52
1902.2

0.27069
0.24764
0.02305
0.00573
0.27669

0.27069
0.17857
0.09212
0.00573
0.27642

5923.4
5434.7
488.7
125.5
6048.9

5923.4
4149.3
1774.1
l25,5
6048,9

ss

7Q

2:
II

27

:;

2:

27

:i

2:

27

:i

2:

27

4:
14
57

43

::

41

43

4:.
I4
57

43

43
1
42
I4
57

d.f.

Regression excluding Rand animals

0.0036
0.0898
0.0003
0.0003

0.0036
0.0923
0.0002
0.0003

68.53
1679.7
6.56
4.73

68.53
1743.1
4.12
4.73

0.0063
0.2475
0.0005
0~0004

0.0063
0.1786
0.0022
0.0004

137.8
5434.6
1164
8.06

l37,8
4149
42.2
8.93

MS

Females

13.72
271.8
1.24

13.72
396.6
0.878

l4,5
256.2
1.387

14.5
423.3
0.87

15.39
451.2
I .34

15.39
81,42
5.36

15.37
467
I.3

15,37
98.23
4,713

Fs

samples. Higher values of Fs (linear)

indicate greater signijicance
of
analysis.
This is also the model that best describes the regressions
based

2:
I10

models and on direrent

animals available for

Appendix 1

Analysis
of variance
(AN0 VA) to choose between the regressions
based on d@erent mathematical
the regression.
The most significant
regressions
are those based on model (4) using ah the comparative
on the sub-3-year-old
animals

s
8
9
2
w
2
%

-9

o2