Bosumprarevisited 12500 Yearsonthe Kwahu Plateau Ghanaasviewedfrom Ontopofthehill

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/321186127
Bosumpra revisited: 12,500 years on the Kwahu Plateau, Ghana, as viewed

from ‘On top of the hill’
Article in Azania Archaeological Research in Africa · November 2017

DOI: 10.1080/0067270X.2017.1393925
CITATIONS READS
10 2,149
1 author:
Derek Watson
11 PUBLICATIONS 248 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Derek Watson on 07 May 2020.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Azania: Archaeological Research in Africa
ISSN: 0067-270X (Print) 1945-5534 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/raza20
Bosumpra revisited: 12,500 years on the Kwahu

Plateau, Ghana, as viewed from ‘On top of the hill’
Derek J. Watson
To cite this article: Derek J. Watson (2017) Bosumpra revisited: 12,500 years on the Kwahu
Plateau, Ghana, as viewed from ‘On top of the hill’, Azania: Archaeological Research in Africa,
52:4, 437-517, DOI: 10.1080/0067270X.2017.1393925
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/0067270X.2017.1393925
Published online: 20 Nov 2017.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 44
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=raza20
AZANIA: ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH IN AFRICA, 2017
VOL. 52, NO. 4, 437–517
https://doi.org/10.1080/0067270X.2017.1393925
Bosumpra revisited: 12,500 years on the Kwahu Plateau,

Ghana, as viewed from ‘On top of the hill’
Derek J. Watson
Glasgow, United Kingdom
ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Thurstan Shaw directed a pioneering excavation within Bosumpra Received 9 January 2017
Cave, Ghana, in 1943 and in 1973/1974 it was re-excavated by Accepted 11 June 2017
Andrew Smith, who obtained radiocarbon dates bracketing the
KEYWORDS
upper section of the site’s occupation sequence between 4500 cal. Bosumpra Cave; Late Stone
BC and cal. AD 1400. Bosumpra has since been widely cited in Age; pottery; stone artefacts;
discussions concerning the West African Late Stone Age, although Akan; Atetefo
its significance and most of its occupation sequence remain
obscure and open to speculation. Re-excavation during 2008–
2011 revealed that the site’s earliest occupation/exploitation dates
from the mid-eleventh millennium cal. BC and continued
throughout the Holocene. The site has more recently functioned
as a shrine to the deity Pra and is in use today as a Christian
church. Geometric microliths, celts and pottery formed the basis
of a distinctive adaptation on the Kwahu Plateau from the tenth
millennium cal. BC, with the stone tool component persisting until
the seventeenth century AD. The upper layers of the shelter also
yielded material that provides insights into the history of the
Akan-speaking people of southern Ghana.
RÉSUMÉ
Thurstan Shaw dirigea des fouille pionnières à Bosumpra Cave, au
Ghana, en 1943. Le site fut refouillé en 1973/1974 par Andrew
Smith, qui obtint des datations radiocarbone plaçant la partie
supérieure de la séquence d’occupation entre 4500 cal. avant J.-C.
et cal. 1400 après J.-C. environ. Bosumpra est devenu très cité
dans les discussions concernant l’âge de pierre tardif d’Afrique de
l’Ouest, bien que sa signification et la majeure partie de sa
séquence d’occupation demeurent obscures et sujettes à
spéculation. Une nouvelle fouille en 2008–2011 a révélé que la
première occupation/exploitation du site date du milieu du
onzième millénaire cal. avant J.-C. et que celle-ci se poursuivit
durant tout l’Holocène. Plus récemment, le site a servi comme
sanctuaire de la déité Pra et il est utilisé aujourd’hui en tant
qu’église chrétienne. Les microlithes géométriques, les haches
polies et les poteries ont servi de base à une adaptation
distinctive sur le plateau de Kwahu à partir du dixième millénaire
cal. avant J.-C., les outils en pierre restant en service jusqu’au dix-
septième siècle après J.-C. Les couches supérieures de cet abri
sous roche ont également fourni des matériaux qui donnent un
aperçu de l’histoire des populations parlant la langue Akan du sud
du Ghana.
CONTACT Derek J. Watson archwatson@gmail.com

© 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
438 D. J. WATSON
Introduction
In 1943, Thurstan Shaw (1944) conducted an archaeological excavation within ‘the Cave
known as “Bosumpra” at Abetifi, Kwahu’, Ghana, revealing an occupation sequence
thought to extend from the ‘Guinea Neolithic’ (later renamed the Late Stone Age, hereafter
LSA) to the modern ‘Akan’ period. In 1973/1974 the site was re-excavated by Andrew
Smith (1975), who obtained initial radiocarbon dates bracketing the upper section of
the occupation sequence between 4500 cal. BC and cal. AD 1400 (Table 1). The archaeo-
logical sequence within Bosumpra Cave has subsequently become of crucial importance to
our understanding of the LSA of the West African forest-savanna zone in a region where
little other information is available and is frequently cited in discussions regarding this
period, although its significance, the precise details of its occupation sequence and the
materials contained therein remain obscure and open to conjecture (Shaw 1944; Smith
1975; MacDonald and Allsworth-Jones 1994: 96–97; Casey 2003: 49, 2005: 232; Barham
and Mitchell 2008: 366; Watson 2008: 143–144; Chouin 2009: 44–45). New data from
the site’s recent re-excavation in 2008–2011 (Figure 1) reveal, however, that human activi-
ties within it date from as early as the late Pleistocene, i.e. the eleventh millennium cal. BC,
and that it continues to be used today. Bosumpra’s sequence thus provides much needed
information and insight into human behaviour and technology during the LSA within the
forested zone of West Africa and is also of relevance to the history of the Akan-speaking
people of southern Ghana.
Bosumpra Cave: the site and its context

The re-excavation of Bosumpra Cave was undertaken as part of the ‘Forest Occupations of
Ghana Project’ (2008–2011), the Kwahu component of which also included the re-exca-
vation of the sites of Apreku and Akyekyema Bour, as well as the excavation of the
Gyaape rockshelters, the small-scale rescue excavation of Awhene Koko and extensive
survey of the project area (Figure 1). Bosumpra Cave (Figures 1–4) is situated on the
Kwahu Plateau on the northeastern edge of the town of Abetifi (meaning ‘On top of
the hill’ in Twi) in southeastern Ghana. The plateau’s average elevation is 450 m above
mean sea level (m a.s.l.) with Abetifi situated on the highest point at 640 m a.s.l.
(Dickson and Benneh 1970: 12; Akuamoah 2007: 5). The Kwahu Plateau and the
Ashanti Uplands (Figure 2) constitute the southern boundary of the Volta Basin (Voltaian
Formation), which extends in a northwest-southeast direction across southern Ghana
(Dickson and Benneh 1970: 12; Kalvig and Kalsbeek 2008: 5). Covering approximately
40% of modern Ghana, the Voltaian Formation is principally formed of mudstones,
shales, limestones and horizontally bedded sandstone, while the contiguous Birimian
Supergroup is composed of phyllites, schists, tuffs, greywackes, metamorphosed lavas
and associated granites (Figure 2; Dickson and Benneh 1970; Schlüter 2006: 116–120).
The plateau currently lies within the semi-deciduous forest zone (Figure 2), although it
is characterised by sub-montane vegetation that forms part of a physical barrier
between the northern savanna-forest of the Afram Plains and the southern forested
zone bordering the Dahomey Gap (Hall and Swaine 1974).
The Kwahu Plateau is predominantly inhabited by the ‘Kwahu’, an ethnolinguistic
group whose members speak an Akan dialect, ‘Akan’ being a primarily linguistic
Table 1. Bosumpra Cave: radiocarbon dates. Those from the 2008–2011 re-excavation are all AMS determinations and were undertaken on oil palm nut (Elaeis
guineensis) kernels, excluding Ua-36777 and Ua-36778, which were determined on larger (5–9cm diameter) concentrations of charred material. All the
radiocarbon dates, including those quoted in the text, were calibrated using Oxcal 4.2 (Bronk Ramsey 2009) and IntCal 13 (Reimer et al. 2013). The Layer 1
horizons are shown in groups to reflect their distribution as illustrated schematically in Figure 2 to which reference should also be made for the stratigraphic
distribution of all dates and horizons. The two dates from Unit 9 are inverted and shown in italics.
Provenance Unit Depth (m) Below TBM Radiocarbon date Lab No. cal. BP (95.4%) cal. BP (99.7%) cal. BC/AD (95.4%) cal. BC/AD (99.7%) Illus No.
Layer 3 2 0.63 365 ± 35 Ua-36775 503–316 510–305 AD 1448–1635 AD 1440–1645 RC12
Layer 2 3 0.45 465 ± 35 Ua-36774 545–471 627–332 AD 1406–1480 AD 1324–1619 RC11
2 0.78 545 ± 30 Ua-37249 636–515 651–506 AD 1315–1435 AD 1299–1444 RC10
2 0.83 580 ± 35 Ua-36773 652–531 661–518 AD 1299–1420 AD 1289–1432 RC9
AZANIA: ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH IN AFRICA

9 0.93 370 ± 30 Ua-36780 504–317 508–310 AD 1447–1634 AD 1443–1641 RC8
Layer 1 - Horizon 8 9 0.96 355 ± 30 Ua-36781 497–315 503–307 AD 1453–1635 AD 1447–1643 RC7
Layer 1 - Horizon 8 2 1.15 3490 ± 35 Ua-37240 3856–3645 3898–3633 1907–1696 BC 1949–1684 BC RC6
Smith 1975 Depth

0.2–0.3m 775 ± 75 N-1804 907–561 925–549 AD 1044–1389 AD 1026–1402
0.9–1m 5370 ± 100 N-1805 6386–5923 6453–5760 4437–3974 BC 4504–3811 BC
439
440
D. J. WATSON
Figure 1. Bosumpra Cave: excavation plan and local sites mentioned in the text.
AZANIA: ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH IN AFRICA 441
Figure 2. Geographic, geological and ecological context of Bosumpra Cave and the Kwahu Plateau. The
study area is demarcated by a rectangular box.
classification comprising closely related languages belonging to the Kwa group of the
Niger-Congo family that are spoken by people with similar cultural and subsistence prac-
tices within the southern forested region of Ghana and southeastern Ivory Coast (Kiyaga-
Mulindwa 1980; Dolphyne and Dakubu 1988; Campbell 1995: 6; DeCorse 2001: 18–19;
Amenumey 2008: 15). Numerous Akan dialects have been distinguished, with Twi, an
Asante (Ashanti) dialect having become the lingua franca of Ghana’s forested zone. As
is evident in much of the literature cited here, the term ‘Akan’ is also employed as a
general ‘cultural’ definition and is often used inaccurately as an ethnonym.
Although ‘Bosumpra Cave’ is the site’s local name it is, in fact, a rockshelter (Figures 1,
3 and 4) formed from a ledge situated at 613 m a.s.l. With an internal area measuring
approximately 240 m2, the site is sheltered by an overhang with a ceiling elevation declin-
ing northwards from around 3.65 m to ≤1.5 m. This cavity developed at the junction of
two sandstone formations (Figure 1): the Upper Formation consists of horizontally
bedded layers, 0.3 m-0.5 m in thickness, of haematite-stained well-cemented sandstone
interbedded with thin (∼10 cm) quartz-rich layers, the constituent pebbles of which are
no more than ∼4 cm long); and 2) a Lower Formation (see Carney et al. 2008: 121–
126) of thinly bedded (∼0.1–0.2 m) yellowish-brown sandstone.
The site derives its name from abosom (singular obosom), meaning ‘lesser gods’ in the
traditional Akan religion who predominantly inhabit lakes and rivers. Bosumpra Cave was
442
D. J. WATSON
Figure 3. The stratigraphic sequence at Bosumpra Cave, including Shaw’s (1944: Figure 1) section.
Figure 4. Bosumpra Cave (visible scale = 2 m; direction is excavation north, see Figure 1). The area
subject to flooding during the 2008 wet season is visible at the rear (west) wall of the shelter. The
planks were used as pews by a modern Christian congregation.
previously the abode (Shaw 1944: 1) of the local tete bosom (tutelary deity) of the River
Pra, traditionally sourced in the Kwahu region to Twendurase (Figure 1; Pobee 1976:
10; Pobee and Mends 1977: 1; Sackey 2000). Obosom Pra is one of the ‘sons of the
supreme Sky God’ (Rattray 1927: 155), although Smith (1975: 179) describes the deity
‘as one of the four main “abosom” of the Guan pantheon’. The Guan are another ethno-
linguistic group often postulated as being either the aboriginal, or at least the pre-Akan,
inhabitants of Ghana (Boahen 1966a: 59; Ward 1966: 45; Dickson 1969: 14–19; Amenu-
mey 2008: 14–17). The Guan language is related to Akan since both constitute part of the
Kwa language group (Blench 2006; Lewis et al. 2013). Remarkably, Bosumpra Cave is still
in use today as within the last few decades it, and other rockshelters on the plateau, have
been utilised by various Christian (often Presbyterian) congregations as places of worship.
The archaeological background of the Kwahu Plateau

Shaw’s (1944) excavation of Bosumpra Cave recovered variable quantities of ceramics, celts,
microliths, cores and lithic débitage (Table 2) from Trench 1 (measuring approximately
1.2×8.2 m and equating to some 11 m3), which was excavated in six ‘one-foot’ (30 cm)
levels to a depth of about 1.8 m (Figure 3). Shaw (1944: 14, 51) divided the site’s occupation
into three phases: a ‘Neolithic’ phase (Layers 6–3) characterised by a prolific quartz micro-
lithic industry, greenstone, celts and Type A pottery; a ‘Pre-Akan’ phase with Type B pottery
(Layer 2); and an ‘Akan’ phase of occupation with pottery of Types C and D pottery (Layer
1). His excavation was pioneering in that it was the first conducted at such a site in Ghana
and he provided a comprehensive analytical description of the material recovered, as well as
444
D. J. WATSON
Table 2. Bosumpra cave: ‘Table of Finds’ (after Shaw 1944: 3).
Bosumpra Cave (trench 1) ‘Microlithic Quartz Industry’
Chert &
Layers jasperoid Biconically Blades & Flakes &
(depth = Celt- Celt Greenstone flakes & pierced Backed Scrapers worked unworked Small
feet/metres) Pottery Celts Roughouts fragments flakes & chips Chips stones Hammerstones Rubbers Points Lunates Burins Blades & Discs pieces pieces Cores pebbles
1 (0–1’/0–0.3m) 602 2 2
2 (1’-2’/0.3–0.6m) 172 1 2 10 81 39 77 105 74 17 36 74 6233 152 12
3 (2’-3’/0.6–0.91m) 75 3 1 3 38 27 22 52 12 10 2 23 2433 35 6
4 (3’-4’/0.9–1.2m) 42 1 5 18 10 1 25 49 35 11 25 34 2466 82 9
5 (4’-5’/1.2–1.5m) 1 3 4 29 17 1 3 23 59 43 10 21 43 3378 146 24
6 (5’-6’/1.2–1.8m) 1 2 22 15 1 20 88 26 12 27 42 3559 139 32
Total 893 5 6 24 1888 108 2 1 5 167 353 190 60 111 216 18069 554 83
the first evidence for long-term human occupation on the Kwahu Plateau. Subsequently,
Smith (1975) re-excavated the site with the goal of obtaining radiocarbon dates from it
(Table 1), removing a 2×1 m unit (Figure 1) that he excavated in 10 cm-thick arbitrary
levels (spits) to a depth of 1.10 m. Smith (1975: 181) suggested that the upper date (from
the 20–30 cm spit) of 775 ± 75 BP (N-1804) indicated a period when the site was abandoned
at a time when Guan-speaking people supposedly colonised the area, eventually expelling
the ‘cave-dwellers’ during the twelfth/thirteenth centuries AD. A lower date of 5370 ±
100 BP (N-1805) from the final spit of his excavation (90–100 cm) was associated with
pottery and was argued to signal a widely documented transition in southern West Africa
from an earlier aceramic phase (Shaw 1978/1979, 1985) to the development of ceramic tech-
nology (Smith 1975: 181). Smith (1975: 180–81) reasonably surmised that the two potsherds
from the lower levels of Shaw’s (1944) excavation were intrusive. Nevertheless, the aceramic-
ceramic transition in the Ghanaian LSA was defined entirely on the basis of this single 10
cm-thick spit. Unfortunately, Smith (1975) provided no stratigraphic details or description
of the materials he recovered, although his study of the macrobotanical remains found indi-
cated a transition from a reliance on the oily fruits of Canarium schweinfurthii (incense tree)
to oil-palm (Elaeis guineensis) around 3000 BC.
Outside Bosumpra the only other archaeological research conducted on the plateau
before the start of the present project was undertaken by Musonda (1976), who excavated
the rockshelters of Akyekyema Bour and Apreku1 (Figure 1). Unfortunately, his research
remains unpublished. Both sites yielded supposedly LSA materials (i.e. pottery, microliths
and celts) with an initial aceramic phase (Musonda 1976: 268–286). The radiocarbon
determinations obtained (Musonda (1976: 282) cluster in the second millennium AD,
but Musonda rejected the idea that ‘LSA’ technologies continued until this late date in
the region.
Bosumpra Cave: re-excavation, stratigraphy and integrity

My own re-excavation of Bosumpra involved excavating twelve 1.5×1.5 m units and two
connecting trenches (Figures 1 and 3); the latter were an expedient means of physically
establishing stratigraphic relationships across the excavated area with Shaw’s (1944)
Trench 1. Re-excavation proceeded using 10 cm-thick spits since cave/rockshelter deposits
tend to be time-averaged palimpsests with low resolution at most macroscopic levels
(Bailey and Gallanidou 2009). The artificial levels were excavated within the strata and
this enabled horizontal and vertical separation and control of all of the materials recovered
from the site. All sediments were sieved through 2 mm meshes.
Seven stratigraphic units (Layers 1–7; Figure 3) were identified and all except for the
loose surface sediments (Layer 5 and Layer 7) comprised compact sandy-silts overlying
the collapse of the Upper Formation (i.e. variously sized products of the breakdown of
sandstone). Variable quantities of material culture were found throughout the sequence
(Table 3). White quartz predominates throughout, with most, if not all, probably originat-
ing from the Upper Formation (Table 4). Layers 6–7 were defined in Unit 11, with the
upper layer comprising trampled surface sediments. Layer 6 terminated at the ‘ceiling col-
lapse’ and, as it appears to have been a continuation of Layer 4, the pottery from it (Table
5) has been subsumed within discussions of the Layer 4 assemblage. Layer 4 lacked any
obvious sedimentary structures except for occasional weakly laminated areas situated
446
D. J. WATSON
Table 3. Bosumpra Cave: summary of the material culture recovered from the 2008–2011 re-excavation. The Layer 1 horizons are shown in groups to reflect their
distribution as illustrated schematically in Figure 2. Material culture frequencies are expressed as % of Layer/Horizon (100%), Layer/Horizon as % of total assemblage
(% Total), and category % of total assemblage (of TA). See Table 9 for details of the miscellaneous finds. The snail shell (Achatina spp.) is highly fragmented, though
all of the identifiable fragments were remains of Achatina achatina, the giant tiger land snail.
Quartz Siliceous Ochre and Miscellaneous Achatina spp. Layer/Horizon Layer/Horizon %
Pottery Assemblage Mudstone Greenstone Hematite Assemblage (shell fragments) Totals (100%) Total Assemblage
Location ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%)
SF Layer 5 59 (100) 59 (0.06)
Layer 6 165 (21.60) 499 (75.151) 764 (0.72)
Layer 4 709 (27.21) 1348 (51.72) 6 (0.23) 1 (0.04) 1 (0.04) 9 (0.35) 697 (26.75) 2606 (2.83)
Layer 2 911 (9.84) 8030 (86.75) 18 (0.19) 79 (0.85) 5 (0.05) 11 (0.12) 204 (2.20) 9257 (10.07)
Layer 1 - H8 352 (5.12) 6465 (94.00) 20 (0.29) 30 (0.44) 1 (0.01) 4 (0.06) 6 (0.09) 6878 (7.48)
Layer 1 - H7 0 4432 (98.16) 30 (0.66) 47 (1.04) 4 (0.09) 2 (0.04) 4515 (4.91)
Layer 1 - H6 278 (2.63) 10132 (95.73) 25 (0.24) 133 (1.26) 4 (0.04) 12 (0.11) 10584 (11.51)
Layer 1 - H5 3 (0.17) 1778 (98.12) 8 (0.44) 20 (1.10) 2 (0.11) 1 (0.06) 1812 (1.97)
Layer 1 - H4 0 1700 (99.65) 3 (0.18) 3 (0.18) 1706 (1.85)
Layer 1 - H3 465 (1.17) 38774 (97.24) 137 (0.34) 278 (0.70) 15 (0.04) 18 (0.05) 187 (0.47) 39874 (43.35)
Layer 1 - H2 43 (0.41) 10327 (98.23) 47 (0.45) 80 (0.76) 1 (0.01) 7 (0.07) 8 (0.08) 10513 (11.43)
Layer 1 - H1 0 3296 (98.65) 14 (0.42) 27 (0.81) 3 (0.09) 1 (0.03) 3341 (3.63)
Of total assemblage 2985 (3.25) 86282 (93.81) 308 (0.33) 698 (0.76) 36 (0.04) 65 (0.07) 1601 (1.74) 91909 (100)
Connection Trenches
Layer 4 21 (23.33) 69 (76.67) 90 (5.38)
Layer 2 22 (6.01) 388 (106.01) 366 (21.88)
Layer 1 - H6 25 (5.21) 450 (93.75) 1 (0.21) 4 (0.83) 480 (354.29)
Layer 1 - H5 0 334 (97.95) 3 (0.88) 4 (1.17) 341 (20.39)
Layer 1 - H4 0 253 (97.31) 7 (2.69) 260 (15.55)
Layer 1 - H3 44 (32.48) 82 (60.88) 3 (2.21) 5 (3.69) 1 (0.74) 135 (8.10)
% of total assemblage 112 (6.70) 1576 (94.26) 10 (0.60) 9 (0.54) 9 (0.54) 1672 (100)
Table 4. Bosumpra Cave: quartz assemblage and lithic industry. The Layer 1 horizons are shown in groups to reflect their distribution as illustrated schematically in
Figure 2. Unifacial points marked with ’*’ may have had other functions; ’**’ denotes possible burins (see Figure 6). Material culture frequencies are expressed as % of
Layer/Horizon (100%), Layer/Horizon as % of total assemblage (% Total) and category % of total assemblage (of TA). L = Layer, H = Horizon.
Hooked
Points†,
Micro Perçoir †† and Tools
tranchet - Micro- Triangle (2 Retouched/ Unifacial Biifacial Grand Bipolar Chopper
Lunates Large tranchets Trapezes sides backed) backed flakes Sidescraper Points Points Total Cores Cores
Location ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%)
Layer 4 1 (0.07) 2 (0.15) 1 (0.07) 1 (0.07) 1 (0.07) 6 (0.48)
Layer 2 8 (0.10) 1 (0.01) 1 (0.01) 1 (0.01) 1 (0.01) 12 (0.15) 2 (0.02)
Layer 1 - H8 4 (0.06) 1 (0.02) 3 (0.05) 1 (0.02) 1 (0.02) 1 (0.02) 10 (0.16) 4 (0.06)

Layer 1 - H7 5 (0.11) 4 (0.09) 1 (0.02) 1 (0.02) 1 (0.02) 12 (0.27) 8 (0.18)
Layer 1 - H6 6 (0.06) 8 (0.08) 2 (0.02) 1 (0.01) 1 (0.01) 1 (0.01) 2* (0.02) 21 (0.21) 6 (0.06)
Layer 1 - H5 5 (0.28) 3 (0.17) 1 (0.06) 1 (0.06) 10 (0.56)
Layer 1 - H4 4 (0.24) 4 (0.24) 2 (0.12)
Layer 1 - H3 31 (0.08) 9 (0.02) 12 (0.03) 6 (0.02) 4** (0.01) 1 (0.01) 62 (0.16) 23 (0.06) 1 (0.01)
Layer 1 - H2 14 (0.14) 3 (0.03) 4 (0.04) 1 (0.01) ††1 (0.01) 2 (0.02) 25 (0.24) 5 (0.05) 1 (0.01)
Layer 1 - H1 14 (0.42) 3 (0.09) 1 (0.03) †2 (0.06) 20 (0.61) 3 (0.09)
Of total assemblage 92 (0.11) 2 (0.01) 36 (0.04) 24 (0.03) 12 (0.01) 5 (0.01) 1 (0.01) 10 (0.01) 2 (0.01) 182 (0.21) 53 (0.06) 2 (0.01)
Connection Trenches
Layer 4
Layer 2
Layer 1 - H6
Layer 1 - H5
Layer 1 - H4
Layer 1 - H3
Of total assemblage
447
448
D. J. WATSON
Table 4. Continued.
Single
and
Conical* Cores
Bipolar Multi- Single Grand L/H % Total
Flake Platform Platform Total Blades Bladelets Chips Chunks Flakes Pebbles Quartz Debris Total L/H Totals (100%) Assemblage
Location ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%)
Layer 4 22 (1.63) 2 (0.15) 415 (30.79) 54 (4.01) 827 (61.35) 22 (1.63) 1342 (99.55) 1348 (1.56)
Layer 2 1 (0.01) 3 (0.04) 44 (0.55) 29 (0.36) 2424 (30.19) 363 (4.52) 4952 (61.67) 203 (2.53) 8015 (99.81) 8030 (9.31)
Layer 1 - H8 4 (0.06) 58 (0.90) 61 (0.96) 1980 (30.63) 262 (4.05) 4071 (62.97) 18 (0.28) 6451 (99.78) 6465 (7.49)
Layer 1 - H7 1 (0.02) 9 (0.20) 44 (0.99) 30 (0.68) 1691 (38.15) 196 (6.52) 2450 (55.28) 4411 (99.53) 4432 (5.14)
Layer 1 - H6 1 (0.01) 2 (0.02) 9 (0.09) 46 (0.45) 60 (0.59) 5149 (50.82) 289 (2.85) 4504 (44.45) 54 (0.53) 10102 (99.70) 10132 (11.74)
Layer 1 - H5 12 (0.67) 8 (0.45) 672 (37.80) 54 (3.04) 1020 (57.37) 2 (0.11) 1768 (99.44) 1778 (2.06)
Layer 1 - H4 2 (0.12) 34 (2.00) 6 (0.35) 440 (25.88) 46 (2.71) 1156 (68.00) 12 (0.71) 1694 (99.65) 1700 (1.97)
Layer 1 - H3 3 (0.01) 3 (0.01) 1
31 (0.01) (0.08) 171 (0.44) 291 (0.75) 13577 (35.02) 1242 (3.20) 23266 (60.00) 130 (0.34) 38678 (99.75) 38774 (44.94)
Layer 1 - H2 2 (0.02) 19 (0.01) (0.09) 74 (0.72) 74 (0.72) 5729 (55.48) 268 (2.60) 4134 (40.03) 14 (0.14) 10293 (99.67) 10327 (11.97)
Layer 1 - H1 3 (0.09) 8 (0.24) 20 (0.61) 1642 (49.82) 99 (3.00) 1502 (45.57) 2 (0.06) 3273 (99.30) 3296 (3.82)
Of total assemblage 5 (0.01) 8 (0.01) 2 (0.01) 70 (0.08) 513 (0.59) 582 (0.68) 33719 (39.08) 2873 (3.33) 47882 (55.49) 457 (0.53) 86027 (99.70) 86282 (100)
Connection Trenches
Layer 4 23 (33.33) 3 (4.35) 43 (62.32) 169 (245) 69 (4.38)
Layer 2 3 (0.77) 220 (56.70) 27 (6.96) 137 (35.31) 1 (0.26) 488 (126) 388 (24.61)
Layer 1 - H6 3 (0.67) 378 (84.00) 12 (2.67) 45 (10.00) 12 (2.67) 550 (122) 450 (28.54)
Layer 1 - H5 1 (0.30) 8 (2.40) 267 (79.94) 32 (9.58) 23 (6.89) 3 (0.90) 434 (130) 334 (21.19)
Layer 1 - H4 1 (0.40) 2 (0.79) 123 (48.62) 67 (26.48) 57 (22.53) 3 (1.19) 353 (140) 253 (16.05)
Layer 1 - H3 2 (2.42) 2 (2.42) 15 (18.19) 27 (32.73) 36 (43.65) 181 (220) 82 (5.23)
Of total assemblage 4 (0.25) 18 (1.14) 1026 (65.08) 168 (10.66) 341 (21.63) 19 (1.21) 1675.969356 (106) 1576 (100)
Table 5. Bosumpra Cave: decoration and other surface attributes and modifications of the pottery assemblage. The Layer 1 horizons are shown in groups to reflect their
distribution as illustrated schematically in Figure 2. The sherd marked ‘†’ (Layer 1, Horizon 2) was decorated with an indeterminate impressed comb or cord motif.
Material culture frequencies are expressed as % of Layer/Horizon (100%), Layer/Horizon as % of total assemblage (% Total) and category % of total assemblage (of TA).
SF = surface find.
Channelling +
Notched & Channelling + Punctate Channelling + Channelling + Channelling
Crenelated Crenelated Notched Channellig Channelling Channelling Punctate (Triangular) + Channelling + Rounded Channelling + Comb Stamp + Multi +
Rim Rim Rim Channelling Geometric Multi Wavy (circles) Ridge Rounded Rocked Comb Ridge Comb Stamp Rocked Comb Incision
Location ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%)
Layer 5 (SF) 1 (1.69) 1 (1.69)
Layers 4 + 6 41 (4.69) 2 (0.23) 42 (4.81) 47 (5.38) 1 (0.11) 4 (0.46) 8 (0.92) 3 (0.34) 3 (0.34)
Layer 2 1 (0.11) 1 (0.11) 19 (2.09) 3 (0.33) 6 (0.66) 51 (5.60) 1 (0.11) 1 (0.11)
Layer 1 - H8 1 (0.28) 14 (3.98) 2 (0.57) 1 (0.28) 13 (3.69) 1 (0.28)
Layer 1 - H7
Layer 1 - H6 1 (0.36) 13 (4.68) 1 (0.36)
Layer 1 - H5
Layer 1 - H4
Layer 1 - H3 1 (0.22) 5 (1.08) 6 (1.29)
Layer 1 - H2 1 (2.33)
Layer 1 - H1

Of TA 1 (0.03) 1 (0.03) 2 (0.07) 80 (2.68) 5 (0.17) 66 (2.21) 98 (3.28) 2 (0.07) 1 (0.03) 1 (0.03) 4 (0.13) 28 (0.94) 4 (0.13) 4 (0.13)
Sawtooth
Impression
Channelling Comb Stamp + (Carved/Relief) + Peigne fileté
Multi + Twine Channelling Channelling + Sawtooth Punctate (Semi- Sawtooth Dragged Stamped + Peigne fileté (indet. souple Peigne fileté
(simple cord) Multi + Wavy Indet (rocked/ Impression circle) + Comb- Impression Comb Comb Rocked Rocked Grass rigide or rigide) (rigide ?)
roulette Channelling impressed) (Relief) Stamp (Relief) (Wavy) Stamp Comb Comb (Dragged) Impressed Impressed (?) Rocked
Location ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%)
Layer 5 (SF) 1 (1.69) 1 (1.69)
Layers 4 + 6 2 (0.23) 1 (0.11) 1 (0.11) 6 (0.69) 6 (0.69) 1 (0.11)
Layer 2 1 (0.11) 3 (0.33) 1 (0.11) 4 (0.44) 3 (0.33) 16 (1.76) 9 (0.99) 3 (0.33)
Layer 1 - H8 21 (5.97) 1 (0.28) 19 (5.40)
Layer 1 - H7 1 8
Layer 1 - H6 33 (11.87)
Layer 1 - H5 2 (66.67)
Layer 1 - H4
Layer 1 - H3 1 (0.22) 27 (5.81) 15 (3.23) 2 (0.43) 15 (3.23)
Layer 1 - H2
Layer 1 - H1
Of TA 1 (0.03) 2 (0.07) 4 (0.13) 1 (0.03) 1 (0.03) 4 (0.13) 5 (0.17) 103 (3.45) 2 (0.07) 58 (1.94) 1 (0.03) 2 (0.07) 2 (0.07) 18 (0.60)
(Continued)
449
450
D. J. WATSON
Table 5. Continued.
Twine Punctate Perforation
(simple (Hoof, square Carved roulette Rocked Indeterminate (biconically L/H
cord) Cord and (Triangular Ridge Spatula Rocked (Comb or drilled in rim) Totals L/H % Total
roulette impressed Incision triangular) impressions) Rounded (Small end) Eroded Indeterminate Peigne fileté) Undecorated Apɔtɔyewer and lug* (100%) Assemblage
Location ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%)
Layer 5 (SF) 1 (1.69) 1 (1.69) 1 (1.69) 52 (88.14) 59 (1.98)
Layers 4 + 6 8 (0.92) 4 (0.46) 1 (0.11) 3 (0.34) 2 (0.23) 2 (0.23) 27 (3.09) 654 (74.83) 3 (0.34) 1 (0.11) 874 (29.28)
Layer 2 33 (3.62) 1 (0.11) 10 (1.10) 6 (0.66) 2 (0.22) 735 (80.68) 1 (0.11) 911 (30.52)
Layer 1 - H8 1 (0.28) 8 (2.27) 4 (1.14) 16 (4.55) 2 (0.57) 247 (70.17) 1 (0.28) 352 (11.79)
Layer 1 - H7 0
Layer 1 - H6 1 (0.36) 12 (4.32) 1 (0.36) 213 (76.62) 278 (9.31)
Layer 1 - H5 1 (33.33) 3 (0.10)
Layer 1 - H4 0
Layer 1 - H3 1 (0.22) 3 (0.65) 3 (0.65) 2 (0.43) 22 (4.73) 1 (0.22) 355 (76.34) 465 (15.58)
Layer 1 - H2 †1 (2.33) 41 (95.35) 43 (1.44)
Layer 1 - H1 0
Of TA 1 (0.03) 1 (0.03) 54 (1.81) 4 (0.13) 1 (0.03) 4 (0.13) 9 (0.30) 14 (0.47) 85 (2.85) 7 (0.23) 2298 (76.98) 4 (0.13) 2 (0.07) 2985 (100)
Connection Trenches
Undecorated Eroded 100% % Total
Location ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%)
Layer 4 21 (100) 21 (18.75)
Layer 2 22 (100) 22 (19.64)
Layer 1 - H6 25 (100) 23 (20.54)
Layer 1 - H3 39 (88.64) 5 (11.36) 44 (39.29)
Of TA 107 (95.54) 5 (4.46) 112 (100)
near the top of the stratum. Layer 3 was a mottled ‘red’, variably thick and discontinuous
soft ferruginous deposit, possibly resulting from leaching of naturally occurring ferric
oxides within the shelter’s sediments; it yielded no artefacts. This may relate to localised
flooding of the site as experienced by both Shaw (1944: 1) and the re-excavation project
during the wet season of 2008, although this was restricted to the rockshelter’s rear wall
(Figure 3). Layer 2 was also relatively homogenous with occasional weakly laminated
bedding, particularly towards the front of the rockshelter. The boundary between Layer
4 and Layer 2 was sharp, but evidence of leaching at the generally diffuse interfaces of
Layers 2 and 3 suggests a distinct change in the depositional and hydrological microenvir-
onment. Layer 1 also lacked obvious sedimentary structures and in Units 3–4 and 6–8 a
(leached) clay fraction was evident in the basal sediment(s) that terminated at the Lower
Formation sandstone. Layer 1 appeared to be geologically massive, possibly a result of
various processes including the blurring of geological/archaeological boundaries by soil
formation (e.g. Mandel and Bettis 2001). All of the spits in Layer 1 were grouped into Hor-
izons due to the absence of obvious stratigraphic divisions within the layer; the breaks
between these were based on artefactual content, especially the presence/absence of
pottery, and on radiocarbon dates (Figure 3).
The site’s sheltered position, limited laminated sediments, angular debris/boulders and
poorly sorted clast-rich sediments indicate that fluvial/aeolian deposition and colluviation
from the surrounding slope may not have been significant components of deposit for-
mation. Most of Bosumpra Cave’s sediments were instead probably produced internally
by differential erosion, mechanical and chemical breakdown of sandstone beds, especially
by water infiltration (Shaw 1944: 1) and the abruption/disintegration of materials from the
site’s ceiling and walls. The aforementioned processes also probably configured the shel-
ter’s internal morphology as no evidence exists for deliberate modifications such as widen-
ing of the habitable area by flaking the ceiling and walls or for the creation or arrangement
of site ‘furniture’ (Galanidou 2000) as a way of dividing up its interior space. Nevertheless,
Bosumpra’s internal space has probably changed considerably during the Holocene as the
cavity has gradually eroded.
Potsherd refitting and fragmentation studies provide useful indicators for assessing site
dynamics and deposit integrity as sherds are usually abandoned, unlike lithic cores and
tools which may be re-used (Schiffer 1983; Straus 1990; Barthès 1994; Tani 1995;
Morrow 1996; Lavachery and Cornelissen 2000: 159–160). At Bosumpra Cave the vertical
distribution of potsherds is variable by layer/horizon (Tables 3 and 5), peaking in overall
frequency in Layer 2, while potsherd size fractions (Table 6) demonstrate that smaller
sherds predominate, though larger fractions remain relatively constant throughout the
sequence. Variable sherd fragmentation may denote changing occupant trampling rates
and site utilisation patterns (Blackham 2000). Pottery refits also remain relatively constant
at approximately 20% across most of the site (Layer 1, Horizon 2, N = 8 [18.6%]; Layer 1–
Horizon 3, N = 93 [20%]; Layer 1, Horizon 5, N = 2 [66.7%]; Layer 1, Horizon 6, N = 47
[16.91%]; Layer 1, Horizon 8, N = 73 [20.74%]; Layer 2, N = 153 [16.79%]; Layer 4, N =
187 [21.4%]; Layer 5 (SF), N = 18 [30.51%]). This exercise also demonstrated that the
maximum vertical displacement of sherds was probably within ≤0.20 m, similar to that
recorded at other West/Central African rockshelters (Lavachery and Cornelissen 2000:
160; Mercader et al. 2003: 54). Only in Units 6 and 9 did potsherd refits transgress
strata boundaries. In Unit 9, a sherd of an apparently modern type of grinding bowl
452
D. J. WATSON
Table 6. Bosumpra Cave: potsherd size classes (in mm). The Layer 1 horizons are shown in groups to reflect their distribution as illustrated schematically in Figure 2.
Material culture frequncies are expressed as % of Layer/Horizon (100%), Layer/Horizon as % of total assemblage (% Total) and category % of total assemblage (of
TA). H = Horizon; SF = surface find.
(mm) 0–10 10–20 20–30 30–40 40–50 50–60 60–70 70–80 80–90 90–100 100–120 120–135 Totals
Location ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) (%) ♯ (%) ♯ 100% % Total
Layer 5 (SF) 1 (1.7) 20 (33.9) 19 (32.2) 14 (23.7) 4 (6.8) 1 (1.7) 59 (2.0)
Layers 4 + 6 15 (1.7) 94 (10.8) 302 (34.6) 245 (28.0) 128 (14.6) 54 (6.2) 21 (2.4) 7 (0.8) 5 (0.6) 1 (0.1) 1 (0.1) 1 (0.1) 874 (29.3)
Layer 2 8 (0.9) 91 (10.0) 351 (38.5) 275 (30.2) 100 (11.0) 54 (5.9) 22 (2.4) 4 (0.4) 1 (0.1) 1 (0.1) 3 (0.3) 1 (0.1) 911 (30.5)
Layer 1 - H8 1 (0.3) 52 (14.8) 128 (36.4) 97 (27.6) 32 (9.1) 21 (6.0) 12 (3.4) 9 (2.6) 352 (11.8)
Layer 1 - H7 0
Layer 1 - H6 1 (0.4) 27 (9.7) 113 (40.6) 86 (30.9) 32 (11.5) 14 (5.0) 4 1 (0.4) 278 (0.1)
Layer 1 - H5 2 (66.7) 1 (33.3) 3 (0.1)
Layer 1 - H4 0
Layer 1 - H3 4 (0.9) 81 (17.4) 173 (37.2) 120 (25.8) 47 (10.1) 20 (4.3) 11 (2.4) 8 (1.7) 1 (0.2) 465 (15.6)
Layer 1 - H2 8 (18.6) 23 (53.5) 7 (16.3) 3 (7.0) 1 (2.3) 1 (2.3) 43 (1.4)
Layer 1 - H1 0
Of TA 29 (1.0) 354 (11.9) 1112 (37.3) 849 (28.4) 357 (12.0) 168 (5.6) 71 (2.4) 28 (0.9) 6 (0.2) 4 (0.1) 5 (0.2) 2 (0.1) 2985 (100)
was recovered from the uppermost spit of Horizon 8, with all other fragments from differ-
ent vessels concentrated in Layer 4 (Table 5). In Unit 6 most ‘sawtooth impressed’ sherds
were from Layer 2 except a single sherd with similar decoration from Layer 4, although
this does not confirm stratigraphic displacement. The maximum horizontal distance
recorded between sherds that could be conjoined was <3 m in Units 5–6 (Layer 2),
again involving two ‘sawtooth impressed’ sherds (Table 5). These studies establish the
restricted vertical and horizontal movements of potsherds, implying a high overall level
of integrity for the site’s pottery sequence.
The lithic material from Bosumpra Cave comprised a range of raw materials, but white
quartz predominates (Tables 3–4, 7). As nodular quartz is rare within the local geology
(David Atta-Peters, pers. comm.; Kalsbeek 2008) most, if not all, of this material was
internally sourced, as it is geologically autochthonous to the rockshelter and its presence
was probably a significant factor in the site’s exploitation (the collection and processing of
oleaginous tree fruits may have also determined the occupation schedule of the site, see
Oas et al. 2015). The large quantity of quartz fragments, the microlithic dimensions of
the tools (maximum length: <3 cm) and their bipolar manufacture precluded any systema-
tic refitting studies. The size of the quartz artefacts recovered (flakes, maximum length: 3.4
cm; chips, maximum length ≤1 cm; other débitage, maximum length: <4 cm), the presence
of cores and finished tools and the high frequency of cortex present (on 72% of the quartz
and 85% of the mudstone) demonstrate that tool manufacture occurred on-site.
The horizontal densities of quartz debris/products are consistently higher towards
the front of the shelter (e.g. in Units 7–8), but variable concentrations (e.g. in Unit
4) indicate, unsurprisingly, that knapping and/or tool use also occurred within the
high-ceilinged southern half of the shelter (Figure 1). The vertical densities of quartz
fragments are variable, but increase vertically in Layer 1 across the site and decline pre-
cipitously thereafter. The distribution of quartz and the fragmentation patterns partly
result from human activities (tool manufacture, re-use, internal transportation, tram-
pling etc), but a significant, if not overwhelming component resulted from collapse/dis-
integration of the parent material (the Upper Formation), including ‘brow’
disintegration and concentration of quartz fragments at the drip-line. The distribution
of geologically allochthonous materials such as siliceous mudstone, greenstone, ochre
and haematite (Tables 3, 7–9) also increases vertically, a consequence of human trans-
portation and exploitation strategies.
Bosumpra’s stratigraphic sequence appears straightforward and the sediments rela-
tively homogeneous, but deposits within such sites are subject to various natural and
anthropogenic processes that impact the integrity of archaeological deposits (e.g. Straus
1990; Hunt et al. 2010; Mercader et al. 2003). The superimposition of successive episodes
of re-occupation, along with the re-working/re-use, (re-) mixing, displacement and
destruction of materials, usually results in the formation of a palimpsest, i.e. a deposit
with an inherently low spatial and chronological resolution (Bailey and Galanidou
2009). Recent activities within the site may be restricted to ‘ritual’ behaviour and/or spora-
dic short-term occupation by farmers/hunters, but as the site’s exploitation dates from the
late Pleistocene diverse natural and anthropogenic processes probably contributed to
deposit formation, for example variable sedimentation/erosion rates and human tram-
pling. The most obvious indications of intrusion were termite galleries (see McBrearty
1990) and two wooden posts, but this bioturbation was entirely localised to Layers 4–5
454
D. J. WATSON
Table 7. Bosumpra Cave: the siliceous mudstone assemblage. The Layer 1 horizons are shown in groups to reflect their distribution as illustrated schematically in
Figure 2. Material culture frequencies are expressed as % of Layer/Horizon (100%), Layer/Horizon as % of total assemblage (% Total) and category % of total
assemblage (of TA). H = Horizon.
‘End-/side- L/H Totals L/H % Total
Bipolar Cores scraper’ Blades Chips Chunks Flakes (100%) Assemblage
Location ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%)
Layer 4 1 (16.7) 5 (83.3) 6 (1.95)
Layer 2 18 (100) 18 (5.84)
Layer 1 - H8 2 (10.0) 1 (5.0) 17 (85.0) 20 (6.49)
Layer 1 - H7 2 (6.7) 1 (3.3) 27 (90.0) 30 (9.74)
Layer 1 - H6 1 (4.0) 24 (96.0) 25 (8.12)
Layer 1 - H5 1 (12.5) 7 (87.5) 8 (2.60)
Layer 1 - H4 1 (33.3) 2 (66.7) 3 (0.97)
Layer 1 - H3 3 (2.2) 2 (1.5) 11 (8.0) 5 (3.6) 121 (88.3) 137 (44.48)
Layer 1 - H2 1 (2.1) 1 (2.1) 45 (95.7) 47 (15.26)
Layer 1 - H1 1 (7.1) 2 (14.3) 12 (85.7) 14 (4.55)
Of TA 7 (2.3) 1 (0.3) 5 (1.6) 11 (3.6) 12 (3.9) 278 (90.3) 308 (100)
Connection Trenches
Layer 1 - H4 7 (100) 7 (70)
Layer 1 - H3 3 (100) 3 (30)
Of TA 10 (100) 10 (100)
Table 8. Bosumpra Cave: celts, rough-outs and greenstone débitage. The Layer 1 horizons are shown in groups to reflect their distribution as illustrated
schematically in Figure 2. Material culture frequencies are expressed as % of Layer/Horizon (100%), Layer/Horizon as % of total assemblage (% Total) and
category % of total assemblage (of TA). H = Horizon. Abbreviations: Ct = celt; MC = mini-celt (maximum length ≤5 cm); RO = rough-out, ROS= small (≤5 cm)
rough-out small. A single example of a greenstone block with ’dimpling’ on opposite faces was found and may have been used as a hammerstone (Figure 10).
(*) identifies a celt made on porphyry.
Celt Type Ct1 Ct2 Ct3 Ct4 Ct5 MC? MC1 MC2 MC3 MC4 RO1A
Location ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%)
Layer 4
Layer 2 1 (1.3) 1 (1.3) 2 (2.5) 3 (3.8) 1 (1.3)
Layer 1 - H8 1 (3.3) 1 (3.3) 2 (6.7) 1 (3.3)

Layer 1 - H7
Layer 1 - H6 1 (0.8) 1 (0.8) 2 (1.5)
Layer 1 - H5 1 (5.0)
Layer 1 - H4
Layer 1 - H3 2 (0.7) 1 (0.4) 2* (0.7)
Layer 1 - H2 1 (1.3) 1 (1.3)
Layer 1 - H1
Of TA 1 (0.1) 3 (0.4) 1 (0.1) 1 (0.1) 1 (0.1) 3 (0.4) 2 (0.3) 3 (0.4) 5 (0.7) 1 (0.1) 4 (0.6)
Connection Trenches
Layer 1 - H6
Layer 1 - H5
Layer 1 - H3
Of TA
455
456
D. J. WATSON
Table 8. Continued.
Side- Block and/or Polished blade and body L/H Totals L/H % Total
Celt Type RO1B RO2 RO3 ROS1 ROS2 scrapers? Hammerstone* fragments Flakes and chips (100%) Assemblage
Location ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%)
Layer 4 1 (100) 1 (0.1)
Layer 2 1 (1.3) 1 (1.3) 1 (1.3) 7 (8.9) 61 (77.2) 79 (11.3)
Layer 1 - H8 7 (23.3) 18 (60.0) 30 (4.3)
Layer 1 - H7 1 (2.1) 2 (4.3) 2 (4.3) 42 (89.4) 47 (6.7)
Layer 1 - H6 1 (0.8) 2 (1.5) 7 (5.3) 119 (89.5) 133 (19.1)
Layer 1 - H5 1 (5.0) 18 (90.0) 20 (2.9)
Layer 1 - H4 1 (33.3) 2 (66.7) 3 (0.4)
Layer 1 - H3 1 (0.4) 2 (0.7) 1 (0.4) 2 (0.7) 11 (4.0) 256 (92.1) 278 (39.8)
Layer 1 - H2 1 (1.3) 1 (1.3) 76 (95.0) 80 (11.5)
Layer 1 - H1 27 (100) 27 (3.9)
Of TA 1 (0.1) 1 (0.1) 2 (0.3) 2 (0.3) 1 (0.1) 2 (0.3) 7 (1.0) 37 (5.3) 620 (88.8) 698 (100)
Connection Trenches
Layer 1 - H6 1 (100) 1 (11)
Layer 1 - H5 3 (100) 3 (33)
Layer 1 - H3 5 (100) 5 (56)
Of TA 9 (100) 9 (100)
Table 9. Bosumpra Cave: miscellaneous finds. The Layer 1 horizons are shown in groups to reflect their distribution as illustrated schematically in Figure 2. Material
culture frequencies are expressed as % of Layer/Horizon (100%), Layer/Horizon as % of total assemblage (% Total) and category % of total assemblage (of TA). H =
Horizon.
Horne-blend Jasper∇ &
Material Wax Ceramic Metal Granite* Porphyry∇*
‘Gold Weight?’, 3×1 Pesewa
‘Palette’ or Tuyère Cutlass Blade Coins (dated
Description Candle wax ‘Gaming Piece’ fragment (s)? Frgaments 1967) Hammerstone Flakes
Location ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%)

Layer 4 3 (33) 2 (22) 3 (33)
Layer 2 1 (9)
Layer 1 - H8 1 (25)
Layer 1 - H7
Layer 1 - H6 2 (17)
Layer 1 - H5
Layer 1 - H4
Layer 1 - H3 1 (6) 1 (6)
Layer 1 - H2
Layer 1 - H1
Of TA 3 (5) 1 (2) 1 (2) 2 (3) 3 (5) 1 (2) 3 (5)
457
458
D. J. WATSON
Table 9. Continued.
Shale∇ and
Material Quartz clear slate∇* Sandstone
(Bow-)Drill
Grindstone platform(?)*,
Schist bases & pestles(?)**,
Bead flakes∇ and grooved Hammer- gaming
Description (fragment) laterite∇* Flakes stone* stones piece*** L/H Totals (100%) L/H % Total Assemblage
Location ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%)
Layer 4 1 (11) 9 (14)
Layer 2 1 (9) 2 (18) 1 (9) 5 (45) ***1 (9) 11 (17)
Layer 1 - H8 1 (25) 1 (16) 1 (16) 4 (6)
Layer 1 - H7 1 (50) 1 (50) 2 (3)
Layer 1 - H6 3 (25) 7 (58) 12 (18)
Layer 1 - H5 1 (100) 1 (2)
Layer 1 - H4 0
Layer 1 - H3 1 (6) 12 (67) 1 (6) **2 (11) 18 (28)
Layer 1 - H2 5 (71) 1 (14) *1 (14) 7 (11)
Layer 1 - H1 1 (100) 1 (2)
Of TA 1 (2) 6 (9) 28 (43) 3 (5) 9 (14) 4 (6) 65 (100)
(Figure 3). That said, the foregoing analyses demonstrate the general integrity of the
archaeological sequence.
Bosumpra Cave: chronology and botanical samples

The radiocarbon chronology for Bosumpra (Table 1) reveals the longest archaeological
occupational sequence yet discovered in Ghana. Calibrated radiocarbon dates range
from the late Pleistocene to the seventeenth century AD. The most recent datable material
found comprised three one-pesewa coins, dated to 1967, from Layer 4, Unit 9 (Table 7).
Most spits were sampled for archaeobotanical remains and radiocarbon determinations
were made from this material (Oas et al. 2015). Botanical examples provided dates of
8410 ± 40 BP (Beta 343279; endocarps of oil palm [Elaeis guineensis]) and 6300 ± 30
BP (Beta 343279; incense tree [Canarium schweinfurthii] from successive middle levels
of Layer 1, Horizon 2, Unit 8). Pearl millet (Pennisetum cf. glaucum) and cowpea
(Vigna unguiculata) remains were also found within horizons dated to 5285 ± 40 BP
(Ua-36777) to 2550 ± 30 BP (Ua-36776; Layer 1, Horizons 3 and 7 respectively, although
the latter may be intrusive from Horizon 8) and 3490 ± 35 BP to 2550 ± 30 BP (Layer 1,
Horizons 6 and 8). To date, the earliest directly dated remains of cowpea (3410 ± 60 BP;
D’Andrea et al. 2007) and pearl millet (3460 ± 200 BP; D’Andrea et al. 2001), and indi-
cations of arboriculture (D’Andrea et al. 2006) in Ghana are all associated with the Kin-
tampo Tradition. The distribution and frequencies of incense tree and oil palm endocarps
support Smith’s (1975) ‘replacement’ model with the latter displacing the former as the
dominant oleaginous tree-fruit resource during the later Holocene (Oas et al. 2015).
Finally, it should be noted that except for the recently disarticulated remains of a grasscut-
ter (or greater cane-rat; Thryonomys swinderianus) from the surface of Layer 5 no osteo-
logical material at all was recovered from the excavation.
A critical examination of the dates obtained indicates the likelihood of probable strati-
graphic disturbances within Unit 9 as evidenced by the two inverted radiocarbon dates
from the interface between Layers 1 and 2. However, this disturbance is localised as the
remaining dates correspond across the entire site, demonstrating the robustness of the
chronological framework (Figure 3; Table 1). Differences in the upper dates of Layers 1
and 2 are minimal, a consequence of temporally and spatially variable rates of erosion/
deposition. Indeed, the radiometric chronology indicates that these rates varied consider-
ably over time, notably in the time-span represented by the geologically massive Layer
1. The overall densities of material culture within the sequence (Table 3) suggest that
site occupation/activities were not continuous, perhaps hinting at seasonal and/or other
scheduling concerns interspersed with periods of abandonment throughout the shelter’s
long use-history. Note that as the sediments of Units 1, 2 and 9 in Layer 1, Horizons 7
and 8 were continuous with Horizons 2 and 3 in Unit 5 and Horizon 6 in Units 3–4,
the former horizons may mirror the chronological sequence established in the latter
units. Nevertheless, the variable sedimentation/erosion rates discussed mean that this sug-
gestion must be treated with caution.
A hiatus in site use of some 2000 years is suggested by the gap between the terminal
radiocarbon dates from Layer 1 and those obtained from the upper part of Layer 2. The
most significant contributory factor to this hiatus was the complete lack of in situ macro-
scopic, datable material within the lower spits excavated in Layer 2. Other factors may
460 D. J. WATSON
have been involved, such as long-term site abandonment, but such a fundamental change
in human behavioural patterns requires corroboration from external data sources.
However, as the upper Layer 1 dates (c. 2700 cal. BP) approximate to the onset of long-
term progressive drying at Lake Bosumtwi (2660 cal. BP, with the most rapid aridification
taking place after ∼1700 cal. BP; Shanahan et al. 2009: 378) environmental deterioration
may have affected human residency patterns on the plateau, altering micro-environmental
conditions within Bosumpra and thus the formation of the palimpsest deposit that con-
stitutes L2. Drier internal conditions and the decline of a principal agent of site formation,
water, may have caused sedimentation to be outstripped by erosion and artefact deposition
rates.
The archaeological sequence

Layer 1: Horizons 1 and 4 (Units 3–4 and 7–8) — eleventh millennium cal. BC
The distribution of finds recovered from the 2008–2011 excavation (Table 3) demon-
strates that the shelter’s internal space was sufficient for human occupation/activity at
this early date. The lithic industry from this initial occupation phase is predominantly
manufactured on white quartz with the most identifiable component comprising geo-
metric microliths (Figures 5–6; Table 4; Crabtree 1982; Whittaker 1994; Elston and
Kuhn 2002). As previously stated, the microlithic tools, small flake-dominated assemblage
and abundance of cortex present collectively demonstrate on-site tool manufacture and
indicate that the raw material used was generally too small for hand-held reduction
(although free-hand methods may have been used for larger nodules and with other
raw materials). Most cores (maximum length: ≤ 4.5 cm) show evidence of bipolar
reduction as demonstrated by the presence of small tabular and/or wedged pieces with
multi-directional step-hinges and flaking, including the presence of occasional bipolar
Figure 5. Bosumpra Cave: quartz and siliceous mudstone cores. Dots indicate areas with crushing due
to use of the bipolar technique.
Figure 6. Bosumpra Cave: quartz and siliceous mudstone tools. The implements labelled as unifacial
points generally appear to resemble this tool type, but other possible functions are suggested for
the examples illustrated here.
flakes with opposing bulbs of percussion and crushing at flake terminations (Figure 5;
Callahan 1987: 20–30; Casey 2000: 83–103; Andrefsky 2005: 25–30; Ballin 2005).
Blades/bladelets appear throughout the sequence, but as only about 47% of all the geo-
metric microliths were manufactured on flakes this débitage may have been a by-
product, rather than a primary aim, of production. These technological features remain
characteristic of the site’s quartz industry throughout most of the Holocene (Table 4).
Difficulties in classifying quartz assemblages are well documented (e.g. MacDonald
1997: 171–172) and, despite repeated examination, techno-typological analysis of débitage
at Bosumpra (Table 4) was relatively unrewarding due to high incidences of quartz frag-
mentation. Moreover, quartz bipolar manufacture often produces large quantities of
amorphous shatter (Mercader and Brooks 2001; Andrefsky 2005: 123; Tallavaara et al.
2010; Driscoll 2011), something that may be exacerbated by both anthropogenic (e.g.
trampling) and natural processes (e.g. ceiling collapse). Some of the débitage classes
defined may represent end-products of reduction, but the overwhelming majority show
no obvious trace of ‘working’. Indeed, since most flakes/blades bore sharp usable edges
the incidence of expedient tool use within the assemblage with unmodified working
edges was also probably high (see Andrefsky 2005: 31).
A notable feature throughout the Bosumpra sequence is the presence of various
materials not sourced within the cave or its immediate vicinity. Shale (all of it unworked;
Table 9), mudstone (Table 7) and ochre (most of it bearing flattened striated facets indica-
tive of grinding; Table 10) are all variably common within the wider Voltaian Formation
and the Kwahu Plateau (Dickson and Benneh 1970; Kalsbeek 2008). Indeed, extensive
deposits of ochre are currently mined some 1.5–3.0 km southeast of the site. Various
colours of mudstone (black, green, red) indicate exploitation of different outcrops of
this material. Somewhat enigmatically, worked mudstone cores appear in overlying
462 D. J. WATSON
Table 10. Bosumpra Cave: distribution of haematite and ochre. The Layer 1 horizons are shown in
groups to reflect their distribution as illustrated schematically in Figure 2. Ochre varies in size from
51.1–26.9 mm, haematite from 29.8–21.4 mm. Material culture frequencies are expressed as % of
Layer/Horizon (100%), Layer/Horizon as % of total assemblage (% Total) and category % of total
assemblage (of TA). H = Horizon.
Haematite Ochre L/H Totals (100%) L/H % Total Assemblage
Location ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%)
Layer 4 1 (100) 1 (2.8)
Layer 2 3 (60) 2 (40) 5 (13.9)
Layer 1 - H8 1 (100) 1 (2.8)
Layer 1 - H7 4 (100) 4 (11.1)
Layer 1 - H6 4 (100) 4 (11.1)
Layer 1 - H5 2 (100) 2 (5.6)
Layer 1 - H4 0 (0.0)
Layer 1 - H3 14 (93) 1 (7) 15 (41.7)
Layer 1 - H2 1 (100) 1 (2.8)
Layer 1 - H1 3 (100) 3 (8.3)
Of TA 27 (75) 9 (25) 36 (100)
Connection Trenches
Layer 1 - H6 4 (100) 4 (44.4)
Layer 1 - H5 3 (75) 1 (25) 4 (44.0)
Layer 1 - H3 1 (100) 1 (11.1)
Of TA 4 (44) 5 (56) 9 (100)
horizons, although the only ostensible mudstone tool, a possible end-/side-scraper (Figure
6), was found in Unit 7 of Horizon 1 (Table 8). Greenstone flakes (Table 8) were present
from the lowest spits, including a single polished piece. Greenstone is a general term for
related hard rocks including calc-chlorite schist sourced from the Birimian Supergroup
(Figure 2; Dickson and Benneh 1970; Schlüter 2006). The nearest source to Bosumpra,
according to Shaw (1944: 10), is 16 km southeast of the site near Nkawkaw (Figure 1),
although the greenstone found at Bosumpra varies in colour and macroscopic constitu-
ents, suggesting the exploitation of multiple sources.
Layer 1: Horizons 2 and 5 — from the eleventh to late fifth millennia cal. BC
In Horizon 2 (Unit 8) a circular celt (Type Ct1, Figures 3 & 7; Table 8) with a flaked body
and polished blade, perhaps a scraper, was recovered from a spit immediately above the
spit dated 10,280 ± 70 BP (Ua-36778). The latter spit also yielded a rough-out (RO1B;
Figures 1, 3 and 7; Table 8). An ovate greenstone rough-out (RO1A; Figures 1, 3 and 7;
Table 8) was also found in association with 41 potsherds in Horizon 2 (Unit 7).
Horizon 2 contained a total of 43 sherds with quartz-sand/grit inclusions, but 41 of
them (including T9B and SRA rim types; Figure 9; Table 15) were recovered from a
single spit situated near the horizon’s base in Unit 7 (Figures 1 and 3; Table 5). One of
these sherds was decorated with a simple channelling motif (Figure 7.3). Differences in
fabric characteristics and, to a degree, sherd colour, suggest that these sherds constitute
the remains of at least three vessels. Their small size (Table 6) inhibits morphometric
reconstruction, but the large SRA rim/collar-sherd (Figures 8.2) indicates a commensu-
rately sized open-aperture vessel.
In Horizon 5 (Unit 5), a fragmentary greenstone ‘butt’ (Type MC?, a fragmentary ‘mini-
celt?’; Figure 7) that had been flaked both dorsally and ventrally and polished smooth
Figure 7. Bosumpra Cave: celts and rough-outs from Horizons 2 and 5. These are the earliest horizons
and are grouped together here for convenience. Abbreviations: Ct = celt; MC = mini-celt (maximum
length ≤5cm); RO = rough-out, ROS = small (≤5 cm) rough-out. Horizon 5 C1 = MC? (mini-celt);
Horizon 2: C2 = RO1B (rough-out, partially shaped?); C3 = RO1A (rough-out, ovate); C4 = Ct1 (circular
celt: scraper?). Please refer to Figure 2 for stratigraphic information. The artefact illustrated in the box is
a rough-out from Smith’s (1975) excavation at a depth of 1.0–1.10 m.
laterally and some further greenstone fragments were recovered from the spit dated 9990 ±
85 BP (Ua-37247; Figures 1, 3 and 7; Table 5). The overlying celt butt/body fragments in this
unit, situated some 40 cm above, were dissimilar as they were ovate in cross-section and
polished on all sides. Three potsherds were also found in this horizon, probably coming
from the same pot; two were decorated with impressed peigne fileté rigide (PFR; Figure
8.1; Tables 5), i.e. a twisted cord wrapped around a solid core. Reconstruction of the SRA
rim sherd (Figures 8.1 and 8.9) suggests a diameter of only 11 cm, perhaps indicating
that the pot took the form of a beaker. Potsherds were found in all the overlying spits in
this unit, but none were similar to these early Horizon 5 sherds.
The early pottery from Bosumpra comprises low-fired vessels with quartz-sand/grit
inclusions, including an as yet unidentified white material that was utilised throughout
the ceramic sequence (Tables 11–13). The stratigraphic isolation of the 41 sherds in
Horizon 2 (Unit 7) at the same depth as the 10,280 ± 70 BP date and the direct association
between the radiocarbon date of 9990 ± 85 BP and pottery in Horizon 5 (Unit 4) strongly
indicate a late eleventh, or perhaps tenth, millennium cal. BC date for the development of
pottery in the southern forest zone of West Africa, much earlier than has previously been
expected.
The quartz (and mudstone) industry is technologically unchanged, but now includes
unifacial points, non-geometric microliths (perçoirs) and other core types (Figures 5–6;
464 D. J. WATSON
Figure 8. Bosumpra Cave: pottery decoration motifs (with the original sherd on the left and its cast on
the right). 1: Layer 1, Horizon 2 - peigne fileté rigide; 2: Layer 1, Horizon 5 - SRA rim; 3: Layer 1, Horizon 5
- sherd with multi-channelling motif; 4: Layer 1, Horizon 3 - cord(?)-impressed; 5: Layer 1, Horizon 3 -
peigne fileté (indeterminate souplé or rigide); 6: Layer 1, Horizon 3 - peigne fileté (rigide?); 7: Layer 1,
Horizon 3 - peigne fileté (rigide?); 8: Layer 1, Horizon 8 (Unit 9) - cord roulette (simple twisted
twine); 9: Smith (1975) excavation at a depth of 0.9–1 m - cord roulette (simple twisted twine); 10:
Layer 1, Horizon 3 - oval sherd (rocked comb) gaming piece/palette. The black bars = 1 cm.
Figure 9. Bosumpra Cave: rim typology from the 2008–2011 and 1975 excavations. Rims marked with
’?’ are of indeterminate orientation/angle. Abbreviations used for rim types: SS simple squared; SR
simple rounded; T thickened.
Tables 4 and 7). The latter, however, represent mere stages in the reduction of quartz (and
mudstone) nuclei. Other non-local materials include Voltaian shale, flakes of granitic por-
phyry (probably sourced from outside the Volta Basin) and ochre/haematite (both avail-
able on the plateau; Tables 7 and 10). Upper Formation sandstone was utilised for making
a hammerstone and a circular artefact (Figure 10; Table 9) with a worn central hollow with
striations, perhaps a (bow)drill platform; this came from the same spit that yielded 41 pot-
sherds in Horizon 2, Unit 7). Material culture from the lowest horizons demonstrates the
site’s use as a workshop where tools were manufactured, used and/or repaired on-site,
alongside the use of ceramics.
Layer 1: Horizon 3 — late fifth millennium cal. BC to c. 550 cal. BC

Bosumpra’s continued use as a workshop is evident in the now standard local/non-local
raw materials (Tables 3, 9) with most finds still concentrated towards the shelter’s
entrance. Pottery increases in frequency overall, but is absent in Horizon 3, Unit 8, and
infrequent in the horizon’s lower half (Figure 3). However, 23 sherds were recovered
from a single spit forming the base of Unit 6 in Horizon 3. Low frequencies of early
pottery may relate to mobility patterns and/or the spatial organisation of activities
within the shelter. This trend is also witnessed in the rarity of sherds in Shaw’s (1944)
Layers 6–5 (Table 2).
The pottery (Table 5) is mostly decorated with channelling and rigid-comb based
motifs, although the earliest sherds in Unit 6 were decorated with rocked comb (N = 2)
and incision (N = 2). The presence of peigne fileté and an indistinct cord-impressed
sherd (Figure 8.4–5) in Units 5–7 demonstrates a rare use of cordage. Most sherds were
undecorated, although decorated sherds appear to originate from the upper parts of
vessels, a characteristic of the assemblage throughout the remainder of the sequence
(Table 14). Technologically, the horizon’s assemblage comprises low fired, hand-made
pottery with quartz inclusions (Tables 11–13) with the first appearance of burnishing as
466
D. J. WATSON
Table 11. Bosumpra Cave: pottery assemblage firing (cores). The Layer 1 horizons are shown in groups to reflect their distribution as illustrated schematically in
assemblage (of TA). H = Horizon; SF = surface find.
Oxidised Unoxidised Unox. Core Unox. Interior Irregular L/H Totals (100%) L/H % Total Assemblage
Location ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%)
Layer 5 (SF) 10 (16.9) 33 (55.9) 3 (5.1) 12 (20.3) 1 (1.7) 59 (2.0)
Layers 4 + 6 186 (21.3) 326 (37.3) 106 (12.1) 176 (20.1) 81 (9.3) 875 (29.3)
Layer 2 218 (23.9) 348 (38.2) 95 (10.4) 132 (14.5) 118 (13.0) 911 (30.5)
Layer 1 - H8 116 (33.0) 117 (33.2) 22 (6.3) 66 (18.8) 31 (8.8) 352 (11.8)
Layer 1 - H7 0
Layer 1 - H6 38 (13.7) 159 (57.2) 19 (6.8) 60 (21.6) 2 (0.7) 278 (9.3)
Layer 1 - H5 3 (100.0) 3 (0.1)
Layer 1 - H4 0
Layer 1 - H3 158 (34.0) 165 (35.5) 6 (1.3) 125 (26.9) 11 (2.4) 465 (15.6)
Layer 1 - H2 6 (14.0) 13 (30.2) 5 (11.6) 19 (44.2) 43 (1.4)
Layer 1 - H1 0
Of TA 732 (24.5) 1164 (39.0) 251 (8.4) 576 (19.3) 262 (8.8) 2985 (100)
Connection Trenches
Layer 4 11 (52.4) 6 (28.6) 1 (4.8) 3 (14.3) 21 (18.8)
Layer 2 12 (54.5) 5 (22.7) 2 (9.1) 1 (4.5) 2 (9.1) 22 (19.6)
Layer 1 - H6 5 (20.0) 12 (48.0) 3 (12.0) 2 (8.0) 3 (12.0) 25 (22.3)
Layer 1 - H3 6 (13.6) 23 (52.3) 6 (13.6) 7 (15.9) 2 (4.5) 44 (39.3)
Of TA 34 (30.4) 46 (41.1) 11 (9.8) 11 (9.8) 10 (8.9) 112 (100)
Table 12. Bosumpra Cave: pottery assemblage temper and inclusions recorded in absolute frequencies. The Layer 1 horizons are shown in groups to reflect their
distribution as illustrated schematically in Figure 2. The ‘white material’ listed remains unidentified. Material culture frequencies are expressed as % of Layer/Horizon
(100%), Layer/Horizon as % of total assemblage (% Total) and category % of total assemblage (of TA). H = Horizon; SF = surface find.
Recorded Inclusions/Temper (absolute frequency) L/H Totals (100%) L/H % Total Assemblage
White
Quartz Sand Quartz Grit Laterite Material Grog Mica Trace Sherd (actual) Totals
Location ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%)
Layer 5 (SF) 58 (98.3) 2 (3.4) 1 (1.7) 1 (1.7) 1 (1.7) 7 (11.9) 59 (2.0)
Layers 4 + 6 874 (100) 187 (21.4) 79 (9.0) 18 (2.1) 28 (3.2) 80 (9.2) 874 (29.3)
Layer 2 844 (92.6) 322 (35.3) 64 (7.0) 100 (11.0) 116 (12.7) 34 (3.7) 911 (30.5)
Layer 1 - H8 351 (99.7) 103 (29.3) 4 (1.1) 13 (3.7) 352 (11.8)

Layer 1 - H7 0
Layer 1 - H6 264 (95.0) 106 (38.1) 4 (1.4) 11 (4.0) 278 (9.3)
Layer 1 - H5 3 (100) 3 (100) 3 (0.1)
Layer 1 - H4 0
Layer 1 - H3 465 (100) 93 (20.0) 1 (0.2) 22 (4.7) 1 (0.2) 22 (4.7) 465 (15.6)
Layer 1 - H2 43 (100) 4 (9.3) 1 (2.3) 1 (2.3) 1 (2.3) 43 (1.4)
Layer 1 - H1 0
Of TA 2902 (97.2) 820 (27.5) 150 (5.0) 146 (4.9) 146 (4.9) 168 (5.6) 2985 100
Connection Trenches
Layer 4 21 (100) 4 (19.0) 1 (4.8) 1 (4.8) 2 (9.5) 21 (18.8)
Layer 2 21 (95.5) 7 (31.8) 2 (9.1) 2 (9.1) 1 (4.5) 2 (9.1) 22 (19.6)
Layer 1 - H6 25 (100) 4 (16.0) 1 (4.0) 1 (4.0) 25 (22.3)
Layer 1 - H3 43 (97.7) 18 (40.9) 7 (15.9) 4 (9.1) 7 (15.9) 44 (39.3)
Of TA 110 (98.2) 33 (29.5) 11 (9.8) 7 (6.3) 1 (0.9) 12 (10.7) 112 100
467
468
D. J. WATSON
Table 13. Bosumpra Cave: pottery assemblage: colour groups. The Layer 1 horizons are shown in groups to reflect their distribution as illustrated schematically in
assemblage (of TA). H = Horizon; SF = surface find.
Brown: mid-
Red: light- Brown: Dark Brown: dark
Pot Sherd Colours dark Greyish Reddish yellowish Brown: mid Brown: dark Black L/H Totals (100%) L/H % Total Assemblage
Location ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%)
Layer 5 (SF) 1 (1.7) 6 (10.2) 1 (1.7) 1 (1.7) 45 (76.3) 5 (8.5) 59 (2.0)
Layers 4 + 6 7 (0.8) 41 (4.7) 167 (19.1) 98 (11.2) 109 (12.5) 376 (43.0) 76 (8.7) 874 (29.3)
Layer 2 27 (3.0) 20 (2.2) 94 (10.3) 85 (9.3) 176 (19.3) 443 (48.6) 67 (7.4) 911 (30.5)
Layer 1 - H8 4 (1.1) 10 (2.8) 54 (15.3) 48 (13.6) 221 (62.8) 15 (4.3) 352 (11.8)
Layer 1 - H7 0
Layer 1 - H6 54 (19.4) 26 (9.4) 46 (16.5) 145 (52.2) 7 (2.5) 278 (9.3)
Layer 1 - H5 3 (100) 3 (0.1)
Layer 1 - H4 0
Layer 1 - H3 11 (2.4) 62 (13.3) 47 (10.1) 143 (30.8) 182 (39.1) 20 (4.3) 465 (15.6)
Layer 1 - H2 8 (1.7) 1 (0.2) 33 (7.1) 1 (0.2) 43 (1.4)
Layer 1 - H1 0
Of TA 35 (1.2) 76 (2.5) 401 (13.4) 317 (10.6) 530 (17.8) 1463 (49.0) 190 (6.4) 2985 (100)
Connection Trenches
Layer 4 1 (4.8) 20 (95.2) 21 (18.8)
Layer 2 5 (23.8) 3 (13.0) 15 (71.4) 23 (20.5)
Layer 1 - H6 5 (20.0) 1 (4.0) 2 (8.0) 17 (68.0) 25 (22.3)
Layer 1 - H3 3 (12.0) 4 (9.1) 37 (148.0) 44 (39.3)
Of TA 0 6 (5.4) 9 (8.0) 9 (8.0) 0 88 (78.6) 0 112 (100)
Figure 10. Bosumpra Cave: hammerstones: A hammerstone (with four sides faceted; Layer 1, Horizon
3); B ‘bow-drill platform’/hammerstone (Layer 1, Horizon 2); C greenstone block and/or possible ham-
merstone (Layer 1, Horizon 7).
a surface finishing treatment (Table 17). Morphologically, these vessels had mostly
thickened-everted and simple rim types (T4A is common in both Layers 1 and 2) with
a wide range of diameters (Table 16). All of the Layer 1 vessels were probably globular
in form, as flat bases do not appear in the sequence until Layer 2. A 25 g oval-shaped
sherd (Figure 8.10; Table 9) decorated with rocked comb from the uppermost spit of
Unit 5 is reminiscent of the rounded pottery disks interpreted as gold weights by
Garrard (1980: 21–22, 29, 42, 221). However, as stated by Stahl (2001: 138), studied
examples of these sherds either have ‘greater variation in standards recognized by
Garrard, or [it is] perhaps more likely, that rounded sherds were used for purposes
other than as weights’ (e.g. as gaming pieces or some form of palette).
Concentrations of quartz gravels peak in this horizon and decline precipitously thereafter
along with the frequency of tools/manufacturing debris (Table 4). High quantities of quartz
fragments suggest extensive human exploitation, but may also denote ablation/abruption of
Upper Formation sandstones and shatter of autochthonous quartz-laden beds as the shel-
ter’s cavity expanded. Production of geometric microliths and bipolar manufacture con-
tinues, although a new element appears, a single bifacially worked quartz implement
470 D. J. WATSON
(Figure 6; Table 4). Mudstone bipolar cores are present, but no obvious tools (or retouch)
were observed (Table 7). Celts, and especially rough-outs (Figure 11; Table 8), are frequent,
with diverse forms present, including a partially polished type Ct2 (from the horizon base), a
polished but fragmentary MC1, a possible (damaged?) greenstone ‘side-scraper’ and a
rough-out made on granitic porphyry. Most of the celts bear damage to the butt (with
some broken in half, or split longitudinally; Figure 11) suggesting the use of an impactor
and denoting a utilitarian function for them such as wood-splitting (Semenov 1985).
Non-local raw materials diversify and include grey schist and additional granitic porphyry,
both sourced from outside the Volta Basin (i.e. the Birimain Supergroup), and infrequent
‘jasper’ possibly from the Buem/Togo Formation (Figure 2).
Artefacts interpreted as ‘pestles’ (Figure 12) may signal new methods of preparing food,
medicine and/or other resources alongside the use of hammerstones (Figure 10; Table 9).
Figure 11. Bosumpra Cave: celts and rough-outs from Horizon 3. The material from this horizon is
shown separately here merely for convenience. Abbreviations: Ct = celt; MC = mini-celt (maximum
length ≤5cm); RO = rough-out, ROS = small (≤5 cm) rough-out. C5 = RO1A (porphyry ovate rough-
out, with quartz clasts); C6 = RO1A; C7 = Ct2 (roughly polished, sub-triangular/circular); C8 = RO2
(rough out? with one flat side); C9 = MC1 (mini-celt with a rounded blade and flat butt); C10 = RO3
(circular rough-out); C11 = sidescraper? Please refer to Figure 2 for stratigraphic information. Arrows
indicate longitudinal damage.
Figure 12. Bosumpra Cave: ground stone and other stone artefacts. A grooved stone (Layer 1, Horizon
8); B quartz bead (Layer 1, Horizon 8); C ’pestle’, the two examples found (Table 9) are morphologically
similar, except that the other is broken at the tail-end; D grindstone base (Layer 4).
Quantities of thin shell fragments in Horizon 2 and Horizon 3 (Table 3), probably from
terrestrial molluscs (e.g. the local giant snail, Achatina spp.) provide scarce information on
potential resource exploitation. Continuity in material, technologies and associated activi-
ties is evident, but increasing quantities and modest diversification of material culture and
raw materials (Table 3) signal commensurate changes in human behavioural patterns that
probably reflect wider transformations within the southern forests of West Africa.
Layer 1: Horizons 6, 7 and 8 — tenth millennium cal. BC to c. 500 cal. BC

Horizon 6 provides a coarsely dated grouping of material culture, local/non-local raw
materials and trends throughout this period (Table 3). The pottery is morphologically, sty-
listically and technologically similar to that found across Layer 1 (Tables 5 and 11–16).
Quartz geometrics include the only quartz scraper found and ‘unifacial points’; bipolar
cores and mudstone débitage are also evident (Figures 5–6; Tables 4 and 7). Celt manu-
facture/repair (Figure 13; Table 8) and the possible use of these implements towards the
rear of the shelter is demonstrated by the presence of greenstone blocks/flakes, a rough-
out, the Ct3 celt and polished, fragmentary mini-celt ‘butts’.
As the Layer 1 sediments are continuous across the site (Figure 3) the radiocarbon
chronology established in Units 4 and 7–8 may also be mirrored in Units 1, 2 and 9,
with, for example, Horizon 8 potentially covering a similar time-span to Horizon 3. It
is a moot point whether the apparently aceramic Horizon 7 indicates the absence of
this pottery technology or merely reflects spatially segregated activity patterns. Otherwise,
the artefacts and materials from Horizon 7 are similar to those found throughout Layer 1
and include a distinctive partially ground celt that may have functioned as a sidescraper
(Figure 13: C15; Table 8). In Horizon 8, a range of local/non-local materials includes ham-
merstones (Figure 10; Tables 3, 9) manufactured on Bosumpra Upper Formation
472
D. J. WATSON
Table 14. Bosumpra Cave: pottery assemblage recorded décor locations. The Layer 1 horizons are shown in groups to reflect their distribution as illustrated
schematically in Figure 2. Material culture frequencies are expressed as % of Layer/Horizon (100%) and category % of total assemblage (of TA). H = Horizon;
SF = surface find.
Recorded Decor Locations
Lower - Middle-Upper Upper Body to Interior rim*
midddle Body Body Upper Body Collar/Neck Neck to rim top exterior rim** L/H Totals (100%)
Location ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯
Layer 5 (SF) 1 (1.69) 59
Layers 4 + 6 3 (0.34) 3 (0.34) 9 (1.03) 2 (0.23) 11 (1.26) 3* (0.34) 874
Layer 2 27 (2.96) 6 (0.66) 12 (1.32) 911
Layer 1 - H8 14 (3.98) 15 (4.26) 1** (0.28) 352
Layer 1 - H7 0
Layer 1 - H6 1 (0.36) 6 (2.16) 1** (0.36) 278
Layer 1 - H5 1 (33.33) 3
Layer 1 - H4 0
Layer 1 - H3 6 (1.29) 1 (0.22) 13 (2.80) 465
Layer 1 - H2 1 (2.33) 43
Layer 1 - H1 0
Of TA 3 (0.10) 30 (1.01) 39 (1.31) 3 (0.10) 57 (1.91) 5 (0.17) 2985
Connection Trenches
Layer 4 1 (4.76) 21
Layer 2 1 (4.55) 22
Layer 1 - H6 1 (4.00) 2 (8.00) 25
Layer 1 - H5 0
Layer 1 - H4 0
Layer 1 - H3 44
Of TA 1 (0.89) 0 1 (0.89) 2 (1.79) 1 (0.89) 0 112
Table 15. Bosumpra Cave: pottery assemblage rim typology (see Figure 9) and vessel apertures. Types marked ’(e)’ are everted forms. Types are expressed as % of
total number of rims from each Layer/Horizon (100%) and the % of rim types within each Layer/Horizon as (R%). The abbreviations used for rim types are: SS simple
squared; SR simple rounded; T-thickened. H = Horizon.
Apertures (Degrees) 0–45 45–85 85–95 95–130 130–180 No Data 100% R%
Rim Types ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%)
SS 1 (14.29) 1 (14.3)
T2A (e) 3 (42.86) 1 (14.29) 4 (57.1)
T2B (e) 1 (14.29) 1 (14.3)
T8 1 (14.29) 1 (14.3)
Surface finds 0 0 0 1 (14.29) 5 (71.43) 1 (14.29) 7 (100)
SRA 1 (1.20) 5 (6.02) 13 (15.66) 9 (10.84) 28 (33.7)
SRB 1 (1.20) 6 (7.23) 2 (2.41) 9 (10.8)
SS 1 (1.20) 4 (4.82) 2 (2.41) 7 (8.4)
T10 1 (1.20) 1 (1.20) 2 (2.4)
T11 1 (1.20) 1 (1.2)
T12 (e) 1 (1.20) 1 (1.2)
T1A (e) 1 (1.20) 4 (4.82) 5 (6.0)
T2A (e) 1 (1.20) 10 (12.05) 11 (13.3)

T2B (e) 3 (3.61) 1 (1.20) 4 (4.8)
T3A (e) 2 (2.41) 2 (2.4)
T4B (e) 1 (1.20) 1 (1.2)
T5 1 (1.20) 1 (1.20) 2 (2.4)
T6 2 (2.41) 2 (2.4)
T8 (e) 1 (1.20) 2 (2.41) 3 (3.6)
T9A (e) 1 (14.29) 3 (3.61) 4 (4.8)
T9C (e) 1 (100.00) 1 (1.2)
Layer 4 Totals 0 2 (2.41) 7 (8.43) 19 (22.89) 39 (46.99) 17 (20.48) 83 (100)
SRA 5 (13.51) 3 (8.11) 8 (21.6)
SRB 1 (2.70) 3 (8.11) 3 (8.11) 7 (18.9)
SS 1 (2.70) 2 (5.41) 2 (5.41) 2 (5.41) 7 (18.9)
T1A (e) 1 (2.70) 1 (2.7)
T2A (e) 2 (5.41) 2 (5.41) 4 (10.8)
T2B (e) 2 (5.41) 1 (2.70) 1 (2.70) 4 (10.8)
T3B (e) 1 (2.70) 1 (2.7)
T4A (e) 1 (2.70) 1 (2.70) 1 (2.70) 3 (8.1)
T7 1 (2.70) 1 (2.7)
T8 (e) 1 (2.70) 1 (2.7)
473
(Continued)
474
Table 15. Continued.
0–45 45–85 85–95 95–130 130–180 No Data
D. J. WATSON
Apertures (Degrees) 100% R%
Rim Types ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%)
Layer 2 Totals 1 (2.70) 2 (5.41) 3 (8.11) 6 (16.22) 16 (43.24) 9 (24.32) 37 (100)
SRA 1 (7.14) 1 (7.14) 1 (7.14) 3 (21.4)
SRB 1 (7.14) 1 (7.14) 2 (14.3)
SS1 3 (21.43) 1 (7.14) 4 (28.6)
T1B 1 (7.14) 1 (7.1)
T2A (e) 1 (7.14) 1 (7.1)
T4A (e) 1 (7.14) 1 (7.1)
T7 1 (7.14) 1 (7.1)
T8 (e) 1 (7.14) 1 (7.1)
Layer 1 H8 Totals 1 (7.14) 1 (7.14) 0 2 (14.29) 7 (50.00) 3 (21.43) 14 (100)
SRA 1 (9.09) 1 (9.09) 2 (18.2)
SS 1 (9.09) 1 (9.09) 2 (18.2)
T3B (e) 1 (9.09) 1 (9.1)
T4A (e) 2 (18.18) 1 (9.09) 3 (27.3)
T5 1 (9.09) 1 (9.1)
T7 1 (9.09) 1 (9.1)
T9A (e) 1 (9.09) 1 (9.1)
Layer 1 H6 Totals 0 0 0 2 (18.18) 6 (54.55) 3 (27.27) 11 (100)
SRA (e) 1 (100.00) 1 (100)
Layer 1 H5 Totals 0 0 0 1 (100.00) 0 0 1 (100)
SRA 2 (8.70) 3 (13.04) 1 (4.35) 3 (13.04) 9 (39.1)
SRB 1 (4.35) 1 (4.35) 1 (4.35) 1 (4.35) 4 (17.4)
SS 2 (8.70) 2 (8.7)
T3A (e) 3 (13.04) 3 (13.0)
T4A (e) 1 (4.35) 1 (4.35) 2 (8.7)
T5 2 (8.70) 2 (8.7)
T8 (e) 1 (4.35) 1 (4.3)
Layer 1 H3 Totals 0 1 (4.35) 5 (21.74) 9 (39.13) 4 (17.39) 4 (17.39) 23 (100)
SRA 1 (100.00) 1 (50.0)
T9B (e) 1 (100.00) 1 (50.0)
Layer 1 H2 Totals 2 (100.00) 2 (100)
Total 2 (1.12) 6 (3.37) 14 (7.87) 40 (22.47) 77 (43.26) 39 (21.91) 178
Table 16. Bosumpra Cave pottery assemblage rim diameters (cm). The Layer 1 horizons are shown in groups to reflect their distribution as illustrated schematically
in Figure 2. Material culture frequencies are expressed as % of Layer/Horizon (100%), Layer/Horizon assemblage total (% Total) and category % of total assemblage
(of TA). H = Horizon; SF = surface find.
Diameter (cm) 8 11–15 16–20 21–25 26–30 33–35 36–40 No Data 100% % Total
Location ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%)
Layer 5 (SF) 1 (14.3) 6 (85.7) 7 (3.9)
Layers 4 + 6 1 (1.2) 2 (2.4) 12 (14.5) 9 (10.8) 3 (3.6) 1 (1.2) 1 (1.2) 54 (65.1) 83 (46.6)

Layer 2 1 (2.7) 9 (24.3) 1 (2.7) 2 (5.4) 1 (2.7) 23 (62.2) 37 (20.8)
Layer 1 - H8 4 (28.6) 1 (7.1) 1 (7.1) 8 (57.1) 14 (7.9)
Layer 1 - H7 0
Layer 1 - H6 1 (9.1) 1 (9.1) 1 (9.1) 2 (18.2) 6 (54.5) 11 (6.2)
Layer 1 - H5 1 (100.0) 1 (0.6)
Layer 1 - H4 0
Layer 1 - H3 1 (4.3) 1 (4.3) 3 (13.0) 2 (8.7) 16 (69.6) 23 (12.9)
Layer 1 - H2 2 (100.0) 2 (1.1)
Layer 1 - H1 0
Of TA 1 (0.6) 6 (3.4) 27 (15.2) 15 (8.4) 7 (3.9) 5 (2.8) 2 (1.1) 115 (64.6) 178 (100)
475
476 D. J. WATSON
Figure 13. Bosumpra Cave: celts and rough-outs from Horizons 6–8. These horizons are grouped
together here merely for convenience. Abbreviations: Ct = celt; MC = mini-celt (maximum length
≤5cm); RO = rough-out, ROS = small (≤5 cm) rough-out. Horizon 6: C12 = Ct2; C13 = Ct3 (roughly
polished, flat and elongated); C14 = ROS1 (small, teardrop-shaped rough-out); Horizon 7: C15 = side-
scraper?; Horizon 8: C16 = MC1; C17 = MC2 (rectilinear mini-celt); C18 = MC3 (mini-celt with a rounded
butt); C19 = MC3; C20 = RO1A. Please refer to Figure 2 for stratigraphic information.
sandstone, hornblende granite and greenstone (from the Birimian Supergroup). Four fully
polished celts from the disturbed Unit 9 (types MC1–3; Figures 1 and 13; Table 8) were
recovered, with a rough-out from spits adjacent to that yielding a radiocarbon date of
3490 ± 35 BP (Ua-37240) in Unit 3. A single fragmentary, biconically perforated quartz
‘bead’ (Unit 2) is complimented by the presence of a (yellowish-brown, non-Lower or
Upper Formation) sandstone grooved stone (in Unit 9). If the latter was not utilised for
straightening ‘arrowshafts’ it may have (also) been used to manufacture the bead since its
channel is 7.8 mm wide (x 49.2 mm long) while the bead is 7.6 mm in width (Figure 12;
Table 9). Quartz artefacts were absent from Unit 2, but the remainder of the horizon
yielded geometrics, ‘unifacial points’, bipolar cores and a single bifacial quartz implement.
Horizon 8’s pottery is similar to that from Horizon 3 with infrequent burnishing (Table
17) and a similar range of decorative motifs and tools (Table 5), rim types (although Type
T1B is unique to Horizon 8; Table 15), vessel morphology and sherd wall thicknesses
(Figure 14). An early example of red slipping demonstrates the use of haematite for
pigment (Tables 10 and 17). Unfortunately, the disturbances in Unit 9 mean that the
twisted cord roulette decorated potsherd found there (Figure 8.8) is likely to be intrusive.
Nevertheless, cordage-based décor of any kind is rare and widely dispersed throughout the
sequence and, excluding the grinding bowl fragment, the material is stylistically/techno-
logically similar to the other Layer 1 horizons, suggesting that most of the artefacts recov-
ered had not been stratigraphically displaced.
Layer 2 — post c. 500 cal. BC to the seventeenth century cal. AD

The shallowness and limited dates available for Layer 2 prohibit further layer subdivisions
(Figure 3; Table 3). Within Layer 2, however, the frequencies of non-local materials, quartz
and stone tools all decline, indicating local transformations in human activities and/or the
(lithic) technologies associated with them (Table 3).
The potsherds from Layer 2 were predominantly concentrated in the shelter’s
centre-rear and assemblage attributes demonstrate similarities and differences when
compared to those from Layer 1 (Tables 3, 11–14). Stylistic continuity is evident in
the range of decorative tools/motifs (including rare cordage) and décor placement
(Tables 5 and 14). Motif combinations, however, are elaborated and include a new
design element, dubbed ‘wavy channelling’, in the upper spits of Layer 2 (Figures
15: B-C and 16; Table 5). Other changes occur in vessel morphology and fashioning
with the appearance of plastic additions (i.e. the use of ridging and the addition of
a single lug; Table 5), carination (N = 6 sherds, probably from two different
vessels), flat bases (N = 2; Unit 9; Figure 17) and a single coil-attached rim (in
Unit 7; Figure 9). Interior surface pitting, another novel feature that first appears in
Layer 2, was noted on approximately 64% of the layer’s assemblage. It takes the
form of small, irregularly sized (∼5–8 mm) and shaped lacunae situated internally
on both rim and body sherds, but without any discernible orientation. They may be
a consequence of usage or perhaps of manufacture, providing additional vessel poros-
ity. Vessel wall thicknesses (Figure 14), apertures, diameters and rim forms demon-
strate continuity with Layer 1 (e.g. thickened-everted and simple forms; the
presence of T3B, T4A and T7; decorated rims), as do fabric inclusions (Table 12)
and the rarity of surface finishing techniques (Table 17). Some new rim types also
appear, for example T1A and T2B (Table 15). The quantities of unoxidised firing
cores (Table 11) and black sherds (Table 13) both increase.
The widespread, though infrequent, presence of tools and cores even in the upper-
most spits of Layer 2 indicates continued production of microliths during the metallur-
gical period (i.e. post-500 BC; Stahl 1994: 79–80). The first indication of metallurgy
appears in this layer in the form of a tuyère fragment from Unit 5 (Table 9) and may
478
D. J. WATSON
Table 17. Bosumpra Cave: pottery assemblage burnishing and red slip presence/location. The Layer 1 horizons are shown in groups to reflect their distribution as
illustrated schematically in Figure 2. Material culture frequencies are expressed as % of Layer/Horizon (100%), Layer/Horizon as % of total assemblage (% Total), and
category % of total assemblage (of TA). H = Horizon; SF = surface find.
Burnishing/Location Red Slip/Location
Exterior
Interior/ Zoned at Red Slip
Exterior Interior Ext/Int Burn. Total Exterior Exterior Shoulder Total L/H Totals (100%) L/H % Total Assemblage
Location ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%)
Layer 5 (SF) 59 (1.98)
Layers 4 + 6 9 (1.03) 1 (0.11) 3 (0.34) 13 (1.49) 6 (0.69) 1 (0.11) 7 (0.80) 874 (29.28)
Layer 2 4 (0.44) 1 (0.11) 5 (0.55) 10 (1.10) 911 (30.52)
Layer 1 - H8 1 (0.28) 1 (0.28) 1 (0.28) 1 (0.28) 352 (11.79)
Layer 1 - H7 0
Layer 1 - H6 2 (0.72) 2 (0.72) 278 (9.31)
Layer 1 - H5 3 (0.10)
Layer 1 - H4 0
Layer 1 - H3 7 (1.51) 1 (0.22) 8 (1.72) 465 (15.58)
Layer 1 - H2 43 (1.44)
Layer 1 - H1 0
Of TA 20 (0.67) 2 (0.02) 7 (0.23) 29 (0.97) 6 #### 1 (0.03) 1 (0.03) 18 (0.60) 2985 (100)
Figure 14. Bosumpra Cave: potsherd wall thickness by horizon/layer. See Table 3 for layer/horizon
totals. L = Layer, H = Horizon.
possibly be related to the two tuyère fragments and single piece of iron-slag from Shaw’s
(1944: 12) Layers 1–2. Given insufficient space external to the site’s talus this raises the
possibility of limited, albeit undetected, iron production or working somewhere within
the shelter.
The preparation of food and/or medicines along with other activities are demonstrated
by the presence of snail shell fragments, ochre/haematite (Tables 3 and 10) and artefacts
manufactured on Upper Formation sandstone (Table 9); the latter comprise hammer-
stones, a fragmentary grinding stone base (69.9×35.2×16.7 mm) and a flat disc
(27.8×6.5 mm) that may have been a gaming piece. The celts (Figure 18; Table 8)
display technological and stylistic continuities with those from the upper horizons of
Layer 1 in their high proportion of smaller mini-celt types, although these are now mor-
phologically more variable and include rare larger examples (Ct4/5). Despite declining fre-
quency, the presence of greenstone fragments and rough-outs denotes continued on-site
celt utilisation, repair and/or manufacture.
Layers 4–7 — from the seventeenth century to the present day

The single radiocarbon date (365 ± 35 BP; Ua-36775; Table 1) from Layer 3 provides a
terminus post quem for the development of Layer 4 of the mid- to late seventeenth
century AD. Significant changes in human behaviour and site-use and, by extension,
wider behavioural patterns (e.g. procurement networks) are suggested by the virtual
absence of non-local rocks (Tables 3 and 9), indicating that the ‘stone economy’ declined
and/or collapsed, perhaps suddenly and certainly quite recently. Low frequencies of quartz
480 D. J. WATSON
Figure 15: Bosumpra Cave: pottery vessels (reconstructed/schematic). A bowl associated with the
stone-packed post in Unit 10 of Layer 4; B a vessel decorated with saw-tooth (in relief) motif, semi-cir-
cular punctate and impressed comb decoration from Layer 2; C a vessel decorated with wavy channel-
ling also from Layer 2.
gravels and artefacts (Table 4) corroborate this hypothesis, although they may also denote
stabilisation of the shelter’s interior.
Pottery is widely dispersed, but increases to the fore of the shelter (Table 3). Decorative
tools and motifs show continuity with previous layers and horizons, with a predominance
of channelled types, rigid-comb and incised motifs; most sherds are undecorated (Tables 5
and 14). A range of novel rim forms appears (e.g. T4B, T6, T10–11), but stylistic and
Figure 16. Bosumpra Cave: photographs of sherds decorated with the wavy channelling wavy motif. 1
(Layer 4); 2 and 3 (Layer 2). The black bars = 1cm
Figure 17. Bosumpra Cave: profiles of carinated sherds (top) and vessel bases (bottom).
morphological continuity is evident in the predominance of thickened-everted and simple

rim forms with wide-open apertures and in a range of diameters (Table 15). Indeed, some
common L4 rim types are morphologically similar to those documented in lower layers
(e.g. T2B, T5, T9A and T8). Most vessels were probably globular in form, though flat
vessel-bases (N = 2, Units 2 and 3) and two carinated body sherds from the same vessel
(Unit 3; Figure 17) demonstrate other vessel morphologies. Manufacturing and fashioning
methods are similar to those in Layer 2 as evidenced by a single coil-attached rim (Unit 11;
Figure 9). The same is true of sherd wall thicknesses (Figure 14), fabric inclusion, the
limited use of surface treatments and the incidence of interior surface pitting (∼45%;
Tables 12 and 17). Finally, more red slip sherds were found in Layer 4 than in any
other contexts.
Bosumpra Cave’s previous function as the abode (Shaw 1944: 1) of the obosom Pra and
its current utilisation as a church are indicated by the remarkable change in the character
of the artefacts recovered from the upper spits of Layer 4. Two decomposed wooden posts,
from unidentified species, were placed into these (Units 4 and 10; Figure 4), with the
482 D. J. WATSON
Figure 18. Bosumpra Cave: celts and rough-outs from Layer 2. Abbreviations: Ct = celt; MC = mini-celt
(maximum length ≤5cm); RO = rough-out, ROS = small (≤5 cm) rough-out. C21 = MC4 (elongated,
rectilinear mini-celt; Unit 6); C22 = MC3; C23 = MC2; C24 = ROS2 (ovate, small rough-out); C25 =
MC2 (Unit 2); C26 = Ct4 (polished, rectilinear; unit 4); C27 = MC3; C28 = MC3; C29 = Ct5; C30 =
ROS2. Arrows indicate longitudinal damage.
example from the rear of the shelter being stone-packed at the base and found in associ-
ation with a small bowl (Figure 15: A). Finds from these uppermost spits include small
lumps of melted candle-wax (≤1 cm), fragments of organic resin (≤0.5 cm; Unit 4)
with a texture and aroma similar to that produced by local trees of Daniella sp., three
one-pesewa coins dated to 1967, a fragmentary grindstone base manufactured on
Upper Formation sandstone (118.4×95.9×63.9 mm; Figure 12) and two small sherds of
metal with a similar thickness to modern cutlass blades (Table 9). Large quantities of
snail shell (Layer 6; Table 3) concentrated near the talus demonstrate recent exploitation
of a resource that is generally more abundant during the wet season. Surface finds com-
prised potsherds with common decorative elements (Table 5).
Comparisons with the results of Shaw (1944) and Smith (1975)

Despite Shaw’s (1944; Figure 3; Table 2) comprehensive report, differences in terminology
and excavation methodologies inhibit detailed comparisons between his excavation and
those reported here. Moreover, none of the material from his excavation survives in the
University of Ghana’s Department of Archaeology and Heritage Studies. Nevertheless,
stratigraphically, Shaw’s (1944: 13–14) Layers 6–3 approximate to Layer 1, while his
Layers 2–1 broadly correlate with Layers 2–4 of the 2008–2011 re-excavation (Figure 3;
Table 1). Comparison of the pottery and lithics is problematic, but the celts are similar
in morphology, and the distribution of greenstone and celts/rough-outs parallels that pre-
sented here (Tables 2, 4, 5 and 8; Figures 7, 11 and 18; Shaw 1944: Figure 5).
Shaw’s (1944: 13) Type A pottery is described by him as ‘usually containing quartz frag-
ments, inner surface usually smoother than the outer; … rims … more or less straight,
with practically no outcurve; the commonest decoration … is some system of impressed

square, rectangular or oval dots of small size’, although he later noted that ‘the only dec-
oration is by comb-stamping’ (Shaw and Daniels 1984: 71). Conversely, the present study
highlights more variable rim forms and decoration comprising channelling, rigid-comb
and incised motifs. Cordage, though rare, was documented by Shaw (1944: 16–17, i.e.
‘impressed cord?’; sherd no. 6 in Layer 4 and sherds 2 and 4 in Layer 3). Additionally,
from Layers 6 and 5 respectively Shaw (1944: 14, Figure 7: 22, 23) described sherds deco-
rated by ‘two parallel rows of oval indentations’ and ‘two parallel rows of indentations
below the rim’ that bear some resemblance to the early PFR-decorated sherds from
Unit 4 of the present excavations (Table 5).
Shaw (1944: 13–14) described his pottery Types B through D as follows. Type B was
described as having ‘a finer, better-fired paste than in [Type] A … practically no small
punctate ornament … decorations by grooves, comb or thumb-nail; outward curving
rims sometimes with overhang, sometimes a wide flattish flange; one flat base’, with
these found mostly in Layer 2, Type C was ‘heavy in type, usually black or grey,
smooth, shiny surface, inner surface usually smooth; commonly flanges below the rim;
wide, usually flat sharply everted rims, and decoration of shallow grooves parallel to
rim’, while Type D had ‘wide curving everted rims’ and was ‘a lighter type of pottery
than C, light brownish in colour, inner surface sometimes deeply pitted and scoured
from the process of manufacture; decorated by a series of grooved lines, fairly deep and
narrow, arranged in a series of scallops below the rim’. Types C-D are apparently reminis-
cent of modern local Akan pottery i.e. ‘modern Ashanti’ and ‘Kwahu’ pots and decorative
motifs and were limited to Layer 1 (Shaw 1944: 14). Pottery types B-D display some simi-
larities to the pottery from Layers 2–4 of the 2008–2011 excavation, particularly in their
diversity of everted rim forms, the prominence of channelling, rigid-comb and incised
motifs and the presence of scalloped or wavy channelling (Figures 15–16; Table 5). The
present rim typology (Figure 9) encompasses most of the types illustrated types by
Shaw (1944: 15–27, excluding unique examples, e.g. Figures 11:4 and 12:7). Nevertheless,
Shaw’s (1944) description understates the range and variety of the assemblage’s motifs and
the tools used to execute them (Figure 8; Table 5), as well as of its rim types (Figure 9;
Table 15).
The most significant divergence from Shaw’s (1944) interpretation is based on the
nature and origin of the quartz assemblage due to the hitherto undocumented presence
of quartz pebbles and fragments interbedded within the Upper Formation sandstone.
Shaw’s (1944: 4–10) description and typology formed a necessary guide during repeated
assemblage sorting, but most of the types that he defined could not be corroborated. As
previously discussed, the lithic assemblage formation was a product of both natural pro-
cesses (e.g. disintegration of the Upper Formation) and human activities (e.g. trampling,
tool manufacture, bipolar reduction). In both Shaw’s study and this one, blade(let)s and
geometric artefacts are common, but the 2008–2011 assemblage yielded few points and
no (certain) burins. Shaw (1944: 6–10) noted ‘no true scrapers’ and despite identifying
‘flakes and cores of chert and jasper’ found no implements manufactured from these
materials. The 2008–2011 assemblage produced only a single quartz sidescraper and a
mudstone end-/sidescraper (Figure 6; Tables 4 and 10). Items resembling the ‘discs’ ident-
ified by Shaw (1944: 6) were frequently encountered during the excavation and subsequent
lithic analysis, although they appear all to have been flakes (0.5–2.0 cm in maximum size)
484 D. J. WATSON
with variable lateral trimming that more likely results from trampling than from any delib-
erate manufacture.
The non-local lithic materials described by Shaw (1944) are generally similar to those
detailed here, demonstrating exploitation of both Birimian and Voltaian sources (green-
stone and mudstone, respectively). Notable differences include the presence in the
2008–2011 assemblage of ochre/haematite, which is not mentioned by Shaw (1944).
The quartzites and ‘jasperoids’ sourced by Shaw (1944: 12) to the ‘Akwapimian’ Moun-
tains (Togo Formation; though the latter may also be found in the contiguous Buem For-
mation; Osae et al. 2006: 86–87) suggest wider acquisition networks, with the nearest
potential sources ≤100 km south and east of the site (Figure 1). The ceramics from Bosum-
pra were probably produced from locally available clays, perhaps using deposits suitable
for pottery manufacture situated near Mpraeso-Obo (Figure 1; Nkansa-Kyeremateng
2000: 25). It must be stressed, however, that no sourcing studies have yet been undertaken
on any of the material from Bosumpra Cave.
Unlike the situation with the finds made by Shaw (1944), the material from Smith’s
(1975) re-excavation of Bosumpra Cave is still held at the Department of Archaeology
and Heritage Studies, University of Ghana, although some artefact loss has occurred
during storage. The basic raw materials present in Smith’s (1965) assemblage are again
of Birimian and Voltaian derivation, with quartz, mudstone, greenstone and pottery
assemblages (Tables 18–19) similar to those previously described. They include quartz
and mudstone cores and retouched implements (Figures 5 and 6) and the rough-out of
a celt that bears possible use-wear polish (Figure 7), something that suggests that type
RO2 was either an unpolished finished form or merely a convenient tool. Perhaps the
most intriguing find is the single large sherd decorated with a twisted cord roulette
(TCR; Figure 8.9) from Smith’s 0.9–1 m spit, which yielded the oft-cited date of 5370 ±
100 BP (N-1805; Tables 1 and 19). Regrettably, the lack of published stratigraphic associ-
ations prevents any confident correlation being made between Smith’s (1975) radiocarbon
dates and either Shaw’s (1944) stratigraphy or the present chronostratigraphic framework
(Table 1).
12,500 years in Bosumpra Cave: discussion and comparisons

Layer 1 (Horizons 1–8) — eleventh millennium cal. BC to c. 500 cal. BC, the Late
Stone Age
The radiocarbon chronology now available for the site (Table 1) indicates that Bosumpra
was occupied from at least the mid-eleventh millennium cal. BC as both a shelter and
workshop. In Sub-Sahelian West Africa the terminal Pleistocene/early Holocene is a
poorly documented period (Casey 2013; Cornelissen 2013). The few sites known are acera-
mic and lack ground stone tools, although non-geometric quartz microliths are found at
the widely dispersed sites of Bingerville Highway, Ivory Coast (road-cutting; 14,715–
12,346 cal. BC; Chenorkian 1983), and Shum Laka rockshelter, Cameroon (from
∼40,000 cal. BC, with a macrolithic industry appearing c. 6000 cal. BC; Lavachery 2001;
Cornelissen 2003), while quartz geometrics have been recovered from Iwo Eleru rockshel-
ter in Nigeria (11,676–10,634 cal. BC; Shaw and Daniels 1984) and the inconclusively
dated Rim I open-air site in Burkina Faso (∼10,000–3000 BP; Andah 1978; Figure 19).
Table 18. Bosumpra Cave: lithic material from Smith’s (1975) excavation as examined and tabulated by Derek Watson. Frequencies are expressed as % of each
assemblage total.
Spit/Depth
0–10cm 20–30cm 30–40cm 40–60cm 60–70cm 70–80cm 80–90cm 90–100cm 100–110cm Totals
Material Description ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%)
Greenstone chips 1 (13) 1 (13)
flakes 2 (25) 3 (38) 1 (13) 6 (75)
rough-out (RO2) 1 (13) 1 (13)
Greenstone Totals 0 0 0 0 0 2 (25) 0 4 (50) 2 (25) 8 (100)
Heamatite Totals 0 0 0 0 1 (20) 1 (20) 0 3 (60) 0 5 (100)
Quartz Bipolar Core 2 (0.02) 2 (0.02) 4 (0.05)

Bipolar flakes (?) 2 (0.02) 2 (0.02) 2 (0.02) 6 (0.07)
Bladelet 4 (0.05) 4 (0.05)
Blades 2 (0.02) 4 (0.05) 10 (0.12) 10 (0.12) 26 (0.31)
Chips 22 (0.26) 14 (0.17) 24 (0.29) 478 (5.68) 256 (3.04) 3144 (37.34) 470 (5.58) 4408 (52.35)
Chunks 16 (0.19) 38 (0.45) 148 (1.76) 30 (0.36) 232 (2.76)
Flakes 16 (0.19) 16 (0.19) 19 (0.23) 100 (1.19) 514 (6.10) 572 (6.79) 2166 (25.72) 316 (3.75) 3716 (44.13)
Pebbles 4 (0.05) 2 (0.02) 6 (0.07)
Pebbles (broken) 4 (0.05) 2 (0.02) 2 (0.02) 8 (0.10) 16 (0.19)

Trapeze 2 (0.02) 2 (0.02)
Quartz Totals 4 (0.05) 38 (0.45) 34 (0.40) 47 (0.56) 100 (1.19) 1016 (12.07) 892 (10.59) 5464 (64.89) 828 (9.83) 8420 (100)
Siliceous Mudstone Backed Blade 3 (3.5) 3 (3.5)

Retouched piece (Point?) 1 (1.2) 1 (1.2)
Bipolar Core 2 (2.4) 2 (2.4)
Blades 2 (2.4) 2 (2.4)
Blades 6 (7.1) 6 (7.1)
Chips 24 (28.2) 2 (2.4) 26 (30.6)
Chunks 4 (4.7) 4 (4.7)
Flakes 4 (4.7) 4 (4.7) 10 (11.8) 8 (9.4) 13 (15.3) 39 (45.9)
Pebbles (broken) 2 (2.4) 2 (2.4)
Siliceous Mudstone Totals 0 0 0 0 4 (4.7) 6 (7.1) 10 (11.8) 46 (54.1) 19 (22.4) 85 (100)
Sandstone Hammertone 4 (100) 4 (100)

Sandstone Totals 0 4 (100) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 (100)
Quartz (cortex) Absent 2 (0.0) 19 (0.2) 17 (0.2) 27 (0.3) 50 (0.6) (358.0) (4.2) 427 (5.1) 1448 (17.2) 375 (4.5) 2723 (32.3)
Present 2 (0.0) 19 (0.2) 17 (0.2) 20 (0.2) 50 (0.6) (658.0) (7.8) 465 (5.5) 4016 (47.7) 453 (5.4) 5700 (67.7)
Total Quartz with Cortex 4 (0.0) 38 (0.5) 34 (0.4) 47 (0.6) 100 (1.2) (1016.0) (12.1) 892 (10.6) 5464 (64.9) 828 (9.8) 8424 (100)
Siliceous Mudstone (cortex) Absent 2 (2.4) 3 (3.5) 5 (5.9) 21 (24.7) 9 (10.6) 40 (47.1)
Present 2 (2.4) 3 (3.5) 5 (5.9) 25 (29.4) 10 (11.8) 45 (52.9)
Total SilMS with Cortex 4 (4.7) 6 (7.1) 10 (11.8) 46 (54.1) 19 (22.4) 85 (100)
485
486
D. J. WATSON
Table 19. Bosumpra Cave: pottery assemblage from Smith’s (1975) excavation as examined and tabulated by Derek Watson. Frequencies are expressed as % of the
assemblage total. PF peigne fileté, SC stamped comb. Rim types (spit/depth, type, diameter(cm)): 70–80 cm, T3B, 39; 70–80 cm, SS, 20; 80–90 cm, T3A, ?; 80–90 cm,
T1B, ?; 80–90 cm, T7, 22; 90–100 cm, SR1, ?; 90–100 cm, T2A, 21.
Surface
Spit/Depth (cm) Finds 0 to 10 10 to 20 20 to 30 30 to 40 40 to 60 60 to 70 70 to 80 80 to 90 90 to 100 Total
Motifs ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) ♯ (%) 100 to 110 ♯ (%)
channeling 2 (1.1) 1 (0.6) 0 3 (1.7)
multi channeling 3 (1.7) 1 (0.6) 1 (0.6) 0 5 (2.9)
dragged comb 1 (0.6) 0 1 (0.6)
rocked comb 1 (0.6) 4 (2.3) 1 (0.6) 1 (0.6) 0 7 (4.0)
stamped comb 1 (0.6) 3 (1.7) 0 4 (2.3)
rocked comb? 1 (0.6) 2 (1.1) 1 (0.6) 0 4 (2.3)
impressed PF or SC 1 (0.6) 0 1 (0.6)
apɔtɔyewa 1 (0.6) 0 1 (0.6)
incision 1 (0.6) 1 (0.6) 1 (0.6) 0 3 (1.7)
single V-shaped ridge 1 1 (0.6) 0 2 (1.1)
twisted cord roulette 1 (0.6) 0 1 (0.6)
indeterminate 1 (0.6) 1 (0.6) 1 (0.6) 2 (1.1) 1 (0.6) 0 6 (3.4)
undecorated 10 (5.7) 5 (2.9) 13 (7.4) 8 (4.6) 27 (15.4) 34 (19.4) 14 (8.0) 19 (10.9) 4 (2.3) 3 (1.7) 0 137 (78.3)
Total 13 (7.4) 10 (5.7) 16 (9.1) 8 (4.6) 29 (16.6) 40 (22.9) 17 (9.7) 26 (14.9) 10 (5.7) 6 (3.4) Aceramic 175 (100)
The earliest known human burial in the region is from Iwo Eleru and is associated with the
date previously cited, although recent uranium-series dating suggests that it may be older
and morphological re-analysis of its cranium may indicate a deep population substructure
in Africa at this time that was markedly different from succeeding populations (Allsworth-
Jones et al. 2010; Harvati et al. 2011).
The conventional view of the southern West African LSA is based on limited data
(MacDonald and Allsworth-Jones 1994: 97–98; Casey 2005: 232–233) and is often subdi-
vided according to Shaw’s (1985) ‘Aceramic’/‘Ceramic’ phases, variably associated with
geometric/non-geometric microliths and macrolithic elements (e.g. celts). This transition
to a ‘Ceramic’ phase is generally dated to the later fifth millennium cal. BC onwards, for
example at Korounkorokalé, Mali (MacDonald 1997), Rim II, Burkina Faso (Andah 1978),
Iwo Eleru (Shaw and Daniels 1984), Afikpo (Andah and Anozie 1980), Dutzen Kongba
(York 1978), Kariya Wuro (Allsworth-Jones 2015) and Rop (Eyo 1972), Nigeria, and
Yengema Cave (Coon 1968), Sierra Leone (Figure 19). It is generally assumed that the
gradual spread and/or development of this technology came from the West African
savanna or still further north. South of Bosumpra, early ceramic sites in Ghana are few
and problematic (Watson 2008: 141), dating from the late sixth to fifth millennia cal.
BC at K6 (Stahl 1994: 71) and Kpone (Nygaard and Talbot 1984: 34). Early ceramics
found across the Sahara and Northeast Africa date from the tenth millennium cal. BC
(Close 1995; Jesse 2010). At the savanna site of Ounjougou in Mali (HA1 Formation,
Figure 19. Aceramic/early ceramic and other late Pleistocene and early to mid-Holocene African sites
mentioned in the text. 1 Kamabai; 2 Yengema Cave; 3 Bingerville Highway; 4 Bosumpra Cave; 5 Kpone;
6 K6; 7 Iwo Eleru; 8 Afikpo and Ezi-Ukwu; 9 Shum Laka, Mbi Crater, Fiye Nkwi and Abeke; 10 Dutsen
Kongba and Rop; 11 Kariya Wuro; 12 Konduga; 13 Rim; 14 Ounjougou; 15 Nyamanko; 16 Korounkor-
okalé; 17 Fanfannyégèné; 18 Hassi el-Abiod sites; 19 Amekni; 20 Tagalagal; 21 Ishango 11; 22
Matupi Cave; 23 Early Khartoum sites. Thick dashed line indicate palaeochannels, the abbreviations
BV and WV the Black Volta and White Volta Rivers and the abbreviation LV Lake Volta.
488 D. J. WATSON
Unit A, Ravin de la Mouche) a terminus ante quem date of c. 9400 cal. BC was established
for the emergence of pottery associated with bifacial projectile points and non-geometric
microliths (Huysecom et al. 2009). The nearby sites of HA3 and Ravin du Hibou yielded
further early pottery dating to the eighth/ninth millennia cal. BC (Huysecom et al. 2004,
2009). Further south, early ceramics have been found at Shum Laka, Cameroon (Lavach-
ery 2001), and at Konduga (Wotzka and Goedicke 2001) in northern Nigeria, dating to the
seventh and sixth millennia cal. BC respectively. The emergence of pottery in Sub-Saharan
West Africa has gradually been extending further back in time, with some of the earliest
examples now coming potentially from Bosumpra where stratigraphic and chronological
data indicate that geometric microliths, partially polished celts and ceramics formed the
basis of a distinctive adaptation on the Kwahu Plateau from the tenth millennium cal
BC. Moreover, evidence from Bosumpra and Ounjougou demonstrates a persistent tech-
nological divide in bifacial technology (points/celts) from at least that time, with bifacial
projectile points, which are characteristic of many LSA Saharan/Sahelian assemblages
(Kouti and Huysecom 2007), apparently absent from the West African savanna-forest
and forest until the advent of the Kintampo Tradition c. 2100–1400 cal. BC (Watson
2010).
The early tenth-millennium cal. BC pottery from Bosumpra is solidly manufactured
and decorated with channelling and impressed peigne fileté rigide (PFR; Figure 8.1–3).
Cord-wrapped implements (CWI; impressed, rouletted and/or rocked) decorate many
of the earliest Saharan ceramic assemblages dating from the tenth to the eighth millennia
cal. BC (MacDonald and Manning 2010: 147–148). For example, although various other
tools and motifs were also utilised, CWI decorated sherds were found at Tagalagal, (‘peigne
fileté souplé/roulé’; Roset 1983: 125, Figure 7), Amekni, (‘peigne fileté souplé’; Camps and
Camps 1968: 128–129, 134–135, 138, Photographs 3 and 4), Hassi el Abiod (‘peigne fileté
souplé et rigide’; Commelin 1983) and Ravin du Hibou, Ounjougou (Huysecom et al. 2004:
584, Figure 4.5), and may have also been common in Early Khartoum assemblages (Mac-
Donald and Manning 2010: 147–148; e.g. Arkell 1949: 87, plate 76). To the south, ‘rigid
combs’ were often used to decorate early ceramics at sites such as Dutsen Kongba
(York 1978) and Iwo Eleru (Shaw and Daniels 1984), although grooving (i.e. channelled
décors) was also common (Shaw 1978/1979). In Ghana, excluding Bosumpra, peigne
fileté-based décors have only been identified in Kintampo Tradition pottery assemblages
(Watson 2005, 2010). The early usage of CWI underlines the widespread importance of
cordage and/or a remarkable degree of interaction and demographic movement within
the vast area of West Africa and the Nile Valley during the early Holocene. Early examples
of cord décor at Bosumpra also include peigne fileté from Layer 1, Horizon 3 (4300–550
cal. BC; Figure 8.9), the cord-decorated sherds from Shaw’s (1944) Layers 3–4 and, poten-
tially, his Layers 5–6, and the twisted cord roulette (TCR) from Smith’s (1975) re-exca-
vation. The Layer 1, Horizon 5 PFR (cord-wrapped roulette) from Bosumpra appears
to be among the earliest found in Africa, whereas the TCR (5370 ± 100 BP; Table 1) pre-
dates the earliest rouletted ceramics found in the Sahel (4121 ± 31 BP & 3687 ± 30 BP
(2879–2503 cal. BC and 2201–1946 cal. BC; Arazi and Manning 2010: 136), the region
where this type of decoration supposedly originated (Livingstone Smith 2007).
Bosumpra differs in both site type and potential palaeoenvironmental context from the
predominantly open-air early ceramic sites of the Sahara/Sahel and the Nile Valley (Figure
19) where pottery technology emerged during the climatic amelioration of the Pleistocene-
Holocene transition. The African Humid Period c. 14,800–5500 cal. BP (deMenocal et al.
2000) was characterised by the ‘greening of the Sahara’ (Brooks et al. 2005: 256–257), the
formation of lakes and rivers (many of them now palaeochannels, such as the Tilemsi
Valley and the Vallée de l’Azawagh) and the spread of savanna and woodland across a pre-
viously arid zone (Nelson et al. 2002: 97–99; Huysecom et al. 2009: 914–915). In southern
West Africa, well-dated palaeoenvironmental records are few and variable, but generally
indicate the onset of wet conditions and expansion of forest vegetation from the fif-
teenth/fourteenth millennia BP (Pastouret et al. 1978; Dupont and Weinelt 1996; Maley
and Brenac 1998; Marret et al. 2001; Lézine et al. 2005). Forest vegetation persisted
even during glacial stages, extending some 10–12° north during the early Holocene,
with continuous rain forest coverage across the Dahomey Gap (Rossignol-Strick and
Duzer 1979; Lézine 1991; Dupont and Weinelt 1996; Jahns et al. 1998; Dupont et al. 2000).
The closest source of palaeoenvironmental data to Bosumpra is Lake Bosumtwi (Figure
20), a rain-fed, closed-basin lake approximately 80 km to the southwest of the site situated
in a meteorite impact crater with maximum and minimum elevations of approximately
460 and 150 m a.s.l. (Koeberl et al. 1998; Koeberl and Reimold 2005). Research by Shana-
han et al. (2006: 297–298) indicates a dramatic rise in the lake’s level at 14,500 cal. BP, with
the deepest lake conditions established between 11,600 and 8800 cal. BP when it over-
flowed the crater. The initial rise in the lake’s level was synchronous with the abrupt north-
ward movement of the African Monsoon at the end of the Younger Dryas and the onset of
increased precipitation (Talbot et al. 2007). Vegetation reconstructions based on pollen
and grass charcoal from Lake Bosumtwi (Talbot et al. 1984; Maley 1991; Shanahan
et al. 2006) reveal grassland-dominated vegetation prior to c. 9500 cal. BP with a sub-
sequent spread of (rain)forest, at least within the lake’s catchment area. According to Sha-
nahan et al. (2006) deep lake conditions continued at Bosumtwi until c. 3200 cal. BP (after
Russell et al. 2003), but were then followed by a precipitous decline in the lake’s level. In
the later part of this phase, at least, prevailing ecological conditions probably paralleled
those found within modern Ghana i.e. drier wooded savanna in the north with more
humid forested area(s) to the south (D’Andrea and Casey 2002). Bosumtwi’s eventual
regression approximates radiocarbon determinations for the formation of the Dahomey
Gap around 4500–3400 cal. BP (Salzmann and Hoelzmann 2005).
The eventual transformation from grassland to forest vegetation recorded at Lake
Bosumtwi may have been mirrored on the Kwahu Plateau and the Ashanti Uplands,
although parts of southern Ghana were probably forested during the terminal Pleistocene
hyperarid phase, with the uplands and the plateau perhaps providing a refuge for forest
vegetation (Maley 1989; Nichol 1999). Indeed, high concentrations of incense tree endo-
carps in Bosumpra Layer 1 suggest the existence of open, rather than closed, canopy forest
conditions (Oas et al. 2015) around the site. Consequently, the origins and/or adoption of
pottery were probably more complicated and diverse than existing models posit. Such
models argue that this technology arose to facilitate exploitation of fish and/or wild
cereals in areas contiguous to the Niger and Nile Rivers (e.g. Haaland 1992, 1995, 2007;
Huysecom et al. 2009). Alternatively, Bosumpra’s location and palaeoenvironmental
context imply a development of pottery in southern West Africa based on the exploitation
of alternative resource(s), such as yams. The initial rarity of pottery at Bosumpra might
also signify a non-alignment with any potential utilitarian functions and/or its presence
as a prestige-based technology (Arnold 1985; Hayden 1995; Rice 1999). On the other
490 D. J. WATSON
Figure 20. Earthworks, ‘Akan’ and other archaeological sites from southern Ghana mentioned in the
text. Names in capital letters are political regions within modern Ghana and those in bold are the
general area of historical ‘states’, although the full extent of the Asante Empire is not illustrated.
hand, pottery could potentially have fulfilled both functions simultaneously, with its initial
infrequency simply adumbrating the gradual adoption of this technological innovation.
Instead of being from the Sahara, pottery may have diffused north from Sub-Saharan
West Africa (Huysecom et al. 2009: 915) via early demographic movements and/or
contact facilitated by rivers such as the Volta, the Nile, the Niger and their tributaries.
It is equally probable that multiple centres of ceramic innovation existed across Africa
from the West African forests to the Nile Valley (Close 1995).
Clarification of the late Pleistocene/early to mid-Holocene ecology of southern Ghana
is necessary as this has important ramifications for debates concerning the feasibility of
hunting and gathering in tropical (rain)forests, lithic technologies, environmental associ-
ations and the resources that people exploited (Shaw 1985; Headland 1987; Bailey et al.
1989; Bailey and Headland 1991; MacDonald and Allsworth-Jones 1994; Mercader and
Brooks 2001; Cornelissen 2002; Mercader 2002a, 2002b; Casey 2003). In terms of stone
artefacts, the assemblage from Bosumpra differs from many of those known from
Central Africa in its predominance of geometric microliths (and celts) and in its
unusual degree of standardisation; late Pleistocene/early Holocene sites or occupations

with microlithic industries, such as at those at Ishango 11 and Matupi Cave in the far
east of Congo-Kinshasa (Figure 19), tend to be technologically unstandardised and
non-geometric (Shaw and Daniels 1984; Lavachery 2001; Mercader and Brooks 2001; Cor-
nelissen 2003). At the border of West and Central Africa, stone artefacts appear to have
increased in size over time with the appearance of a macrolithic industry (e.g. bifacial
tools, waisted axes) at Shum Laka dating from c. 6000 cal. BC in association with non-geo-
metric microliths (Lavachery 2001). This macrolithic trend (MacDonald and Allsworth-
Jones 1994) continues until around the second millennium BC and has parallels at the
sites of Fiye Nkwi, Mbi Crater (Asombang 1988) and Abeke (de Maret et al. 1987) in
Cameroon and Ezi-Ukwu Ukpa (Hartle 1980) in Nigeria (Figure 19). In West Africa,
Iwo Eleru provides the nearest analogue for Bosumpra, although infrequent geometric
microliths decline there over time to be replaced by more robust core tools in an area
that is suggested to have been situated within dry savanna until the forest expanded c.
5000 BC (Shaw and Daniels 1984). Environmental reconstructions in western/central
Africa indicate that quartz-based microlithic industries were variably associated with
savannas and (rain)forests, demonstrating no prerequisite for specialised toolkits to
exploit or settle in either environment (Mercader and Brooks 2001; Cornelissen 2003).
As shown above, Bosumpra was occupied by people utilising (geometric) microliths
and bifacial macroliths from the late eleventh millennium cal. BC until the seventeenth
century cal. AD within a (rain)forest environment and, potentially, contiguous ecotones
(Figure 2).
Bosumpra was probably occupied periodically throughout its use-history and likely
formed a component of a wider socio-cultural grouping(s) or forest technocomplex that
existed during the LSA. Given the site’s prominence within the landscape it may have
been a ‘central place’ in a network procuring resources from both lowland and highland
regions and contiguous ecotones. Indeed, all of the non-local materials found at Bosumpra
may have been obtained within a few days walk from the site by direct-procurement
expeditions, although some engagement in exchange remains possible.
The typo-technological attributes of material from Bosumpra are relatively similar
throughout Layer 1, defined here as the ‘Bosumpra LSA facies’ since the distinctive
elements of the assemblage (i.e. celts, pottery and microliths) eventually became
common across the savanna-forests of southern West Africa from at least the mid-Holo-
cene. The chipped stone assemblage and other raw materials exploited (e.g. ochre, green-
stone), and their associated procurement networks, denote long-term behavioural and
technological continuity, suggesting a stable demographic, socio-economic and cultural
foundation that persisted for millennia. Microlithic industries likely mitigated economic
risk and facilitated resource exploitation as they are portable and facilitate the repair
and modification of toolkits used for a variety of purposes, including hunting, craft-
work and the extraction and processing of floral, faunal and other resources (Elston
and Kuhn 2002; Hiscock et al. 2011). Early celts, however, appear in various shapes/
sizes and clearly show diachronic morphometric change with smaller examples increas-
ingly common in the later horizons of Layer 1, signalling perhaps, a variety of utilitarian
(e.g. scraping, wood-splitting or digging), stylistic and/or symbolic purposes (Figures 7, 13
and 18; Table 8). Partially polished celts were found in levels dated to the tenth millennium
cal. BC, but fully polished examples do not occur until at least c. 4300 cal. BC (Horizons 3
492 D. J. WATSON
and 8; see also MacDonald and Allsworth-Jones 1994: 96–100).2 Interestingly, given the
rarity of red-slipped pottery throughout Bosumpra‘s sequence, ochre and haematite
(Tables 10, 17) may have been used for a variety of other purposes including hide preser-
vation (Rifkin 2011), as an adhesive for hafting (composite) tools (Wadley 2005; Lombard
2007) or in rites for the dead, ritualised body painting and social display (Rattray 1927:
150; Marshall 1976; Wadley 1997; Watts 2002).
The best-studied LSA complex in Ghana is the food-producing Kintampo Tradition,
which dates to the late third to mid-second millennia cal. BC (Watson 2010) and includes
sites located in contiguous areas (e.g. the Afram Plains, the forest basin and the Ashanti
Uplands), although none have yet been discovered on the Kwahu Plateau. Diagnostic Kin-
tampo implements such as rasps are absent at Bosumpra, but celts, cord-based pottery
decoration, a single fragmentary disc-like bead and bipolar manufacture are all elements
shared with Kintampo assemblages (Watson 2010). However, the material culture from
Bosumpra is different: the pottery lacks a wide range of motifs and tools (including the
extensive use of peigne fileté); there is a comparatively limited variety of rim types; and
there is an almost exclusive production of a small range of geometric microliths compared
to the greater diversity of Kintampo lithic assemblages. Moreover, the reduction method
used is not indicative of the Kintampo as the latter also utilised freehand knapping tech-
niques (Watson 2010). As for celts, these implements are widely distributed across West
Africa (Shaw 1944; Coon 1968; Atherton 1972; Chenorkian 1983; Shaw and Daniels 1984;
MacDonald 1998; Watson 2010). Kintampo assemblages also frequently include biconi-
cally perforated ‘beads’ and grooved stones,3 although beads are frequently found across
Africa in this period (MacDonald 1998: 83–84). The examples found at Bosumpra
(Table 9) might offer a subtle, and conjectural, indication of limited contact between con-
temporary LSA groups. Nevertheless, the apparent absence, or paucity, of Kintampo
remains on the Kwahu Plateau may denote some form of territorial and/or other
barrier between these populations (for a similar debate centring on the relationship
between Punpun foragers in central-west Ghana and the Kintampo Tradition, see
Watson 2010: 163–164). If this was so, it does not need to have precluded trade or
other forms of interaction, especially as remains of pearl millet and cowpea at Bosumpra
provide the earliest evidence for domesticated plant resources on the Kwahu Plateau and
in the southern forested region of Ghana more widely (Oas et al. 2015: 649).
A conventional description, based on limited data, of the savanna/forest zone(s)
suggests that it was sparsely occupied by small bands of foragers and it often appears
merely peripheral to developments in the Sahara/Sahel. This is a situation exacerbated
by anthropological models (e.g. Bailey et al. 1989) that have portrayed denser forested
environments as impenetrable until the advent of iron working and/or farming. The com-
parative lack of inquiry into the ‘Stone Age’ in Sub-Sahelian West Africa (Casey 2003,
2005) inhibits consideration of the antiquity of human occupation within its forests.
However, the widely dispersed early southern sites of Bingerville, Iwo Eleru, Bosumpra
and Shum Laka (Figure 19) do collectively demonstrate the presence of late Pleistocene
forager populations that survived, and perhaps thrived, in the wooded grasslands and/
or forests that persisted in West Africa during the late Pleistocene hyperarid period.
Indeed, it is now clear that humans have successfully exploited Old World tropical rain-
forests since the late Pleistocene (Barton 2013; Roberts and Petraglia 2015; Roberts et al.
2015) and that in Africa this may date to as early as c. 200 kya (Mercader 2002a, 2002b).
Human recolonisation of northern areas during the early Holocene Climatic Optimum
(Brooks et al. 2005: 256) may have been a consequence of the northward expansion of
broad-based forager groups from coastal refugia (MacDonald 1997: 189–193), although
some form of transient occupation by arid-adapted forager groups at the margins of the
hyperarid period also remains possible (Brooks et al. 2004: 37). It is also likely that
forager populations were not all genetically and/or culturally isolated and that they may
have interacted across extensive communication networks connecting not only the
southern savannas and forests, but also the northern grasslands, particularly along suitable
rivers such as the Volta and the Niger and their respective catchments. Moreover, the coe-
taneous occupation of Bosumpra in southern Ghana and Ounjougou in Mali at the Pleis-
tocene-Holocene transition demonstrates the considerable geographical distribution and
adaptive capacities of early West African foragers until the arrival of food-production
in the southern savanna-forests during the late third millennium cal. BC and the eventual
disappearance of forager groups within the last two millennia (MacDonald 1997: 193–196;
Watson 2005: 5).
Layer 2 — thirteenth to seventeenth centuries cal. AD, the Atetefo

The hiatus in radiocarbon dates at Bosumpra between the determinations from terminal
Layer 1 and the middle of Layer 2 (c. 500 cal. BC to cal. AD 1300; Table 1) spans a poorly
documented period of Ghanaian archaeology extending from the obscure origin and
development of iron metallurgy between c. 500 BC and AD 500 to the emergence of
complex societies in the first and early second millennia AD (Stahl 1994, 2004; Chouin
and DeCorse 2010). During this period climate and floral communities across West/
Central Africa fluctuated, sometimes drastically, particularly in the extent of (rain)forest,
and these fluctuations were accompanied by the expansion of farming communities
(Vincens et al. 1999; Fairhead and Leach 2002; Salzmann and Hoelzmann 2005; Bonnefille
2007; Ngomanda et al. 2009; Shanahan et al. 2009). After the c. 3200 cal. BP Lake
Bosumtwi regression environmental conditions changed with the ‘spread of grassland at
the expense of closed-canopy forest’ (unpublished data from Breuning and Talbot
quoted by Russell et al. 2003: 139) and progressive drying from c. 2660 cal. BP, connected
to long-term oscillations in the West African Monsoon, with resultant alternating wet/dry
conditions and ‘multi-century droughts’ (Shanahan et al. 2009: 378). The most recent
multi-century droughts occurred between AD 1400 and 1750 with wetter conditions
both before this period and from ∼1800 to the present (Shanahan et al. 2009). During
this period at Bosumpra we witness declining non-local lithic raw materials and quartz
tools, accompanied by scanty evidence for metallurgy. Continuity with the artefacts
from Layer 1 is evident in the lithic industry (i.e. in geometric microliths and bipolar
reduction), the presence of celts and aspects of the ceramic repertoire, although some
clear changes are evident in vessel and rim morphology, decorative motifs and fashioning
methods. It is tempting to view such technological and stylistic continuities as indicative of
demographic stability, but the limited resolution of the Layer 2 palimpsest and the paucity
of comparative data means that this is largely conjectural.
Despite use of the term ‘Iron Age’4 it is obvious from the Bosumpra sequence that stone
tools (microliths and celts) remained a vital component in local technologies. Indeed, the
artefacts and technologies employed show no sign of rupture between the LSA and the
494 D. J. WATSON
Iron Age, excluding the apparently late appearance of metallurgy within the sequence.
Celts continue to be found at contemporary sites (Kiyaga-Mulindwa 1978: 97, 1982: 67;
Chouin 2009: 660), but it is uncertain if they were being produced on-site. It should be
underlined that the persistence of stone tool technology at Bosumpra is not unique. Rela-
tively recent chipped stone assemblages have also been discovered at other Iron Age sites
in southern Ghana (Figure 20), including Coconut Grove (c. AD 500–900; DeCorse 2005)
on the coast and inland sites such as Akrokrowa (c. AD 800/900–1500; Chouin 2009;
Chouin and DeCorse 2010) and Dawu (where most were concentrated below Horizon
B, which is estimated to predate the early seventeenth century; Shaw 1961; see also Brem-
pong 1987; Sutton 1992). Similar occurrences have been found across West Africa (Figure
19) at sites dated to between AD 500 and 1400, for example at Kamabai (Atherton 1972),
Kariya Wuro (Allsworth-Jones 2015), Korounkorokalé (MacDonald 1997), Nyamanko
(Raimbault and Sanogo 1991) and, possibly, Fanfannyégèné (Huysecom 1990). Excluding
the latter two sites, chipped stone/microlithic assemblages were contemporaneous with
metallurgical debris, though this phenomenon (MacDonald 1997: 193–194) is not
widely acknowledged in West Africa, even though the co-existence of iron and stone is
well documented in East Africa (Phillipson 1977). The persistence of stone technology
at Bosumpra demonstrates its local importance as it continued alongside metallurgy to
form part of a repertoire of technical knowledge transmitted across generations until
the seventeenth century or shortly thereafter.
According to Chouin (2009: 44–45), Shaw’s (1944: 12–13) Type B pottery is similar to
that commonly found throughout the forest zone of Ghana. Ceramics from this period
found at coastal sites are described as Late Iron Age by DeCorse (2001: 116; see also
Kiyaga-Mulindwa 1978, 1982; Bellis 1987, Boachie-Ansah 2010: 26–28) and are typically
quartz-tempered with ‘gritty worn surfaces [that are] … frequently eroded and friable’ and
‘yellowish red to yellowish brown in colour, without cores’, comprising ‘thin walled’
vessels with forms including ‘jars, bowls and globular pots’ ‘fabricated by pinching and
moulding’; Chouin (2009: 673) notes that rims were often added separately to the pre-
viously prepared main vessel body. ‘Rims and lip forms’ include ‘flanged everted rims’
and decoration consists primarily of ‘simple incising or stamping on the rims and
necks … [and] bands of impressed wavy lines’ with most sherds undecorated (DeCorse
2001: 116). Contemporary ceramic assemblages from forested zone sites have been
given various designations including Nyame Akuma ware (Wild 1937) and ‘Earthworks
ware’ (Kiyaga-Mulindwa 1978) or, more recently, Atetefo ware (Wilks 2005: 56). The
last of these terms is based on Wild’s (1937) documentation of local informants’ descrip-
tion of this ‘older’ pottery type as belonging to the ‘Atetefu, the “old, old people”’. Atetefo
ware is supposedly widely distributed at pre-Atlantic period sites (Chouin 2009: 531)
dating from the mid-first to the mid-second millennia AD along the coast (ninth to seven-
teenth centuries between Elmina and Brenu-Akyinim; DeCorse 2001: 116–118, 2005: 43–
52), its hinterland (fifth to fifteenth centuries, e.g. Eguafo; Cook and Spiers 2004: 21) and
north into the forest basin of Ghana (e.g. from the ninth century at Asantemanso in the so-
called Asante heartland to its disappearance during the mid-sixteenth century in the Birim
Valley; Rattray 1927: 295–300; Kiyaga-Mulindwa 1978; Shinnie and Shinnie 1995; Shinnie
2005; see also Bellis 1987; Vivian 1990, 1992). This ware is considered to be ancestral to the
pottery of the historic period (i.e. Akan ware; Wilks 2005: 56), which supplanted it around
AD 1500–1600 (Bellis 1987: 47–48). This ceramic debate, including its relation to the
earthwork sites discussed below, either implicitly or otherwise concerns the ethnogenesis
of the Akan-speaking peoples and has become pivotal in reconstructing the history and
archaeology of the forests of southern Ghana during the ‘pre-Atlantic’ and ‘Atlantic’
periods, the divide between which is set in 1471 with the arrival of the Portuguese.
Older literature concerning the origin(s) of the Akan is entirely speculative, positing
migration either en masse or in waves from the Empire of Ghana, Egypt, Akkad or
Ethiopia in the mid-first millennium BC or early second millennium AD (e.g. Boahen
1966a, 1966b), or merely from some hypothetical ‘homeland’ north of the forested
zone (Boahen 1966a: 58–59; Ward 1966: 45; Dickson 1969: 19; Keteku 1981: 18–26).
Prior to the Akan’s ‘arrival’ in the fifteenth century the Guan supposedly occupied
most of the Volta Basin and contiguous areas extending to the coast, including the
Kwahu Plateau, only to be displaced or assimilated by the incomers (Kwamena-Poh
1966: 12; Ward 1966: 39, 45; Dickson 1969: 18, 20; Terray 1995: 126). Despite the
lack of corroborating evidence, the contemporary attenuated settlement patterns of
Guan-speaking populations in Ghana (e.g. Ward 1966: 39; Dickson 1969: 19) may be
consistent with the status accorded them in oral histories, reflecting the effects of
long-term pressure from other (expansionist/‘invasive’) ethnolinguistic groups. Never-
theless, the Akan are now seen as autochthonous to the southern savanna/forested
zone of Ghana (e.g. Anquandah 1982: 87).
To date, only Wilks’s (1993, 2005) ‘big bang’ model provides a comprehensive hypoth-
esis for an indigenous Akan origin, positing the emergence of complex society and agri-
cultural production during the fifteenth to sixteenth centuries. Further summary of this
model is unnecessary here as it been extensively criticised and archaeological data demon-
strate that food-production was, in fact, practised in the forested zone from the Kintampo
period (Klein 1994a, 1994b, 1996; Chouin and DeCorse 2010; Watson 2010; Chouin 2012)
and that settlements in the Ashanti Region (Figure 20) dating from around AD 800
(at Adansemanso and Asantemanso) developed into substantial towns before the onset
of the Atlantic trade (Vivian 1992: 161–162; Shinnie and Shinnie 1995; Shinnie 2005).
It is assumed that these and similar sites relied on agrarian economies due to their size
as no archaeobotanical studies have yet been undertaken, although the remains of dom-
esticated animals have been recovered from Asantemanso (Gautier and Van Neer 2005:
203–204).
The emergence of ‘Akan’ states in the area may date from as early as the eleventh to
fifteenth centuries (Anquandah 1982: 96; Amenumey 2008: 18, 27–30; Spiers 2012).
Early Portuguese documentary sources (dating from the late fifteenth and sixteenth cen-
turies) indicate that Europeans interacted with hierarchical territorial societies in the
coastal zone, although the ‘nature of these early sociopolitical organizations remains
unclear’ (Chouin and DeCorse 2010: 124). Adanse is often traditionally claimed to have
been the first Akan state (and the first Akan ‘group’ to settle in permanent structures
with its capital at Adansemanso), supposedly being founded in the mid-sixteenth
century (Anquandah 1982: 86; Amenumey 2008: 28–29). Conversely, the oldest Akan
state may have been Bono (with its capital at Bono Manso, where three occupation
phases are documented: I — thirteenth to sixteenth centuries; II — sixteenth to seven-
teenth centuries; and III — late seventeenth/early eighteenth centuries (Calvocoressi
and David 1979: 22; Effah-Gyamfi 1985). The emergence of the first Akan states
remains contentious, especially as use of this term may be ‘anachronistic’, as ‘state
496 D. J. WATSON
structures’, and ‘settled and stable administrative localities and identities’ in the forest zone
may not have emerged until the 18th–19th with the Asante empire (McCaskie 2007: 9).
Indeed, Wilks (1993, 2005) argues that the characteristic political organisation in the
area up to the late seventeenth century was based on territorial ‘estates’ presided over
by ‘big men’.
A current debate in pre-Atlantic West African archaeology concerns the builders of the
distinctive and widely distributed ‘earthworks’ found in the southern Ghanaian forest and
extending into Ivory Coast.5 These are generally elliptical enclosures formed by deep
trenches and raised earthen banks (Chouin 2009: 521–597, 2012; Boachie-Ansah 2010;
Chouin and DeCorse 2010) with one of the largest known examples covering an area of
850×500 m (Davies 1967: 288). Kiyaga-Mulindwa’s (1978, 1982) comprehensive study
of earthworks in the Birim Valley (Figure 20) identified the presence of two stratigraphi-
cally discrete ceramic traditions that he named ‘Earthworks’ and ‘Atwea’ wares. The
former was associated with the earthworks’ builders, while the latter was considered to
be ancestral to the area’s current inhabitants, who claim to be indigenous although they
lack oral traditions regarding the earthworks. In this influential model, the earthworks
are viewed as defensive emplacements built to prevent slave-raiding and were eventually
abandoned due to ethnocide resulting from the Atlantic slave trade in the mid-sixteenth
century, with subsequent resettlement by the Atweafo (a Twi-speaking group) around
1700, thus explaining the apparent abrupt shift in ceramic style, and the existence of
two pottery traditions at these and other earthwork sites. Recent research (Chouin and
DeCorse 2010) suggests, however, that these earthwork sites were part of a larger pre-
Atlantic socio-political complex within the forested zone. Radiocarbon determinations
from Akrokrowa indicate that its construction began as early as the eighth century AD
with abandonment by the mid-fourteenth century, possibly as a result of bubonic
plague and widespread depopulation of the forested zone (Chouin and DeCorse 2010;
see also Posnansky 1987). Radiocarbon dates from excavation of an earthwork site at
Asaman (Boachie-Ansah 2014: 34–37) appear to corroborate a mid-first-millennium
AD date for the construction of some of these sites.
The stratigraphic succession of Atetefo and Akan wares at sites6 within southern Ghana
has led to suggestions of continuity between the makers of these wares (e.g. Davies 1961,
1967; Bellis 1987). Indeed, Boachie-Ansah (2010) argues for cultural continuity based on
similarities in elements of the pottery decoration, such as multiple and single incisions/
grooves, comb-stamp and punctation, rim-lip notches and bosses. As noted by Davies
(1967: 290), the distribution of many ‘early Akan’ sites is proximal to the area associated
in Akan oral traditions with the origin of this people, i.e. a heartland near the confluence of
the Rivers Pra and Ofin (Figure 20; Amenumey 2008: 16). Nevertheless, the relationship
between the ‘earthwork settlements and the later centralized political centres such as
Kumasi’ remains entirely unknown, as does the function(s) of these sites (Ogundiran
2013: 861).
The radiocarbon dates from Bosumpra Cave’s Layer 2 (Table 1) span much of this
period of transition and, as the shelter is situated at the eastern edge of the supposed tra-
ditional heartland (120 km northeast of the rivers’ confluence), it is not unreasonable to
suggest that the Kwahu Plateau either initially or eventually formed part of the area of
influence or settlement of those manufacturing Atetefo ware. Chouin (2009: 44) charac-
terises Shaw’s (1944: 12–13) Type B pottery as Atetefo ware, yet Shaw (1944: 14)
observed that only a single example of this pottery resembled the ‘Pre-Akan pottery’
then known from the forest basin area. Atetefo ware is generally described as comprising
thin-walled globular vessels, with coarse fabrics, rare or no burnishing and quartz
inclusions, often accompanied by flanged everted rims, appliqué, ridging, stamped
(including comb), incised, and rouletted decoration, rim-lip notches and scalloping
and the attachment of coil-built rims (Bellis 1976, 1987; Kiyaga-Mulindwa 1982;
Chouin 2009: 671–699, 784–796; Boachie-Ansah 2010: 25–33, 2012: 28–33).7 Bosumpra
rim forms resemble some of those described by Chouin (2009: 784–796) from Akrok-
rowa, Asaba and Abirpow. By way of example, Bosumpra Types T2B and T3A, T4A
approximate to Chouin’s Types 62 and 57, 56, although most of the rims are morpho-
logically dissimilar (Figure 9; Table 15). In terms of decoration, incision and grooving
are present at both Bosumpra and Chouin’s (2009: 694) sites, but frequent rigid-comb
décors (stamped/rocked) found in Layer 2 are either entirely absent or simply not dif-
ferentiated by Chouin. Comparison with Atetefo ware from the Birim Valley (Kiyaga-
Mulindwa 1982: Figure 1: a-k; Figure 2) displays even greater dissimilarity. The charac-
teristic ‘ornate’ rim forms and ‘complex decorative conventions’ (Davies 1967: 296;
Kiyaga-Mulindwa 1982: 67–70; Bellis 1987: 40–46) of Atetefo ware in the inland forested
zone do not resemble the descriptions of the rims and predominantly simple incising or
stamped motifs on pottery described from along the coast (e.g. DeCorse 2001: 116–117;
Chouin 2009: 671–700). Indeed, the latter assemblages, at a broad descriptive level,
appear to share more similarities with the Bosumpra Layer 2 material than with the pro-
ducts of the forest basin, i.e. the so-called Atetefo ware.
Current research along the coast and its hinterland (e.g. DeCorse 2001, 2005; Cook and
Spiers 2004; Chouin 2009) suggests some degree of cultural homogeneity. Data from the
forested zone (e.g. Kiyaga-Mulindwa 1982; Bellis 1987; Boachie-Ansah 2010) suggest a
broadly similar situation, although exactly how these areas relate to each other is, of
course, the issue. Documented material culture across southern Ghana during the Iron
Age includes celts, chipped quartz and earthenware pottery, highlighting the possible
existence of a forest based technocultural complex. The Bosumpra Layer 2 assemblage
is a facies of this wider phenomenon, henceforth termed the ‘Bosumpra Layer 2 Atetefo
Facies’, if the term is divested of its misguided association of ’wares’ and employed in
the broader non-determinative sense of the ‘old, old people’ (Wild 1937: 94–99) who
were actually, or potentially, ancestral to the area’s present inhabitants. The definition
of virtually all pre-Atlantic Late Iron Age pottery from the coast to the forest basin and
the Kwahu Plateau as Atetefo ware (pace Chouin 2009: 44, 672–673) based on ceramic
assemblages from a few detailed excavations is premature since it implies a degree of
regional and chronological homogeneity in technology and culture that still requires dem-
onstration by detailed comparative analysis of existing assemblages and available oral his-
tories. The so-called Akan may have a diffuse history within a geographically wide
catchment that included or derived from the manufacturers of Atetefo ware (i.e. from
the forest basin) and it seems plausible, based on the evidence of archaeology, linguistics
and oral traditions (e.g. Anqandah 1982: 87; DeCorse 2001: 18–20), that the emergence of
the Akan ethnolinguistic/cultural group potentially involved the coalescence, perhaps the
originary syncretism (Amselle 1998), of people who may have been culturally, linguisti-
cally and socio-economically related, although it may also have included more diverse
groups.
498 D. J. WATSON
Layer 4 — The late seventeenth century onwards, the Akan

Oral histories among Akan-speaking groups in Ghana record various origin stories, some
revolving around the divine creation of the world at Adanse (Twi, ‘foundation’), others
detailing their emergence from sacred holes (‘caves’) in the ground at, for example,
Wenchi (Dickson 1969: 24; Boachie-Ansah 1978: 34–40; Anquandah 1982: 86–87; Ame-
numey 2008: 17). These stories imply that the Akan were autochthonous to southern
Ghana (Goody and Arhin 1965; Anquandah 1982: 86). Conversely, among Kwahu-speak-
ers, as relayed during the 2008–2011 field project, oral traditions claim descent from
various Akan clans that migrated into the region historically (Kwagyane, pers. comm.).
The origins of the people presently inhabiting the Kwahu Plateau are documented in a
number of studies (e.g. Perregaux 1903; Wallis 1953; Ameyaw 1966; Koranteng 1997:
16–37; Nkansa-Kyeremateng 2000: 7–16, 36–57; Akuamoah 2007: 12–23) and, though
complex and often contradictory, are thus merely summarised here.
The Kwahu Plateau was presumed to be either uninhabited prior to the events
described in the traditions (Perregaux 1903: 444) or to have been settled by the
Kwaemfo (Twi, ‘people of the forest’), perhaps Guan-speakers with a kingdom based
at Nyameani (Figure 1). Ameyaw (1966: 39) asserts that the Guan were aboriginal
and that the Kwahu Plateau was only sparsely settled, with its inhabitants ‘liv[ing]
mostly in caves’. Traditions concerning the migration of the Akan describe the founding
of the kingdoms centred on the settlements of Bokuruwa and, later, Abene, the present
seat of the paramount chieftancy and Kwahu capital (Figure 1). During, or prior to the
Asante-Denkyera war of 1699–1701, royal brothers and a nephew led by Osei Twum,
accompanied by the slave Kofabra (Twi, ‘Fetch it’), and their people fled Adanse due
to the ‘cruelty of the King of Denkyera’ in order to establish the settlement of Bokuruwa.
When the slave died during an expedition, Kwaw Badu (Twum’s nephew) cried with
grief “O! Akoa wu ni!” (Twi, ‘Oh, the slave has died here’), eventually modified to
Okwawu, Kwahu or Quahoe. A further wave of migrants, from within the area of the
modern Ashanti Region fled Denkyera aggression, eventually encountering the plateau’s
Guan inhabitants, led by Atara Firaw, which resulted in warfare over territory ownership
(Perregaux 1903; Wallis 1953: 10–11; Ameyaw 1966: 40). These later events were esti-
mated by Wallis (1953: 11) to have occurred around 1650. However, an annotated
and stylised Dutch map of the ‘Gold Coast in Guinea’ dated to 1629 (Kea 1982) provides
an earlier (and the first documentary) reference to two areas designated ‘Quahoe’,
described separately as a ‘rascal-people’ and ‘rich in gold’. It is uncertain if these were
an ethnonym or if they designate some other form of socio-political, cultural or geo-
graphical grouping. Oral traditions concerning three ‘kingdoms’ in the general area
recorded by Nkansa-Kyeremateng (2000: 36–39) are equally obscure and relate to
Kowu,8 centred on Nyameani and possibly the earliest ‘kingdom’; Akoawu, founded
by Kwaw Badu, with its capital at Bokuruwa; and Kodiabe, with its capital at Abene
(Figure 1).
Abetifi was, according to local tradition, founded by Yaw Awere, possibly a Guan leader
subject to Atara Firaw, although during the later wave(s) of immigration it was conquered
by Ohemen Amanfo, a cousin of Ampong Agyei (Akuamoah 2007: 16–18). A variant tra-
dition records that Abetifi was founded by Ohemen Amanfo, a warrior and chief of the
Denkyera, who fled there after his defeat by the Asante to establish Abetifi around
1730–1735 (Kwagyane, pers. comm.). The traditional date for the formation of the state of
Kwahu is 1730 (Nkansa-Kyeremateng 2000: 44).
These legendary events occurred within the wider backdrop of expansionist Akan
‘states’ and the eventual intrusion of the British Empire into Ghana. The Denkyera
state was supposedly founded c. 1600 in the forested zone between the River Ofin and
Lake Bosumtwi, subsequently expanding to control much of southern Ghana until its
defeat by a confederation led by the fledgling Asante state in 1701 (McCaskie 2007; Ame-
numey 2008: 30–32). The Akwamu state also apparently expanded during the early seven-
teenth century and between 1702 and 1710 conquered the Kwahu Plateau, where it ruled
until 1730 (Boahen 1966a: 67–69; Kwamena-Po 1966; Osei-Tutu 2006). The Asante state,
which was founded 1700 by Osei Tutu with its capital at Kumasi, established itself as the
principal political, economic and military superpower in southern Ghana during the eight-
eenth and nineteenth centuries (Boahen 1966b: 76; McCaskie 1995, 2007; Shinnie 2005).
During the early to mid-eighteenth century Asante expanded rapidly, annexing the Kwahu
Plateau among other areas, until its eventual defeat by the British (1874) and exile of Asan-
tehene Prempe I in 1896. The Kwahu Plateau was formally declared a British protectorate
in 1887 (Bening 1999: 189), but the ‘first British Officer, J. Spilsbury Smith’ did not arrive
to undertake a treaty with ‘Kofi Boateng “King of the country of Quahoo” and the ‘Chiefs
and peoples of that country’ until the following year (Wallis 1953: 14).
Along with the settlements of Aduamoa, Pepease and Obo, Abetifi’s traditional role
included forming part of a (northeast-southwest) perimeter defence for the Kwahu state
capital of Abene (Figure 1). Abetifi’s political and geographic position9 enabled it to func-
tion as a major hub in local and trans-local trade networks, eventually becoming an impor-
tant market town (Akuamoah 2007: 16). The physical prominence of the Kwahu Plateau
(and of the Ashanti Uplands) means that it was and remains an important geographical
landmark within southern Ghana, one that potentially acted as a corridor for movement
and trade. The main Accra-Kumasi trade route — apparently the successor of a sixteenth-
century or even earlier route — passed along the plateau and through Abetifi, for example,
facilitating access to routes across southern West Africa. The flow of trade goods such as
slaves, gold, ivory, beads, leather, schnapps, kola nuts, gunpowder, blankets, fish and salt
along this route linked it eventually with the large market town of Begho and, ultimately,
the Sahelian and Atlantic trade networks (Dickson 1969: 109–111; Daaku 1972; Posnansky
1973; Nkansa-Kyeremateng 2000: 64; Akuamoah 2007: 7).
In Bosumpra Cave, the ebb and flow of empires and the economic and political pro-
minence of Abetifi is not even obliquely referenced by the material culture found in
Layer 4 (Table 3), although the latter’s assemblage does hold relevance for understand-
ing other dramatic transformations on the Kwahu Plateau and southern Ghana. Accord-
ing to Bellis (1987: 42, 47–48) the ‘ceramic tradition’ within the southern forests ‘seemed
suddenly to disappear … between A.D. 1500 and 1600’ to be replaced with a ‘new con-
stellation of ceramic wares’. Conversely, the ceramic assemblage from Bosumpra pro-
vides little evidence for discontinuity,10 even though the radiocarbon dates from
upper Layer 2 and the terminus post quem dating of Layer 4 span this supposed
period of transition. The only obvious developments involve the appearance of the
wavy channelling motif in the spits of upper Layer 2 and the virtual disappearance of
the site’s ground stone and lithic industry. To this end, DeCorse (2001: 118) argues
that widespread changes in the ceramics of this period are indicative of ‘technological
500 D. J. WATSON
innovation and … other changes in the sociopolitical systems of the indigenous popu-
lation’ (cf. Bellis 1987: 48–49).11
The impact of a recently detected drought (AD 1400–1750; Shanahan et al. 2009: 378)
may be superimposed upon the hypothetical long-term effects of an outbreak of plague
(e.g. depopulation and the abandonment of earthworks; Chouin and DeCorse 2010:
143), the emergence of expansionist chiefdoms or states and increasing economic and
social change from the seventeenth century in both the coastal zone and its hinterland
(Kea 1982: 72–73; DeCorse 2001; Ogundiran 2013: 868; Kelly 2016). A multiplicity of
factors contributed to and fomented socio-economic and technological re-organisation,
including the intensification of agricultural and craft/extraction outputs to meet the chal-
lenges of changing environmental conditions and the economic opportunities offered by
external (e.g. Atlantic) and internal trade-links generated by emergent élites. In compari-
son, the disappearance of the millennia-old ‘stone economy’ at Bosumpra appears rela-
tively insignificant, although combined with the aforementioned factors it signifies
profound technological transformations and, almost certainly, concomitant changes
within indigenous socio-cultural and belief systems.
In terms of ceramics, Akan ware is generally described as being predominantly black-
fired and burnished, comprising vessels with wide, flaring/flanged rims, jars and bowls
with round-based, globular forms and/or carinated bowls, with simple decoration including
shell impressions, punctation, grooves, incision, and comb-stamping (Rattray 1927: 300–
305; Calvocoressi 1977: 125–128; Keteku 1981: 148–165; Bellis 1987: 40; Vivian 1990: 21,
1992; Boachie-Ansah 2010: 28–31, 2012: 40). DeCorse (2001: 116, 122–123, 2005: 47)
described Akan ware as ‘smudged, carinated vessels with shallow groove incising’ that
appear during the eighteenth and/or nineteenth centuries at Elmina on the coast and are
‘ethnographically associated with the Asante’. During the last few centuries the Akan devel-
oped a degree of craft specialisation, including standardisation of their pottery industry,
facilitated by rural-urban mobility and the establishment of villages around Kumasi to
supply the demands of the capital and its hinterland (DeCorse 2001: 116–118). The result
was relatively homogeneous Asante-style ceramics across wide areas of the country
during the eighteenth/nineteenth-century height of their Kumasi-based empire. Despite
Asante’s annexation of the Kwahu Plateau in the early 1700s, these distinctive Asante-
style vessels do not constitute an obvious component of the Layer 4 assemblage at Bosumpra
Cave. While the site’s occupants may not have been of high status, the absence, or infre-
quency of ‘Akan’ ceramics, is unexpected. From the descriptions cited and the data given
in Tables 5 and 11–17, it is evident that some of the Layer 4 pottery shows some attribute
similarities to so-called Akan ware, especially in its relatively high incidence of channelled
motifs and comb-stamping. However, more typical elements, such as carination and burn-
ishing (Table 17), are rare in the Layer 4 assemblage and there is no certain evidence for the
deliberate production or use of black-ware. Inter-site comparison of rim forms found at
Bosumpra with sites yielding ‘Akan wares’ reveals some morphological similarities but
even more differences. Such sites include Dawu (Shaw 1961), Ngyeduam (Boachie-Ansah
2010: Figure 3–6; although types 3e, 4c, e-f have no equivalent at Bosumpra), Twifo
Heman (Bellis 1976: Figure 3–13, bowl rim type C is dissimilar), and Nsawam (near Nya-
nawase, the site of the Akwamu capital, dating to the seventeenth to nineteenth centuries,
where many of the types illustrated are dissimilar to those from Layer 4 or other comparative
assemblages; Keteku 1981: 267–287).
As a conceptual catch-all ‘Akan ware’ may have utility in parts of the forest basin-
coastal zone (Bellis 1987: 47–48; DeCorse 2001: 118), but the variability observable in
the pottery assemblages compared here indicates that the ware manufactured by Akan-
speakers was far more heterogeneous outside the Kumasi area than is generally suggested.
The existence and persistence of regional styles manufactured, for example, by speakers of
an Akan dialect, and other languages, even during the period of Asante hegemony from
the eighteenth century is an obvious conclusion. Consequently, a hitherto unattempted
comprehensive comparative (intra- and inter-site) analysis will ultimately be required
to document the regional diversity of the pottery types (and material culture generally)
present in southern Ghana during this period.
The term ‘Akan’, it should be noted, is itself also deeply problematic as it has appeared
in print for around 400 years with a variety of political, linguistic, ethnic, racial, social, geo-
graphic and toponymic meanings that have ‘obscured the complexity of the social and cul-
tural composition of the region’ (Kiyaga-Mulindwa 1980: 503–505). Moreover, Akan
dialects, including Kwahu, Fante, Asante, Agona, Gomua, Brong, Wassa, Akyem and
Akuapem, sometimes refer to ‘political sub-groups’ rather than to dialects in any linguistic
sense (Dolphyne 1982: 35–36, 41–42). In sum, the historical, and to an extent the contem-
porary, Akan have never been a homogeneous group (Terray 1995: 21–31; Shumway 2011:
17–21), nor have they ever constituted an essentialist, or fixed, ethnic category (see Stahl
1991). These problems notwithstanding, given the claims of oral history of the present
Akan-speaking inhabitants of the Kwahu Plateau, it seems legitimate provisionally to
define the material discussed here as the ‘Bosumpra Layer 4 facies of the Akan Tradition’,
at least as a means of facilitating comparison/discussion.
Layers 4–7 — A shrine of the obosom Pra and a church of Jesus Christ
Globally, caves and rockshelters have formed an integral component of human cultural
landscapes, often, but not limited to, their incorporation into conceptions of socio-political
identity, other-worldly or mundane geographies, notions of territoriality, while being per-
ceived from the limited perspective of human life-spans as physically permanent features.
Today, as in the past, such sites are used as temporary shelters by farmers and/or
hunters, who may have left some of the pottery found scattered on the surface of Bosumpra
(Layer 5) and periodically enjoyed a meal of giant snail (a resource apparently consumed
within the site since the Late Stone Age; Table 3; Shaw 1944: 51) or grasscutter. Today,
Bosumpra is also a minor tourist attraction on the Kwahu Plateau as a result of Shaw’s
(1944) and Smith’s (1975) excavations. These constitute some quotidian aspects of the shel-
ter’s long history of human exploitation, although most others remain elusive. Documented
uses of the space are few, but provide a sense of where modernity, identity and patterns of
belief and religion become mutable, most especially, perhaps, with the arrival of Europeans
and Christianity on the Kwahu Plateau. The Rev. F.A. Ramseyer was an influential Presby-
terian missionary who established the Basal Mission Station in 1876 in Abetifi, after which
further missions were founded in Bokuruwa (1876), Kwahu Tafo (1876), Obo (1880),
Pepease (1880) and Mpraeso (1881) (Figure 1; Akuamoah 2007: 53). According to Akua-
moah’s (2007: 24–42) The History of the Presbyterian Church in Abetifi this quickly resulted
in conflict with the traditional belief system, particularly as Atia Yaw, ‘the chief fetish [priest]
in the district … used threats, fraud, deceit and other means to enslave and terrorise people’.
502 D. J. WATSON
Eventually this culminated in relatively successful attempts by Christian converts to suppress

indigenous ‘idol worship’. So-called ‘Akan traditional religion’ is generally based on the
worship of a supreme being (Onyankopon Kyeame) who presides over a pantheon of
lesser gods (abosom) and spirits (asuman) and includes the propitiation of ancestors,
animism, magic and witchcraft (Rattray 1923, 1927; Busia 1954; Pobee 1976; Pobee and
Mends 1977; Obeng 2006; Graveling 2010). Bosumpra Cave’s role in this traditional
belief system is referenced in passing by Shaw (1944: 1), who notes the derivation of its
name ‘from the spirit formerly believed to be resident there’. Bosumpra’s location ‘on the
eastern slope of the hill on which the Christian quarters of Abetifi stand’ (Shaw 1944: 1)
may have fomented religious-based tensions, although varying levels of syncretism and con-
tinuity probably obtained (e.g. Meyer 2004; Obeng 2006; Graveling 2010). Thus, the shelter
functioned as a location in which a shrine dedicated to the obosom Pra was situated until the
‘brass basin’ vanished just over ‘thirty years ago’ (Kwagyane, pers. comm.). Rattray (1923:
145) describes the relevance of this:
‘The word shrine is used, in this particular context, to designate the potential abode of a
superhuman spirit. It consists (generally) of a brass pan, or bowl, which contains various
ingredients. This pan, upon certain definite occasions, becomes the temporary dwelling, or
resting-place of a non-human spirit or spirits.’
Most studies of shrines and their variable deﬁnitions, associated practices and features,
have predominantly focused on northern Ghana (e.g. Lentz 2009; Mather 2009; Insoll
et al. 2009, 2013). To the south, few studies have been undertaken and, despite Stahl’s
(2008) useful methodological focus on the recognition of shrines by identifying associated
depositional practices in west-central Banda, only Apoh and Gavua’s (2010) detailed study
of ‘indigenous spiritism’ at the Ga12 shrine located at Katamansu on the southern Accra
Plains provides the closest parallel in both praxis and material culture to that found at
shrines on the Kwahu Plateau. In both areas historic local and European artefacts were
often re-used and imbued with medicinal, magical and spiritual properties. Such
shrines often have multifunctional roles, although some tend towards specialisation
(e.g. anti-witchcraft; Parish 2003) and those associated with the abosom are predominantly
concerned with medicine and healing (Twumasi 1975: 34–45; Sackey 2000: 15). Various
shrine types and associated materials have been documented and may be either static
and/or mobile (Rattray 1923; Tait 1961: 200; Mather 2003, 2009, Insoll 2013a, 2013b).
The material culture found or used at shrines does not always ‘correlate with the func-
tion of and spirits associated with the shrine’ (Mather 2009: 102) and is often constituted
by mundane objects/materials (Beaudry et al. 1991: 155; Stahl 2008: 170). Celts (Nyame
akuma/Nyu ηmo te/Nyame asoso; God’s axes, thunderbolts or hoes)13 and various other
stone artefacts (e.g. biconically perforated stone beads/pebbles, stone rings) are often uti-
lised by herbalists and practitioners of indigenous religions for their assumed supernatural
origins and medicinal and magical (including apotropaic) properties (Reade 1874; Rattray
1923; Wild 1927; Field 1937, 1940; Shaw 1944; Ozanne 1962). Shells, coins and various
organic materials are often included. At Bosumpra, the stone-packed post and associated
small ceramic bowl from Unit 10 and the post remnant in Unit 4 (Figure 3) may have
formed part of the shrine’s furniture. The posts may have been obtained from the
Nyame dua (‘god’s tree’; Alstonia boonei) and used to support ceramic and/or metal
bowls containing offerings to spirits or gods, as is still commonly seen around Abetfi
and Pepease (Rattray 1923: 51, 145–150; Goody 1962: 367; Koranteng 1997: 7). Celts,
however, while previously common at the site, are entirely absent in the assemblages
from Layer 4 and the surface, excluding a few flakes of greenstone (Table 8), although it
is possible that these ‘potent’ artefacts and other traces of previous ritual activities were
removed along with the brass basin. When these artefacts acquired their numinous associ-
ation is unknown, but may post-date L2 and the decline of the ‘stone economy’. A missing
element, frequently seen or found at local shrines are the distinctive green glass schnapps
bottles used as payment, offering and tribute depending on need. The 1967 one-pesewa
coins found were also probably deposited as part of an offering, a common element in
local shrines and churches, rather than indicating the mere accidental loss of coinage.
The remains of botanical species such as oil palm and incense tree at rockshelters across
West Africa, and at Bosumpra in particular (Smith 1975: 179, Oas et al. 2015), are gener-
ally discussed from the perspective of their dietary or utilitarian (e.g. roofing material)
contribution. On the other hand, herbalism forms a key component of traditional Gha-
naian medicine and many ‘medicinal’ uses have been documented for these and other
species (Anquandah 1985; Abbiw 1990; Konadu 2008). Herbal (and other) preparations
and attendant rituals and activities intended to provide medicinal and spiritual aid are
now only suggested at Bosumpra by the few ostensibly mundane remnants of the shelter’s
previous function as the container of a shrine to Pra. Today, however, the rockshelter hosts
various Christian (e.g. Presbyterian) groups who use the wooden planks (Figure 4) as
pews, with the remains of candles and traces of Daniella sp. resin (often used as ‘church
incense’), indicating the site’s re-dedication to yet another deity — Jesus Christ.
Bosumpra Cave was (or is) not the only shrine to Pra on the Kwahu Plateau since
during fieldwork two other active shrines called Bosumpra were documented at the
towns of Aduamo and Akwaseho (Figure 1). Unfortunately, I was not allowed to visit
the latter shrine, which is also apparently situated within a rockshelter, due to an unde-
fined ‘misfortune’. I was, however, able to visit the Aduamo shrine. This was housed
within a large bowl situated in a domestic compound and is considered the ‘original’
shrine to Pra, reputedly carried to the Kwahu Plateau during the wave(s) of migration pre-
viously described. While it is possible that this merely constitutes some form of civic
rivalry with Abetifi, it may denote ‘shrine franchising’ (Insoll 2006) whereby rights of
access to the power of the ‘mother’ shrine is transferred (purchased) to newly established
offshoot shrines. This franchising may function to signify group affiliation (lineage, clan
etc) and/or to (re)negotiate political and supernatural relationships within these groupings
and the natural landscape (Mather 2003; Insoll 2006). If migrants from the forest basin,
whether as small élite-based groups and/or larger demographic units, did, as folk
history details, colonise the plateau, then it is possible that shrine franchising promoted
socio-political cohesion and afforded protection from local supernatural forces when
ritually appropriating new territory (Kuba and Lentz 2002; Lentz 2009).
Conclusions
Bosumpra Cave has long been considered an important archaeological site in West Africa.
Data from its recent re-excavation reconfirm and amplify its significance, providing a
longer chronology than previously anticipated, from the eleventh millennium cal. BC to
the present day. Despite some problems in temporal resolution and occasional
504 D. J. WATSON
stratigraphic disturbances it has the longest and most detailed archaeological sequence yet
discovered in Ghana. Broad chronological and spatial trends are evident throughout the
deposits, with variable concentrations of pottery and lithic implements at the front and/
or rear of the shelter indicating long-term, internal spatial variation, and perhaps segre-
gation, in activities. These represent mere shadows of past human actives, coarsened by
the formation of palimpsest deposits. The site’s cumulative sequence, however, provides
a very different framework for the evolution of human behaviour and technology within
the forested zone of West Africa compared to the conventional model that has portrayed
the forested zone as a developmental backwater compared to the Sahara and the Sahel.
The Bosumpra LSA facies (Layer 1, Horizons 1–8) demonstrates the existence of a
specialised stone tool-kit (i.e. geometric microliths and celts) from the mid-eleventh mil-
lennium cal. BC with ceramic technology appearing by the tenth millennium cal. BC. The
chipped stone industry continues with minor modifications throughout the Holocene
until around the seventeenth century AD. The early date for pottery from Bosumpra
will undoubtedly be controversial, although in terms of data quantity and quality it is
not dissimilar to claims for early ceramics from Shum Laka (seventh millennium cal.
BC; Lavachery 2001: 225, 243) and exceeds that of the Sahelian site of Ounjougou
(HA1; Huysecom et al. 2009) where three undecorated potsherds were found within
extensive alluvial/colluvial contexts and uncritically dated by a terminus ante quem to
the tenth millennium cal. BC. Evidence from Bosumpra suggests that ceramics were
more widespread during the early Holocene than hitherto suspected and that they may
have originated within multiple centres of innovation across Saharan, Sahelian and
Sub-Sahelian Africa. It remains unclear, however, if the emergence of this new technology
was merely functional and/or driven by other (e.g. social) stimuli. The occupants of
Bosumpra at this time were clearly able to survive, if not thrive, as were the people who
exploited and inhabited other contemporaneous widely dispersed West African sites situ-
ated within the savanna and forest zones. Some of these late Pleistocene/early Holocene
populations may have been relatively isolated (e.g. at Iwo Eleru; Harvati et al. 2011),
while others were potentially in contact with different groups over variable distances,
facilitated by the extensive river systems that spread across West Africa, particularly
during the Holocene Humid Period.
Archaeobotanical data (Oas et al. 2015) demonstrate the exploitation of oleaginous
tree-fruit resources from the early Holocene with a later arrival of domesticated crops,
including pearl millet. Combined with minor elements of material culture, this may
provide subtle indications of interaction between Bosumpra’s inhabitants and the earliest
documented food-producers in the region, the Kintampo Tradition.
The upper layers of the site (Layers 2–4) provide some insight into the history of the
present Akan-speaking people of Ghana and Ivory Coast as the radiocarbon dates avail-
able from them range from the thirteenth century onwards. Data from the Atetefo
(Layer 2) and Akan (Layer 4) facies enabled a comparative analysis of ceramics from
other contemporary southern Ghanaian sites. The material culture from these layers
shows broad similarities to assemblages found across southern Ghana (i.e. earthenware
pottery, chipped/ground stone tools etc), suggesting the existence of a forest-based tech-
nocomplex. Comparison of the so-called Atetefo and Akan wares demonstrates that these
were either dissimilar or at least more heterogeneous across their claimed distributions
than has been suggested in the literature. A remarkably long degree of continuity is
evident in many aspects of the material culture found throughout Bosumpra Cave’s
archaeological sequence, demonstrating durable chaîne(s) opératoire(s) (Leroi-Gourhan
1993) and habitus (Bourdieu 1977) etched into millennia of behaviour. This is especially
evident in the lithic industry, which, regardless of any environmental and/or economic
change(s), persisted until the seventeenth century when the ‘stone economy’ finally disap-
pears from the sequence, despite a much earlier presence for metallurgy in the general
region. Indeed, the technological and stylistic continuity found within Bosumpra’s strati-
graphy suggests a commensurate degree of stability in the socio-cultural and demographic
basis of the Kwahu Plateau’s inhabitants, and illustrates the efficacy of an ostensibly simple
suite of artefacts. Nevertheless, the profound technological change signalled by the disap-
pearance of chipped stone artefacts and celts in Layer 4 is not mirrored in the pottery
assemblage, which shows no sharp discontinuity paralleling the changes occurring
across much of southern Ghana during this period (Bellis 1987).
During the Layer 4 ‘period’, if oral history is reliable, élite-dominated groups with larger
populations migrated from the forest basin area to the plateau, eventually establishing the
Kwahu state. Despite the small size of the sample and the potential bias of data from the
site’s rockshelter context, the material culture from Layer 4 does not provide any indi-
cation of population replacement or, indeed, the arrival of a different people. If these colo-
nists did establish a political hegemony, did this process also involve the acculturation
and/or suppression of the plateau’s ‘indigenes’ or were they already culturally and linguis-
tically related to a degree that divisions were merely political?
Archaeological data demonstrate that human activities on the Kwahu Plateau date from
at least the late Pleistocene/Holocene transition and some of the earliest deposits at
Bosumpra yielded greenstone sourced from the Birimian Formation, suggesting early
population mobility, with people directly obtaining and/or trading for resources
between the uplands/plateau and the lowland zones. Later oral historical data indicate
that the plateau formed part of the Asante and other ‘empires’ that expanded from the
southern forest basin. Consequently, it is improbable that the Kwahu Plateau was in
any realistic sense isolated for long periods of time from the contiguous forest basin,
either culturally or socio-economically. The advent of the modern Akan-speaking
people probably involved the coalescence of socio-economically, linguistically and cultu-
rally related and/or heterogeneous peoples from within the savanna-forest-coastal zones.
It is apparent that the archaeology of the vast geographical sub-region of southern
West Africa is increasingly less understood the deeper researchers attempt to peer
into the forest zone. Bosumpra Cave provides the first detailed record of human behav-
iour and technologies within southern Ghana during the past ∼12,500 years. Still, all that
remains is a broad outline, over many millennia, of Bosumpra’s utilisation as a shelter
and workshop. It is only during the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries that evi-
dence for less quotidian activities becomes manifest, to archaeologists at least, with the
site’s function as a traditional shrine to the obosom Pra and its later re-dedication as a
Christian church.
Notes
1. The third site excavated by Musonda (1976), Tetewabon, is undated and situated some 30 km
northwest of Bosumpra Cave on the Ashanti Uplands.
506 D. J. WATSON
2. No longitudinal ‘grinding hollows’ potentially associated with celt manufacture were discov-
ered in the immediate vicinity of Bosumpra Cave or of Abeitifi.
3. The bead appears morphologically similar to those found by Shaw (1944: Figure 6: 18–19;
47–51), but the lack of a scale in his illustration means that these may be the larger (≥3
cm) biconically perforated pebbles commonly found in Ghana (Davies 1967). Quartz
beads and grooved stone abraders have longer (secondary) use/production histories in
Ghana (e.g. Field 1937, 1940; DeCorse 2001: 137; Apoh and Gavua 2010) where they are
found at sites dating to at least the nineteenth century AD.
4. A term that has been increasingly critiqued not least for concentrating attention on metallur-
gical and agricultural production rather than on the inherent variability in technological,
economic and political strategies now known to characterise the continent of Africa over
the last two millennia (Kusimba 2003; Stahl 1999, 2004).
5. Earthwork sites are known throughout the forested zone of West Africa from Ivory Coast to
Nigeria, although research is generally limited and highly variable in detail (Norman & Kelly
2004). As archaeological investigations within Ivory Coast have been rare, particularly in
relation to earthwork sites (see Chouin 2009: 522–525) the potential contribution of these
sites and their materials to the present debate is uncertain.
6. The two occupation phases corresponding to these wares has not been observed at all earth-
work sites as only the presence of a single phase has been documented at some of them, for
example Akrokrowa (Atetefo; Chouin 2009: 532).
7. The colour of the Bosumpra Layer 2 pottery (Table 13) is more variable than is often
described in relation to Atetefo ware, although this is generally a consequence of several vari-
ables, including the source clay’s chemical constituents and the duration of firing (Rice 1987:
333).
8. ‘Kowu’ may also be translated as ‘you go there to die’ (Nkansa-Kyeremateng 2000: 36) i.e. if
you try to attack the plateau. This meaning has been suggested as an alternative from which
the name Kwahu was derived (Kwagyane, pers. comm.).
9. Abetifi is the second most important town in the traditional Kwahu state after Abene as it is
the seat of the Adontenhene (the Main Body Guard), who is also the Chief of State (Akua-
moah 2007: 16).
10. This may also partly explain the existence a similar transition observed in relation to the
pottery assemblages labelled ‘Early Dangme’ and ‘Classic Dangme’ (Anquandah 1979) in
the Accra and the Shai Hills area (Figure 20) which date from the late sixteenth and mid-
seventeenth centuries (Ozanne 1962, 1964).
11. Increased access to finished metal implements and/or ingots via the Atlantic trade probably
contributed to the disappearance of the stone economy on the Kwahu Plateau.
12. An ethnolinguistic group that primarily occupies towns along the coast near Accra (Apoh
and Gavua 2010: 212–213). The Ga language belongs to the Kwa group of the Niger-
Congo family of languages (Lewis et al. 2013).
13. As these implements are often revealed by heavy rain during or after thunder storms they
have been credited with a divine origin as they are popularly believed to have been hurled
from above by the Sky God Nyame and are associated with the ‘cult of the abosom’
(Rattray 1923: 322).
Acknowledgements
I am grateful to Dr Inga Merkyte and the late Prof. Klavs Randsborg of the SAXO-Institute, Uni-
versity of Copenhagen, for helping me to obtain funding for this research through the Danish Min-
istry for Foreign Affairs (Danida). I should also like to thank Nana Acheampong Otupiri Kwagyane
II, Kubasehene, Abetifi, Kwahu for his encouragement and support during the project and Prof.
David Atta Peters, Department of Earth Science, University of Ghana, for sharing his knowledge
of Ghana’s geology. Finally, and by no means least, I thank Prof. Cathy D’Andrea, Department
of Archaeology, Simon Fraser University, for her generosity and kindness in funding and for under-
taking the analysis of the archaeobotanical remains from Bosumpra.
Notes on contributor
Derek J. Watson (PhD London 2004), formerly Senior Lecturer in Archaeology, Department of
Archaeology, University of Ghana, Legon-Accra, has directed fieldwork in both Sierra Leone and
Ghana. His field research has addressed a variety of themes ranging from the Late Stone Age
and the origins of food production in the West African forested zone, and pre-Atlantic and histori-
cal archaeology.
References
Abbiw, D.K. 1990. Useful Plants of Ghana. West African Uses of Wild and Cultivated Plants.
London: Intermediate Technology Publications.
Akuamoah, O. 2007. The History of the Presbyterian Church in Abetifi. Accra: Quick Service Books
Ltd.
Allsworth-Jones, P. 2015. Kariya Wuro. A Late Stone Age Site in Northern Nigeria. Frankfurt: Africa
Magna Verlag.
Allsworth-Jones, P., Harvati, K. and Stringer, C.B. 2010. “The archaeological context of the Iwo
Eleru cranium from Nigeria and preliminary results of new morphometric studies.” In West
African Archaeology: New Developments, New Perspectives, edited by P. Allsworth-Jones, 29–
42. Oxford: Archaeopress
Amenumey, D.E.K. 2008. Ghana: A Concise History from Pre-Colonial Times to the 20th Century.
Accra: Woeli Publishing Services.
Ameyaw, K. 1966. “Kwahu — an early forest state.” Ghana Notes & Queries 9: 39–45.
Amselle, J.-L. 1998. Mestizo Logics. Anthropology of Identity in Africa and Elsewhere. Stanford:
Stanford University Press.
Andah, B.W. 1978. “Excavations at Rim, Upper Volta.” West African Journal of Archaeology 8:
75–138.
Andah, B.W. and Anozie, F. 1980. “Preliminary report on the prehistoric site of Afikpo (Nigeria).”
West African Journal of Archaeology 10: 83–102.
Andrefsky, W. 2005. Lithics: Macroscopic Approaches to Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Anquandah, J. 1979. “Accra Plains archaeological and historical project.” Nyame Akuma 15: 14–20.
Anquandah, J. 1982. Rediscovering Ghana’s Past. Harlow: Longman.
Anquandah, J. 1985. Ethnoarchaeological Clues to Ghana’s Great Past and a Greater Future? Legon:
Department of Archaeology, University of Ghana.
Apoh, W. and Gavua, K. 2010. “Material culture and indigenous spiritism: the Katamansu archae-
ological Otutu (shrine).” African Archaeological Review 27: 211–235.
Arazi, N. and Manning, K. 2010. “Twisted cord roulette.” In African Pottery Roulettes Past and
Present. Techniques, Identification and Distribution, edited by A. Haour, K. Manning, N.
Arazi, O. Gosselain, N.S. Guèye, D. Keita, A. Livingstone Smith, K.C. MacDonald, A. Mayor,
S.K. McIntosh and R. Vernet, 134–143. Oxford: Oxbow Books.
Arkell, A.J. 1949. Early Khartoum: An Account of the Excavation of an Early Occupation Site.
London: Oxford University Press.
Arnold, D.E. 1985. Ceramic Theory and Cultural Process. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Asombang, R. 1988. “Bamenda in prehistory: the evidence from Fiye Nkwi, Mbi Crater and Shum
Laka Rockshelters.” Ph.D. diss., University of London.
Atherton, J.H. 1972. “Excavations at Kamabai and Yagala rock shelters, Sierra Leone.” West African
Journal of Archaeology 2: 39–74.
Bailey, G.N. and Galanidou, N. 2009. “Caves, palimpsests and dwelling spaces: examples from the
Upper Palaeolithic of south-east Europe.” World Archaeology 41: 215–241.
Bailey, R.C. and Headland, T.N. 1991. “The tropical rain forest: is it a productive environment for
human foragers?” Human Ecology 19: 261–285.
Bailey, R.C., Head, G., Jenike, M., Owen, B., Rechtman, R. and Zechenter, E. 1989. “Hunting and
gathering in tropical rain forest: is it possible?” American Anthropologist 91: 59–82.
508 D. J. WATSON
Ballin, T.B. 2005. “Re-examination of the quartz artefacts from Scord of Brouster: a lithic assem-
blage from Shetland and its Neolithic context.” Scottish Archaeological Internet Report.
Accessed February 28, 2014. http://www.sair.org.uk.
Barham, L.S. and Mitchell, P.J. 2008. The First Africans: African Archaeology from the Earliest Tool
Makers to Most Recent Foragers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Barthès, P. 1994. “L’apport du remontage des vases dans l’analyse et l’interprétation d’une stratigra-
phie d’habitat Néolithique. L’exemple de l’abri de Font-Juvenal à Conques-sur-Orbiel (Aude).”
In Terre Cuite et Société: La Céramique, Document Technique, Économique, Culturel. Actes des
XIVe Recontres Internationales d’Archéologie et d’Histoire d’Antibes, edited by F. Audouze and
D. Binder, 199–215. Juan les Pins: Éditions APDCA.
Barton, H. 2005. “The case for rainforest foragers: the starch record at Niah Cave, Sarawak.” Asian
Perspectives 1: 56–72.
Beaudry, M.C., Cook, L. and Mrozowski, S. 1991. “Artifact and active voices: material culture as
social discourse.” In The Archaeology of Inequality, edited by R. McGuire and R. Paynter,
150–191. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Bellis, J.O. 1976. “Ceramic analysis and the construction of chronological sequences at Twifo
Hemang in southern Ghana.” West African Journal of Archaeology 6: 59–87.
Bellis, J.O. 1987. “A late archaeological horizon in Ghana: proto-Akan or pre-Akan.” In The Golden
Stool: Studies of the Asante Center and Periphery, edited by E. Schildkrout, 36–50. New York:
Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History.
Bening, R.B. 1999. Ghana: Regional Boundaries and National Integration. Accra: Ghana
Universities Press.
Blackham, M. 2000. “Distinguishing bioturbation and trampling using pottery sherd measures, Tell
Fendi, Jordan.” Geoarchaeology 15: 469–497.
Blench, R. 2006. “A comparative study of the Ghana-Togo mountain languages.” Accessed 28
February 2014. http://rogerblench.info/RBOP.htm.
Boachie-Ansah, J. 1978. “An archaeological contribution to the history of Wenchi.” MA diss.,
University of Ghana.
Boachie-Ansah, J. 2010. “Who were the builders of the earth works in the forests of southern
Ghana?” Studies in the African Past 8: 6–37.
Boachie-Ansah, J. 2014. “Excavations at an earthworks site at Asaman and their implications for the
archaeology of the forest areas of southern Ghana.” In Current Perspectives in the Archaeology of
Ghana, edited by J. Anquandah, B. Kankpeyeng and W. Apoh, 18–44. Legon-Accra: The
Boahen, A. 1966a. Topics in West African History. London: Longman.
Boahen, A. 1966b. “The origins of the Akan.” Ghana Notes & Queries 9: 3–10.
Bonnefille, R. 2007. “Rainforest responses to past climatic changes in tropical Africa.” In Tropical
Rainforest Responses to Climatic Change, edited by M.B. Bush and J.R. Flenley, 117–170. Berlin:
Springer.
Bourdieu, P. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Brempong, O.-T. 1987. “An excavation at Awukugua and its significance to the Iron Age archae-
ology of Kyerepong, Akwapim.” MPhil. diss., University of Ghana.
Bronk Ramsey, C. 2009. “Bayesian analysis of radiocarbon dates.” Radiocarbon 51: 337–360.
Brooks, N., Chiapello, I., di Lernia, S., Drake, N., Legrand, M., Moulin, C. and Prospero, J. 2005.
“The climate-environment-society nexus in the Sahara from prehistoric times to the present
day.” Journal of North African Studies 10: 253–292.
Brooks, N., di Lernia, S. and Drake, N. 2004. “The prehistory of Western Sahara in a regional
context.” In Environmental Catastrophes in Mauritania, the Desert and the Coast. Abstract
Volume and Field Guide, Mauritania, 4–18 January 2004, 35–39. Nouakchott: First Joint
Meeting of ICSU Dark Nature and IGCP 490.
Busia, K.A. 1954. “The Ashanti of the Gold Coast.” In African Worlds. Studies in the Cosmological
Ideas and Social Values of African Peoples, edited by D. Forde, 190–209. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Callahan, E. 1987. An Evaluation of the Lithic Technology in Middle Sweden during the Mesolithic
and Neolithic. Uppsala: Societas Archaeologica Upsaliensis.
Calvocoressi, D. 1977. “Excavations at Bantama, near Elmina, Ghana.” West African Journal of
Archaeology 7: 117–141.
Calvocoressi, D. and David, N. 1979. “A new survey of radiocarbon and thermoluminescence dates
for West Africa.” Journal of African History 20: 1–29.
Campbell, G.L. 1995. Concise Compendium of the World’s Languages. London: Routledge.
Camps, G. and Camps, H. 1968. “Le décor céramique et son évolution.” In Amekni: Néolithique
Ancient du Hoggar, edited by G. Camps, 125–138. Paris: Arts et Métiers Graphiques.
Carney, J., Jordan, C. and Thomas, C. 2008. “Voltaian Basin workshop: March 2008, Accra: field
excursion guide and notes.” In The Voltaian Basin, Ghana: Workshop and Excursion, March
10–17, 2008. Abstract Volume, edited by F. Kalsbeek, 107–132. Copenhagen: Geological
Survey of Denmark and Greenland (GEUS).
Casey, J. 2000. The Kintampo Complex: The Late Holocene on the Gambaga Escarpment, Northern
Ghana. Oxford: Hadrian Books.
Casey, J. 2003. “The archaeology of West Africa from the Pleistocene to the mid-Holocene.” In
Under the Canopy: The Archaeology of the Tropical Rain Forest, edited by J. Mercader, 35–63.
New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
Casey, J. 2005. “Holocene occupations of the forest and savanna.” In African Archaeology: A Critical
Introduction, edited by A.B. Stahl, 225–248. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Casey, J. 2013. “The stone to metal age in West Africa.” In The Oxford Handbook of African
Archaeology, edited by P.J. Mitchell and P.J. Lane, 603–614. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chenorkian, R. 1983. “Ivory Coast prehistory: recent developments.” African Archaeological Review
1: 127–142.
Chouin, G. 2009. “Forests of power and memory: an archaeology of sacred groves in the Eguafo
Polity, southern Ghana (c. 500–1900 A.D.).” PhD diss., Syracuse University.
Chouin, G. 2012. “The ’Big Bang’ theory reconsidered: some thoughts on the fabric of early
Ghanaian history.” Transactions of the Historical Society of Ghana, New Series 14: 13–40.
Chouin, G. L. and DeCorse, C.R. 2010. “Prelude to the Atlantic Trade: new perspectives on southern
Ghana’s pre-Atlantic history (800–1500).” Journal of African History 51: 123–145.
Close, A.E. 1995. “Few and far between. Early ceramics in North Africa.” In The Emergence of
Pottery. Technology and Innovation in Ancient Societies, edited by W.K. Barnett and J.W.
Hoopes, 23–37. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Commelin, D. 1983. “Céramique.” In Sahara ou Sahel? Quaternaire Récent du Bassin de Taoudenni
(Mali), edited by N. Petit-Maire and J. Riser, 343–366. Paris: CNRS.
Cook, G. and Spiers, S. 2004. “Central Region project: ongoing research on early contact, trade and
politics in coastal Ghana, AD 500–2000.” Nyame Akuma 61: 17–28.
Coon, C.S. 1968. Yengema Cave Report. Philadelphia: The University Museum.
Cornelissen, E. 2002. “Human responses to changing environments in Central Africa between
40,000 and 12,000 B.P.” Journal of World Prehistory 16: 197–235.
Cornelissen, E. 2003. “On microlithic quartz industries at the end of the Pleistocene in Central
Africa: the evidence from Shum Laka (NW Cameroon).” African Archaeological Review, 20:
1–24.
Cornelissen, E. 2013. “Hunting and gathering in Africa’s tropical forests at the end of the
Pleistocene and in the early Holocene.” In The Oxford Handbook of African Archaeology,
edited by P.J. Mitchell and P.J. Lane, 403–418. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Crabtree, D.E. 1982. An Introduction to Flint Working. Pocatello: Idaho Museum of Natural
History.
D’Andrea, A.C. and Casey, J. 2002. “Pearl millet and Kintampo subsistence.” African Archaeological
Review 19: 147–173.
D’Andrea, A.C., Kahlheber, S., Logan, A.L. and Watson, D.J. 2007. “Early domesticated cowpea
(Vigna unguiculata) from central Ghana.” Antiquity 81: 686–698.
D’Andrea, A.C., Klee, M. and Casey, J. 2001. “Archaeobotanical evidence for pearl millet
(Pennisefum glaucum) in sub-Saharan West Africa.” Antiquity 75: 341–348.
510 D. J. WATSON
D’Andrea, A.C., Logan, A.L. and Watson, D.J. 2006. “Oil palm and prehistoric subsistence in tro-
pical West Africa.” Journal of African Archaeology 4: 195–222.
Daaku, K.Y. 1972. “Aspects of precolonial Akan economy.” International Journal of African
Historical Studies 5: 235–247.
Davies, O. 1961. Archaeology in Ghana. London: Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd.
Davies, O. 1967. West Africa Before the Europeans. London: Methuen.
DeCorse, C.R. 2001. An Archaeology of Elmina: Africans and Europeans on the Gold Coast, 1400–
1900. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press.
DeCorse, C.R. 2005. “Coastal Ghana in the first and second millennia AD. Change in settlement
patterns, subsistence and technology.” Journal des Africanistes 75: 43–54.
DeMenocal, P., Ortiz, P.J.T., Guilderson, T., Adkins, J., Sarnthein, M., Baker, L. and Yarusinsky, M.
2000. “Abrupt onset and termination of the African humid period: rapid climate responses to
gradual insolation forcing.” Quaternary Science Reviews 19: 347–361.
de Maret, P., Bernard C. and Van Neer, W. 1987. “Résultat des premières fouilles dans les abris de
Shum Laka et d’Aeke au nord-ouest du Cameroun.” L’Anthropologie 91: 559–584
Dickson, K.B. 1969. A Historical Geography of Ghana. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dickson, K.B. and Benneh, G. 1970. A New Geography of Ghana. London: Longman Group Ltd.
Dolphyne, F.A. 1982. “Akan language patterns and development.” Tarikh 7: 35–45.
Dolphyne, F.A. and Dakubu, M.E.K. 1988. “The Volta-Comoé languages.” In The Languages of
Ghana, edited by M.E.K. Dakubu, 50–90. London: Keegan Paul International.
Driscoll, K. 2011. “Vein quartz in lithic traditions: an analysis based on experimental archaeology.”
Journal of Archaeological Science 38: 734–745.
Dupont, L.M., Jahns, S., Marret, F. and Ning, S. 2000. “Vegetation change in equatorial West Africa:
time slices for the last 150 ka.” Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 155: 95–122.
Dupont, L.M. and Weinalt, M. 1996. “Vegetation history of the savanna corridor between the
Guinean and the Congolian rainforest during the last 150,000 years.” Vegetation History and
Archaeobotany 5: 273–292.
Effah-Gyamfi, K. 1985. Bono Manso: An Archaeological Investigation into Early Akan Urbanism.
Calgary: University of Calgary Press.
Elston, R.G. and Kuhn, S.L. (eds). 2002. Thinking Small: Global Perspectives on Microlithization.
Washington: American Anthropological Association.
Eyo, E. 1972. “Rop Rock Shelter excavations 1964.” West African Journal of Archaeology 2: 13–16.
Fairhead, J. and Leach, M. 2002. “The dynamic forest landscapes of West Africa. Their shaping in
relation to natural and anthropogenic processes.” In Understanding and Capturing the Multiple
Values of Tropical Forests. Proceedings of the International Seminar on Valuation and Innovative
Financing Mechanisms in Support of Conservation and Sustainable Management of Tropical
Forests, edited by P.A. Verweij, 21–36. Wageningen: The Tropenbos Foundation.
Field, M.J. 1937. Religion and Medicine of the Ga People. London: The Crown Agents for the
Colonies.
Field, M.J. 1940. Social Organization of the Ga People. London: Crown Agents for the Colonies.
Galanadiou, N. 2000. “Patterns in caves: foragers, horticulturists, and the use of space.” Journal of
Anthropological Archaeology 19: 243–275.
Garrard, T.F. 1980. Akan Weights and the Gold Trade. London: Longman.
Goody, J. 1962. Death, Property and the Ancestors. A Study of Mortuary Customs of the Lodagaa of
West Africa. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Goody, J. and Arhin, K. 1965. Ashanti and the North-West. Legon: Institute of African Studies,
Graveling, E. 2010. “‘That is not religion, that is the gods’: ways of conceiving religious practices in
rural Ghana.” Culture and Religion 11: 31–50.
Gautier, A. and Van Neer, W. 2005. “The continuous exploitation of wild animal resources in the
archaeozoological record of Ghana.” Journal of African Archaeology 3: 195–212.
Haaland, R. 1992. “Fish, pots and grain: early and mid-Holocene adaptation in the central Sudan.”
African Archaeological Review 10: 43–64.
Haaland, R. 1995. “Sedentism, cultivation, and plant domestication in the Holocene Middle Nile
region.” Journal of Field Archaeology 22: 153–173.
Haaland, R. 2007. “Porridge and pot, bread and oven: food ways and symbolism in Africa and the
Near East from the Neolithic to the present.” Cambridge Archaeological Journal 17: 167–183.
Hall, J.B. and Swaine, M.D. 1974. “The ecology and conservation of upland forests in Ghana.” In
Proceedings of Ghana Scope’s Conference on Environment and Development in West Africa,
edited by A.M. Laryea, 151–157. Accra: Ghana Publishing Corporation.
Hall, J.B. and Swaine, M.D. 1976. “Classification and ecology of closed-canopy forest in Ghana.”
Journal of Ecology 64: 913–951.
Hartle, D.D. 1980. “Archaeology east of the Niger: a review of cultural-historical developments.” In
West African Culture Dynamics, edited by B.K. Swartz and R.E. Dumett, 195–203. The Hague:
Mouton.
Harvati, K., Stringer, C.B., Grün, R., Aubert, M., Allsworth-Jones, P. and Adebayo Folorunso, C.
2011 “The Later Stone Age calvaria from Iwo Eleru, Nigeria: morphology and chronology.”
PLoS ONE 6(9): e24024.
Hayden, B. 1995. “The emergence of prestige technologies and pottery.” In The Emergence of
Pottery. Technology and Innovation in Ancient Societies, edited by W.K. Barnett and J.W.
Hoopes, 257–265. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Headland, T.N. 1987. “The wild yam question: how well could independent hunter-gatherers live in
a tropical rain forest ecosystem?” Human Ecology 15: 463–491.
Hiscock, P., Clarkson, C. and MacKay, A. 2011. “Big debates over little tools: ongoing disputes over
microliths on three continents.” World Archaeology 43: 653–664.
Hunt, C., Davison, J., Inglis, R., Farr, L., Reynolds, T.E.G., Simpson, D., el-Rishi, H. and Barker, G.
2010. “Site formation processes in caves: the Holocene sediments of the Haua Fteah, Cyrenaica,
Libya.” Journal of Archaeological Science 37: 1600–1611.
Huysecom, E. 1990. Fanfannyégèné I. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag.
Huysecom, E., Ozainne, S., Raeli, E., Ballouche, A., Rasse, M. and Stokes, S. 2004. “Ounjougou
(Mali): a history of Holocene settlement at the southern edge of the Sahara.” Antiquity 78:
579–593.
Huysecom, E., Rasse, M., Lespez, L., Neumann, K., Fahmy, A., Ballouche, A., Ozainne, S., Maggetti,
M., Tribolo, C. and Soriano, S. 2009. “The emergence of pottery in Africa during the tenth mil-
lennium cal. BC: new evidence from Ounjougou (Mali).” Antiquity 83: 905–917.
Insoll, T. 2006. “Shrine franchising and the Neolithic in the British Isles: some observations based
upon the Tallensi, northern Ghana.” Cambridge Archaeological Journal 16: 223–238.
Insoll, T. 2013a. “The archaeology of ritual and religions in Africa.” In The Oxford Handbook of
African Archaeology, edited by P.J. Mitchell and P.J. Lane, 163–175. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Insoll, T. 2013b. Material Explorations in African Archaeology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Insoll, T., MacLean, R. and Kankpeyeng, B. 2009. “The archaeology of shrines among the Tallensi of
northern Ghana: materiality and interpretive relevance.” In Shrines in Africa. History, Politics
and Society, edited by A. Dawson, 40–70. Calgary: University of Calgary Press.
Insoll, T., MacLean, R. and Kankpeyeng, B. 2013. Temporalising Anthropology. Archaeology in the
Talensi Tong Hills. Frankfurt: Africa Magna Verlag.
Jahns, S., Huls, M. and Sarnthein, M. 1998. “Vegetation and climate history of Africa based on a
marine pollen record off the coast of Liberia (site GIK 16776) covering the last 400,000
years.” Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 102: 277–288.
Jesse, F. 2010. “Early pottery in North Africa: an overview.” Journal of African Archaeology 8: 219–
238.
Kalsbeek, F. (ed.) 2008. The Voltaian Basin, Ghana: Workshop and Excursion, March 10–17, 2008.
Abstract Volume. Copenhagen: Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland (GEUS).
Kalvig, P. and Kalsbeek, F. 2008. “Preface.” In The Voltaian Basin, Ghana: workshop and excursion,
March 10–17, 2008. Abstract Volume, edited by F. Kalsbeek, 5–6. Copenhagen: Geological Survey
of Denmark and Greenland (GEUS).
512 D. J. WATSON
Kea, R. 1982. Settlements, Trade, and Polities in the Seventeenth-Century Gold Coast. Baltimore:
John Hopkins University Press.
Kelly, K.G. 2016. “Change and continuity in coastal Bénin.” In West Africa During the Atlantic Slave
Trade, edited by C.R. DeCorse, 81–100. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Keteku, E. 1981. “Nyanawase: history in the soil. An historical factor in Ghanaian archaeology.”
PhD diss., University of Calgary.
Kiyaga-Mulindwa, D. 1978. “The earthworks of the Birim Valley, southern Ghana.” PhD diss.,
Johns Hopkins University.
Kiyaga-Mulindwa, D. 1980. “The Akan problem.” Current Anthropology 21: 503–506.
Kiyaga-Mulindwa, D. 1982. “Social and demographic changes in the Birim Valley, southern Ghana,
c. 1450 to c. 1800.” Journal of African History 23: 63–82.
Klein, N. 1994a. “Slavery and Akan origins?” Ethnohistory 41: 627–656.
Klein, N. 1994b. “Reply to Wilks’s commentary on Slavery and Akan origins.” Ethnohistory 41:
666–667.
Klein, N. 1996. “Towards a new understanding of Akan origins.” Africa 66: 248–273.
Koeberl, C. and Reimold, W.U. 2005. “Bosumtwi impact crater, Ghana (West Africa): an updated
and revised geological map, with explanations.” Jahrbuch der Geologischen Bundesanstalt, Wein
145: 31–70.
Koeberl, C., Reimold, W.U., Blum, J.D. and Chamberlain, C.P. 1998. “Petrology and geochemistry
of target rocks from the Bosumtwi impact structure, Ghana, and comparison with Ivory Coast
tektites.” Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 62: 2179–2196.
Konadu, K. 2008. “Medicine and anthropology in twentieth century Africa: Akan medicine and
encounters with (medical) anthropology.” African Studies Quarterly 10: 45–69.
Koranteng, D.A. 1997. The History of Pepease in Words and Pictures. Accra: Sebewie.
Kouti, S. and Huysecom, E. 2007. “Ounjougou, Mali: new data on bifacial point production in the
southern Sahara during the middle Holocene.” Journal of African Archaeology 5: 3–15.
Kuba, R. and Lentz, C. 2002. “Arrows and earth shrines: towards a history of Dagara expansion in
southern Burkina Faso.” Journal of African History 43: 377–406.
Kusimba, S.B. 2003. African Foragers: Environment, Technology, Interactions. Walnut Creek:
AltaMira Press.
Kwamena-Poh, M.A. 1966. Government and Politics in the Akuapem State 1730–1850. London:
Longman.
Lavachery, P. 2001. “The Holocene archaeological sequence of Shum Laka rock shelter (Grasslands,
western Cameroon).” African Archaeological Review 18: 213–247.
Lavachery, P. and Cornelissen, E. 2000. “Natural and cultural spatial patterning in the late Holocene
deposits of Shum Laka rock shelter, Cameroon.” Journal of Field Archaeology 27: 153–168.
Lentz, C. 2009. “Constructing ritual protection on an expanding settlement frontier: earthworks
shrines in the Black Volta region.” In Shrines in Africa. History, Politics and Society, edited by
A. Dawson, 121–152. Calgary: University of Calgary Press.
Leroi-Gourhan, A. 1993. Gesture and Speech. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Lewis, M. P., Simons, G.F. and Fennig, C.D. 2013. Ethnologue: Languages of the World. Dallas: SIL
International.
Lézine, A.-M. 1991. “West African paleoclimates during the last climatic cycle inferred from an
Atlantic deep-sea pollen record.” Quaternary Research 35: 456–463.
Lézine, A.-M., Duplessey, J.-C. and Cazet, J.-P. 2005. “West African monsoon variability during the
last deglaciation and the Holocene: evidence from fresh water algae, pollen and isotope data core
KW31, Gulf of Guinea.” Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 219: 225–237.
Livingstone Smith, A. 2007. “Histoire du décor à la roulette en Afrique sub-Saharienne.” Journal of
African Archaeology 5: 189–216.
Lombard, M. 2007. “The gripping nature of ochre: the association of ochre with Howiesons Poort
adhesives and Later Stone Age mastics from South Africa.” Journal of Human Evolution 53: 406–
419.
McBrearty, S. 1990. “Consider the humble termite: termites as agents of post-depositional disturb-
ance at African archaeological sites.” Journal of Archaeological Science 17: 111–143.
McCaskie, T.C. 1995. State and Society in Pre-Colonial Asante. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
McCaskie, T.C. 2007. “Denkyira in the making of Asante c. 1660–1720.” Journal of African History
48: 1–25.
MacDonald, K.C. 1997. “Korounkorokalé revisited: the Pays Mande and the West African micro-
lithic technocomplex.” African Archaeological Review 14: 161–200.
MacDonald, K.C. 1998. “Before the Empire of Ghana: pastoralism and the origins of cultural com-
plexity in the Sahel.” In Transformations in Africa: Essays on Africa’s Later Past, edited by G.
Connah, 71–103. London: Leicester University Press.
MacDonald, K.C. and Allsworth-Jones, P. 1994. “A reconsideration of the West African macrolithic
conundrum: new factory sites and an associated settlement in the Vallée du Serpent, Mali.”
African Archaeological Review 12: 73–104.
MacDonald, K.C. and Manning, K. 2010. “Cord-wrapped roulette.” In African Pottery Roulettes
Past and Present. Techniques, Identification and Distribution, edited by A. Haour, K.
Manning, N. Arazi, O. Gosselain, N.S. Guèye, D. Keita, A. Livingstone Smith, K.C.
MacDonald, A. Mayor, S.K. McIntosh and R. Vernet, 144–151. Oxford: Oxbow Books.
Maley, J. 1989. “Late Quaternary climatic changes in the African rain forest: forest refugia and the
major role of sea surface temperature variations.” In Paleoclimatology and Paleometeorology:
Modern and Past Patterns of Global Atmospheric Transport, edited by M. Leinen and M.
Sarnthein, 585–616. London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Maley, J. 1991. “The African rain forest vegetation and palaeoenvironments during the late
Quaternary.” Climate Change 19: 79–98.
Maley, J. and Brenac, P. 1998. “Vegetation dynamics, palaeoenvironments and climatic changes in
the forests of western Cameroon during the last 28,000 years BP.” Review of Palaeobotany and
Palynology 99: 157–187.
Mandel, R.D. and Bettis, E.A. 2001. “Use and analysis of soils by archaeologists and geoscientists.”
In Earth Sciences and Archaeology, edited by P. Goldberg, V.T. Holliday and C.R. Ferring, 173–
204. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
Marret, F., Scourse, J.D., Versteegh, G., Jansen, J.H.F. and Schneider, R. 2001. “Integrated marine
and terrestrial evidence for abrupt Congo River palaeodischarge fluctuations during the last
deglaciation.” Journal of Quaternary Science 16: 761–766.
Marshall, L. 1976. The !Kung of Nyae Nyae. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Mather, C. 2003. “Shrines and the domestication of landscape.” Journal of Anthropological Research
59: 23–45.
Mather, C. 2009. “Shrines and compound abandonment: ethnoarchaeological observations in
northern Ghana.” In Shrines in Africa. History, Politics and Society, edited by A. Dawson, 95–
120. Calgary: University of Calgary Press.
Mercader, J. 2002a. “Introduction: the Palaeolithic settlement of rainforests.” In Under the Canopy:
The Archaeology of the Tropical Rain Forest, edited by J. Mercader, 1–31. New Brunswick:
Rutgers University Press.
Mercader, J. 2002b. “Forest people: the role of African rainforests in human evolution and disper-
sal.” Evolutionary Anthropology 11: 117–124.
Mercader, J. and Brooks, A.S. 2001. “Across forests and savannas: Later Stone Age assemblages
from Ituri and Semliki, Democratic Republic of Congo.” Journal of Anthropological Research
57: 197–217.
Mercader, J., Martí, R., González, I.J., Sánchez, A. and García, P. 2003. “Archaeological site for-
mation in rain forests: insights from the Ituri rock shelters, Congo.” Journal of Archaeological
Science 30: 45–65.
Meyer, B. 2004. “Christianity in Africa: from African independent to Pentecostal-Charismatic
Churches.” Annual Review of Anthropology 33: 447–474.
Morrow, T. M. 1996. “Lithic refitting and archaeological site formation processes. a case study from
Thin Ditch Site, Greene County, Illinois.” In Stone Tools. Theoretical Insights into Human
Prehistory, edited by G.H. Odell, 345–373. New York: Plenum Press.
514 D. J. WATSON
Musonda, F.B. 1976. “The Later Stone Age in Ghana in the light of excavations along the Voltaian
Scarp.” MA diss., University of Ghana.
Nelson, K., Gatto, M.C., Jesse, E. and Zedeno, M.N. 2002. Holocene Settlement of the Egyptian
Sahara, Volume 2: The Pottery of Nabta Playa. New York: Kluwer Academic & Plenum.
Ngomanda, A., Neumann, K., Schweizer, A. and Maley, J. 2009. “Seasonality change and the third
millennium BP rainforest crisis in southern Cameroon (Central Africa).” Quaternary Research
71: 307–318.
Nichol, J.E. 1999. “Geomorphological evidence and Pleistocene refugia in Africa.” The Geographical
Journal 165: 79–89.
Nkansa-Kyeremateng, K. 2000. Kwahu Handbook. Bepong: Sebewie Publishers.
Norman, N.L. and Kelly, K.G. 2004. “Landscape politics: the serpent ditch and the rainbow in West
Africa.” American Anthropologist 106: 98–110.
Nygaard, S.E. and Talbot, M.R. 1984. “Stone Age archaeology and environment on the southern
Accra Plains, Ghana.” Norwegian Archaeological Review 17: 19–38.
Oas, S., D’Andrea, A.C. and Watson, D.J. 2015. “10,000 year history of plant use at Bosumpra
Rockshelter, central Ghana.” Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 24: 635–653.
Obeng, P. 2006. “Religious interactions in pre-twentieth-century West Africa.” In Themes in West
Africa’s History edited by E. Akyeampong, 141–162. Athens: Ohio University Press.
Ogundiran, A. 2013. “Towns and states of the West African forest belt.” In The Oxford Handbook of
African Archaeology, edited by P.J. Mitchell and P.J. Lane, 859–874. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Osae, S., Asiedu, D.K., Banoeng-Yakubo, B., Koeberl, C. and Dampare, C.P. 2006. “Provenance and
tectonic setting of late Proterozoic Buem sandstones of southeastern Ghana: evidence from geo-
chemistry and detrital modes.” Journal of African Earth Sciences 44: 85–96.
Osei-Tutu, B. 2006. “Frontier archaeology of the Akuapem Ridge and the eastern Accra Plains.”
Institute of African Studies Research Review Supplement 17: 91–106.
Ozanne, P. 1962. “Notes on the early historic archaeology of Accra.” Transactions of the Historical
Society of Ghana 6: 51–70.
Ozanne, P. 1964. “Archaeological contribution to Asante Abakosem.” Unpublished paper presented
at the first conference, Ashanti Research Project. University of Ghana, Legon: Institute of African
Studies.
Parish, J. 2003. “Anti-witchcraft shrines among the Akan: possession and the gathering of knowl-
edge.” African Studies Review 46: 17–34.
Pastouret, L., Charnley, H., Delibrias, G., Duplessy, J.C. and Thiede, J. 1978. “Late Quaternary cli-
matic changes in western tropical Africa deduced from deep-sea sedimentation off the Niger
Delta.” Oceanologica Acta 1: 217–232.
Perregaux, W. 1903. “A few notes on Kwahu (Quahoe, a territory in the Gold Coast Colony, West
Africa).” Journal of the Royal African Society 2: 444–450.
Phillipson, D.W. 1977. The Later Prehistory of Eastern and Southern Africa. London: Heinemann.
Pobee, J. 1976. “Aspects of African traditional religion.” Sociological Analysis 37: 1–18.
Pobee, J. and Mends, E.H. 1977. “Social change and African traditional religion.” Sociological
Analysis 38: 1–12.
Posnansky, M. 1973. “Aspects of early West African trade.” World Archaeology 5: 149–162.
Posnansky, M. 1987. “Prelude to Akan civilization.” In The Golden Stool: Studies of the Asante
Center and Periphery, edited by E. Schildkrout, 14–22. New York: Anthropological Papers of
the American Museum of Natural History.
Raimbault, M. and Sanogo, K. 1991. Recherches Archéologiques au Mali. Paris: ACCT-Karthala.
Rattray, R.S. 1923. Ashanti. London: Oxford University Press.
Rattray, R.S. 1927. Religion and Art in Ashanti. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Reade, W. 1874. The Story of the Ashanti Campaign. London: Smith, Elder & Co.
Reimer, P. J., Bard, E., Bayliss, A., Beck, J.W., Blackwell, P.G., Bronk Ramsey, C. Buck, C.E., Cheng,
H., Edwards, R.L., Friedrich, M., Grootes, P.M., Guilderson, T.P., Haflidason, H., Hajdas, I.,
Hatté, C., Heaton, T.J., Hoffman, D.L., Hogg, A.G., Reimer, K.A., Richards, D.A., Scott, E.M.,
Southon, J.R., Staff, R.A., Turney, C.S.M. and Van der Plicht, J. 2013. “Intcal 13 and Marine13
radiocarbon age calibration curves 0–50,000 years cal BP.” Radiocarbon 55: 1869–1887.
Rice, P.M. 1987. Pottery Analysis: A Sourcebook. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Rice, P.M. 1999. “On the origins of pottery.” Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 6: 1–54.
Rifkin, R.F. 2011. “Assessing the efficacy of red ochre as a prehistoric hide tanning ingredient.”
Journal of African Archaeology 9: 131–158.
Roberts, P., Perera, N., Wedage, O., Deraniyagala, S., Perera, J., Eregama, S., Gledhill, A., Petraglia,
M.D., and Lee-Thorp, J.A. 2015. “Direct evidence for human reliance on rainforest resources in
late Pleistocene Sri Lanka.” Science 347: 1246–1249.
Roberts, P. and Petraglia, M. 2015. “Pleistocene rainforests: barriers or attractive environments for
early human foragers?” World Archaeology 47: 701–717.
Roset, J.-P. 1983. “Nouvelles données sur le problème de la Néolithisation du Sahara méridional:
Aïr et Ténéré au Niger.” Cahiers ORSTOM (Séries Géologie) 13: 119–142.
Rossignol-Strick, M. and Duzer, D. 1979. “West African vegetation and climate since 22,500 B.P.
from deep sea cores.” Pollen et Spores 21: 105–134.
Russell, J., Talbot, M.R. and Haskell, B.J. 2003. “Mid-Holocene climate change in Lake Bosumtwi,
Ghana.” Quaternary Research 60: 133–141.
Sackey, B.M. 2000. “Recognising other dimensions of epistemology: conceptualisation of abosom
(deities) in Ghanaian experience.” Research Review, New Series 16: 13–30.
Salzmann, U. and Hoelzmann, P. 2005. “The Dahomey Gap: an abrupt climatically induced rain
forest fragmentation in West Africa during the late Holocene.” The Holocene 15: 190–199.
Schiffer, M.B. 1983. “Towards the identification of formation processes.” American Antiquity 48:
675–706.
Schlüter, T. 2006. Geological Atlas of Africa. New York: Springer.
Semenov, S.A. 1985. Prehistoric Technology. Totowa: Barnes and Noble.
Shanahan, T.M., Overpeck, J.T., Wheeler, C.W., Beck, J., Jeffrey, W., Pigati, J.S., Talbot, M.R.,
Scholz, C.A, Peck, J. and King, J.W. 2006. “Paleoclimatic variations in West Africa from a
record of late Pleistocene and Holocene lake level stands of Lake Bosumtwi, Ghana.”
Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 242: 287–302.
Shanahan, T.M., Overpeck, J.T., Anchukatitis, K.J., Beck, J.W., Cole, J.E., Dettman, D.L., Peck, J.A.,
Scholz, C.A. and King, J.W. 2009. “Atlantic forcing of persistent drought in West Africa.” Science
324: 377–380.
Shaw, T. 1944. “Report on excavations carried out in the cave known as Bosumpra at Abetifi,
Kwahu, Gold Coast Colony.” Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 10: 1–67.
Shaw, T. 1961. Excavation at Dawu. Report on an Excavation in a Mound at Dawu, Akuapim,
Ghana. London: Thomas Nelson and Sons.
Shaw, T. 1978/1979. “Holocene adaptations in West Africa: the Late Stone Age.” Early Man News 3/
4: 51–82.
Shaw, T. 1985. “The prehistory of West Africa” In History of West Africa, edited by J.F.A. Ajayi and
M. Crowder, 48–86. Harlow: Longman.
Shaw, T. and Daniels, S.G.H. 1984. “Excavations at Iwo Eleru.” West African Journal of Archaeology
14: 1–269.
Shinnie, P.L. 2005. “Early Asante and European contacts.” Journal des Africanistes 75: 25–42
Shinnie, P.L. and Shinnie, A. 1995. Early Asante. Calgary: University of Calgary, Department of
Archaeology.
Shumway, R. 2011. The Fante and the Transatlantic Slave Trade. Rochester: University of Rochester
Press.
Smith, A.B. 1975. “Radiocarbon dates from Bosumpra Cave, Abetifi, Ghana.” Proceedings of the
Prehistoric Society 41: 179–182.
Spiers, S. 2012. “The Eguafo polity: between the traders and raiders.” In Power and Landscape in
Atlantic West Africa, edited by J.C. Monroe and A.K. Ogundiran, 115–141. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Stahl, A.B. 1991. “Ethnic style and ethnic boundaries: a diachronic case study from west-central
Ghana.” Ethnohistory 3: 250–275.
516 D. J. WATSON
Stahl, A.B. 1994. “Innovation, diffusion and culture contact: the Holocene archaeology of Ghana.”
Journal of World Prehistory 8: 51–112.
Stahl, A.B. 1999. “Perceiving variability in time and space: the evolutionary mapping of African
societies.” In Beyond Chiefdoms: Pathways to Complexity in Africa, edited by S.K. McIntosh,
39–55. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stahl, A.B. 2001. Making History in Banda. Anthropological Visions of Africa’s Past. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Stahl, A.B. 2004. “Political economic mosaics: archaeology of the last two millennia in tropical sub-
Saharan Africa.” Annual Review of Anthropology 33: 145–172.
Stahl, A.B. 2008. “Dogs, pythons, pots and beads: the dynamics of shrines and sacrificial practices in
Banda, Ghana, A.D. 1400–1900.” In Memory Work: the Materiality of Depositional Practice,
edited by B.H. Mills and W.H. Walker, 159–186. Santa Fe: School of American Research Press.
Straus, L.G. 1990. “Underground archaeology: perspectives on caves and rockshelters.” Journal of
Archaeological Method and Theory 2: 255–304.
Sutton, J.E.G. 1992. “Radiocarbon results for Dawu & Ada-Azizanya.” Archaeology in Ghana 3: 14–16.
Tait, D. 1961. The Konkomba of Northern Ghana. London: Oxford University Press.
Talbot, M.R., Livingstone, D.A., Palmer, P., Maley, J., Melack, J.M., Delibrias, G. and Gulliksen, S.
1984. “Preliminary results from sediment cores from Lake Bosumtwi, Ghana.” Palaeoecology of
Africa 16: 173–192.
Talbot, M.R., Filippi, M.L., Jensen, N.B. and Tiercelin, J.-J. 2007. “An abrupt change in the African
monsoon at the end of the Younger Dryas.” Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems 8: Q03005.
Tallavaara, M., Manninen, M.A., Hertell, E. and Rankama, T. 2010. “How flakes shatter: a critical
evaluation of quartz fracture analysis.” Journal of Archaeological Science 37: 2442–2448.
Tani, M. 1995. “Beyond the identification of formation processes: behavioral inferences based on
traces left by cultural formation processes.” Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 2:
231–252.
Taylor, C.J. 1960. Synecology and Silviculture in Ghana. London: Thomas Nelson and Sons.
Terray, E. 1995. Une Histoire du Royaume Abron du Gyaman. Des Origines à la Conquête Coloniale.
Paris: Karthala.
Twumasi, P.A. 1975. Medical Systems in Ghana: A Study in Medical Sociology. Accra: Ghana
Publishing Corporation.
Vincens, A., Schwartz, D., Elenga, H., Reynaud-Farrer, I., Alexandre, A., Bertaux, J., Mariotti, A.,
Martin, L., Meunier, J.-D., Nguetsop, F., Servant, M., Servant-Vildary, S. and Wirrmann, D.
1999. “Forest response to climate changes in Atlantic equatorial Africa during the last 4000
years BP and inheritance on the modern landscapes.” Journal of Biogeography 4: 879–885.
Vivian, B. 1992. “Sacred to secular: transitions in Akan funerary customs.” In An African
Commitment, edited by J. Steiner and N. David, 157–167. Calgary: University of Calgary Press.
Vivian, B.C. 1990. “Origins of the Asante Research Project: 1989–90, excavations at Asantemanso.”
Nyame Akuma 34: 19–22.
Wadley, L. 1997. “Where have all the dead men gone? Stone Age burial practices in South Africa.”
In Our Gendered Past: Archaeological Studies of Gender in Southern Africa, edited by L. Wadley,
107–134. Johannesburg: Witwatersrand University Press.
Wadley, L. 2005. “Putting ochre to the test: replication studies of adhesives that may have been used
for hafting tools in the Middle Stone Age.” Journal of Human Evolution 49: 587–601.
Wallis, J.R. 1953. “The Kwahus: their connection with the Afram Plain.” Transactions of the Gold
Coast and Togoland Historical Society 1: 10–26.
Ward, W.E.F. 1966. A History of Ghana. London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd.
Watson, D.J. 2005. “Under the rocks: reconsidering the origin of the Kintampo Tradition and the
development of food production in the savanna-forest/forest of West Africa.” Journal of African
Watson, D.J. 2008. “The Late Stone Age in Ghana: the re-excavation of Bosumpra Cave in context.”
In Current Archaeological Research in Ghana, edited by T. Insoll, 137–149. Oxford:
Archaeopress.
Watson, D.J. 2010. “Within savanna and forest: a review of the Late Stone Age Kintampo Tradition,
Ghana.” Azania: Archaeological Research in Africa 45: 141–174.
Watts, I. 2002. “Ochre in the Middle Stone Age of southern Africa: ritualised display or hide pre-
servative?” South African Archaeological Bulletin 57: 1–14.
White, F. 1983. The Vegetation of Africa. Paris: UNESCO.
Whittaker, J.C. 1994. Flint Knapping: Making and Understanding Stone Tools. Austin: University of
Texas Press.
Wild, R.P. 1927. “Stone artefacts of the Gold Coast and Ashanti.” Gold Coast Review 3: 24–39.
Wild, R.P. 1937. “The pottery of the Nyame Akuma people (I).” The Teacher’s Journal 9: 94–99.
Wilks, I. 1993. Forests of Gold. Essays on the Akan and the Kingdom of Asante. Athens: Ohio
University Press.
Wilks, I. 2005. “The forest and the Twi.” Journal des Africanistes 75: 19–75.
Wotzka, H.P. and Goedicke, C. 2001. “Thermoluminescence dates on Late Stone Age and later cer-
amics from Tapoa Province (southeastern Burkina Faso) and Konduga (Borno, northeastern
Nigeria).” BAVA 21: 75–126.
York, R.N. 1978. “Excavations at Dutsen Kongba, Plateau State Nigeria.” West African Journal of
View publication stats

Bosumprarevisited 12500 Yearsonthe Kwahu Plateau Ghanaasviewedfrom Ontopofthehill

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Bosumprarevisited 12500 Yearsonthe Kwahu Plateau Ghanaasviewedfrom Ontopofthehill

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bosumprarevisited 12500 Yearsonthe Kwahu Plateau Ghanaasviewedfrom Ontopofthehill

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Bosumpra revisited: 12,500 years on the Kwahu Plateau, Ghana, as viewed

Article in Azania Archaeological Research in Africa · November 2017

11 PUBLICATIONS 248 CITATIONS

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

ISSN: 0067-270X (Print) 1945-5534 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/raza20

Bosumpra revisited: 12,500 years on the Kwahu

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/0067270X.2017.1393925

Published online: 20 Nov 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Bosumpra revisited: 12,500 years on the Kwahu Plateau,

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

CONTACT Derek J. Watson archwatson@gmail.com

Bosumpra Cave: the site and its context

AZANIA: ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH IN AFRICA

Smith 1975 Depth

The archaeological background of the Kwahu Plateau

Bosumpra Cave: re-excavation, stratigraphy and integrity

AZANIA: ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH IN AFRICA

AZANIA: ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH IN AFRICA

AZANIA: ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH IN AFRICA

AZANIA: ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH IN AFRICA

Bosumpra Cave: chronology and botanical samples

The archaeological sequence

Layer 1: Horizon 3 — late fifth millennium cal. BC to c. 550 cal. BC

AZANIA: ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH IN AFRICA

Layer 1: Horizons 6, 7 and 8 — tenth millennium cal. BC to c. 500 cal. BC

AZANIA: ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH IN AFRICA

AZANIA: ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH IN AFRICA

Layer 2 — post c. 500 cal. BC to the seventeenth century cal. AD

Layers 4–7 — from the seventeenth century to the present day

morphological continuity is evident in the predominance of thickened-everted and simple

Comparisons with the results of Shaw (1944) and Smith (1975)

with practically no outcurve; the commonest decoration … is some system of impressed

12,500 years in Bosumpra Cave: discussion and comparisons

Heamatite Totals 0 0 0 0 1 (20) 1 (20) 0 3 (60) 0 5 (100)

Quartz Bipolar Core 2 (0.02) 2 (0.02) 4 (0.05)

AZANIA: ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH IN AFRICA

Siliceous Mudstone Backed Blade 3 (3.5) 3 (3.5)

Sandstone Hammertone 4 (100) 4 (100)

unusual degree of standardisation; late Pleistocene/early Holocene sites or occupations

Layer 2 — thirteenth to seventeenth centuries cal. AD, the Atetefo

Layer 4 — The late seventeenth century onwards, the Akan

Eventually this culminated in relatively successful attempts by Christian converts to suppress

View publication stats

You might also like