Robert Soper: A Realistic Reevaluation of Namoratung'a

In a startling yet vital article in Azania, a publication of the United Kingdom in Eastern Africa (vol. 17, 1982), Robert Soper refreshingly addresses many important questions concerning various aspects of preceding research done in a special area of the Turkana District of North-Western Kenya. This area, called Namoratung'a II or Namoratung'a-Kalokol after a nearby village, is a site boasting 20 peculiar polygonal basalt columns and has been surrounded with mystery and predictions of possible ancient astronomical significance officially since Dr. Mark Lynch and Dr. L. H. Robbins independently and jointly surveyed the area in the 1970's. In his article, Mr. Soper accounts for his own survey of the disputed area and, in reference to the initial surveying, addresses much questionable data as well as some debatable techniques of taking original measurements. He then, after addressing additional issues not even raised by the original surveyors, draws his own conclusions concerning the possible astronomical site however emphasizing a need for further investigation.

To set up arguments later in the article, Soper introduces the reader to two additional sites located approximately 160 km south of the primary Kalokol site, one containing eleven presumed gravestones and another made up of one hundred and sixty two gravestones, together labeled, because of their close proximity, Namoratung'a-Lokori or, in some references, Namoratung'a I. Here, in reference to Dr. Lynch's assertion that the three sites are "approximately contemporaneous and culturally related," (Soper, 145) Soper relates his doubts, stating the sites are of rather different character and not associated with any local settlement sites. Expanding later in the article, he addresses the issues Lynch used to construct a relationship between the two sites. The first, as Soper concedes, is difficult to argue either way and is whether there is a direct relationship between gravestones at each site (as the Kalokol site, Lynch suggests, contains gravestones in addition to those with possible astronomical significance alone). The second concerns possibly related petroglyphs on stones from each site. As Soper argues, while there is a similarity between some of these ancient pieces of art, there is much to be questioned as to whether the builders of the site produced all or even any of them.

The third major issue raised by Soper concerning the supposed connection of the sites rests on Lynch's description that the Namoratung'a II site was, in fact, dedicated to calendrical makeup and use. As the Eastern Cushites made up the Borana Calendar, Lynch's thought that the stone sites in question were influenced if not completely designed and built by them as well implies that at least the Kalokol site was used for some kind of astronomical observations with the goal of calendar making in mind. Soper's response, self-affirmed later in the article, suggests the site in fact has no astronomical significance, thus implying the resourceful Easter Cushitic speakers simply erected stones with no direct or presently sensible reason for doing so, which, he states, is highly unlikely. Adding to his doubt that the Eastern Cushites were the connection between the sites, Soper points out that in the making of the Borana calendar, a very Eastern Cushitic creation, there is no mention of stone pillars being used for assistance.

Much of Mr. Soper's argument and contention concerning Namoratung'a's astronomical significance as stated by Dr. Lynch is based on his own resurveying and the many discrepancies that were found between his and the initial data collected on Dr. Lynch's own expedition. The data in question was that collected concerning possible alignments of nineteen of the twenty stones (one is flat and displaced) with seven stars and constellations popularly used for astronomical purposes; Triangulum, the Pleiades, Aldebaran, Bellatrix, Central Orion, Saiph, and Sirius (see African stars and the Borana calendar in 300 BC). Using the same reference points as Lynch (the highest points of the stones), Soper found error in angle measurement ranging from 1 to 17 degrees, gross errors he attributes to likely magnetic anomalies or instrumental error. From this error he concludes that Lynch's astronomical hypothesis cannot be maintained.

Another pervasive issue Soper raises in his article is that of dating the sites. As he reports, radiocarbon dates of two bone samples from the larger Lokori sites have been taken from, as he states, bone apatite (330+-165 BC) and bone collagen (AD 750+-100), bone outsides and bone insides, respectively. Soper addresses Lynch's claim that the first is likely correct because, from his knowledge, apatite is more reliable and it fits the linguistic dating more reliably. What Soper takes issue with is the lack of foundation for Lynch's claim of linguistic dating. As his own research found, in fact no linguistic reconstruction places Eastern Cushites as far south as Lokori at any time on this side of Lake Turkana (existing between and not far east of the sites) and that, while this is not "significant negative evidence," linguistic reconstruction can provide no evidence of absolute dating anyway. Further, Soper asserts that when the unlikelihood that the site was used for astronomical purposes is coupled with this fact, the chance of a Eastern Cushitic connection becomes that much more unlikely.

Concluding his many remarks and arguments of the previous accounts of the Namoratung'a sites, Soper offers an alternate hypothesis. In forming his hypothesis, he introduces very interesting aspects not addressed by Lynch or in any other report. He attempts to use the presence of different types of pottery found around Lake Turkana, south down the Rift Valley, and as far north as northern Tanzania to help account for some kind of cultural presence. For, as it was found by Lynch, nowhere within a 190 km radius around the Lokori site is there sign of some kind of ancient settlement site. The types of pottery identified in the article and their likely makers were Nderit ware by Southern Cushites and Turkwel ware and its possible Eastern Nilotes or, maybe, Western or Southern Nilotes. Soper asks if, perhaps, Namoragung'a could be a further mystical remnant left by one of these cultures; however, acknowledging its shortcomings in research, Soper recognizes that it is nothing more than another possible hypothesis.

Citations

Soper, Robert: "Archaeo-astronomical Cushites: Some Comments with further Comment by B. Mark Lynch;" Azania: The Journal of the British institute in Eastern Africa, vol. 17, 1982. pp. 145-162

Lynch, B.M. and L. Robbins: "Animal Brands and the interpretation of rock art in East Africa;" Current Anthropology, vol. 18, 1977. pp. 3, 538-539

- please see further sources of Lynch and Robbins in Robert Soper's citations following his article

(J. Greenbaum)

Back to Namoratunga Page