Search

Cet article est consacre aux differents moyens d'accumulation de coquillages, dans la zone de Weipa (Australie), dans des monticules ou les bivalves Anadara seraient majoritaires. Les differentes etudes stratigraphiques, de textures et de composants specifiques sont relatees. De toute evidence elles prouvent que l'accumulation de l'Anadara dans differents substrats, y compris les lateritiques, de ces monticules ne s'est pas produite par l'action de differents depots cotiers. Les AA. en concluent que des humains en sont responsables

It should be known that differences of condition among people are the result of the different ways in which they make their living … Some people live by agriculture, the cultivation of vegetables and grains; others by animal husbandry, the use of sheep, cattle, goats … Those who live by … animal husbandry cannot avoid the call of the desert. (ibn Khaldun, AD 1332–1406, The Muqaddimah ) Nomadism and the integration of pastoralism and agriculture There has been much discussion concerning the differences between pastoralism and agriculture, the desert and the sown (Nelson 1973); with much stress being laid on either the complementarity of pastoral and agricultural products or the conflicts generated through competition for resources. Much of this misses the point. Pastoralism and agriculture differ not only in the things produced but more fundamentally in the nature of the productive process itself. While both modes of subsistence in a Near Eastern context are subject to large fluctuations in productivity (Adams 1974), the manner in which each system responds to these fluctuations is quite different. The organization of pastoral and agricultural production Whereas fluctuations in the level of agricultural production tend to be buffered and absorbed by the stable structure of a sedentary community, similar fluctuations in pastoral production are amplified throughout the organization of a pastoral community.

The weapon is his companion … Who knows no submission, Who eats uncooked flesh, Who has no house in his lifetime. (from a Sumerian text, in Chiera 1924, p.20) While the quest for the origins of nomadic pastoralism is not the central theme of this work, the issue must be raised if only because it has formed the focus of so much archaeological work. Yet the origins of nomadism may not be of quite the same significance as other origins – such as the origins of food production and of urban life. In the latter instances we are dealing with major systems transformations which require extremely complex explanations and models and which are part of a general trend towards organizational complexity and increased energy capture. The advent of nomadic pastoralism has its place in all this but if; as suggested earlier, it is peripheral to the main line of cultural evolution, then it may not require the same level of explanation. Perhaps nomadic pastoralism cannot be said to have had a precise origin, or perhaps it has had many origins in many places and at different times. If, as argued by some (Khazanov 1984; Gilbert 1983; and also in this work), nomadism is an unstable and fluctuating phenomenon involving a heavy commitment to pastoralism, then we would be far better off studying those sets of conditions under which it emerges or declines than in searching for origins or building causal models.

The tribe was camping in Hassan Agha's estates near a clump of mulberry trees. They had pitched their long black tents in a neat, orderly file, and this did not escape Hassan Agha's notice. Just as if they were founding a new village, he said to himself with growing anxiety. (From The Legend of the Thousand Bulls by Yashar Kemal) We have seen that the low archaeological profile of nomad sites cannot be attributed to the absence of material remains alone. But while nomad material culture and architecture may be comparable in variety and durability to that of more settled communities, the distribution of these remains occurs over a much wider range and in greatly reduced densities. Moreover the manner in which fluid patterns of residence group formation and fortuitous shifts in migration tracks are translated into archaeological assemblages will vary according to time and place. It is possible nevertheless to make some broad generalizations about what sets a nomad settlement system apart from a sedentary one and how nomad campsites differ fundamentally in their internal structure from sedentary communities. Nomad settlement systems The term ‘settlement system’ has been carefully chosen as against ‘settlement pattern’ in order to distinguish a system of controlling variables (Flannery 1976b, pp.162–3) from a physical pattern of settlement (Chang (ed.) 1968; Trigger 1968). The latter approach applied to nomad camps would yield a picture of segmented settlement units located in relation to each other according to patterns of kinship, tribal affiliation and economic cooperation.

Pastoralists are not likely to leave many vestiges by which the archaeologist could recognize their presence. They tend to use vessels of leather and basketry instead of pots, to live in tents instead of excavated shelters or huts supported by stout timber posts or walls of stone or brick. Leather vessels and baskets have as a rule no chance of surviving. Tents need not even leave deep postholes to mark where they once stood. (Childe 1936, p.81) As the title suggests, it is the purpose of this chapter to question the assumption that nomads and their material remains are inaccessible to archaeologists. Nomads need not be archaeologically invisible. At the same time they do not constitute an archaeological ‘culture’ in the Childean sense. Paradoxically therefore, although the artifacts and campsites used by ancient nomads need not lie beyond the capacity of modern archaeology, there may be no simple means by which these are distinguishable from the productions of more settled communities. The traveller in the more isolated parts of the Near East should not be surprised to see groups of migrating nomads passing through villages whose inhabitants dress in the same manner as the nomads, speak the same dialect, employ the same range of household utensils, possess the same species of domestic animals and, in some cases, claim the same tribal affiliation. Differences there certainly are, but these are often ideological, organizational and economic rather than ‘cultural’.

Nomads in Archaeology addresses the problem of how to study mobile peoples using archaeological techniques. It therefore deals not only with the prehistory and archaeology of nomads but also with current issues in theory and methodology, particularly the concept of 'site structure'. This is the first volume to be devoted exclusively to nomad archaeology. It includes sections on the history and origins of pastoral nomad societies, the economics of pastoralism, social organisation of pastoral communities and the 'visibility threshold' of nomad material culture. Examples and case studies are drawn from field work and published sources primarily in Turkey and Iran.

As I approached Ali's winter camp all illusions about the simplicity of my task began to crumble. The tent – if it could be called that – was fashioned out of a mixture of rough limestone boulders and dressed blocks from a nearby Byzantine complex (Fig. 6.1). Its walls were nearly 1.5 metres high, and it was entered via a short passageway and a rickety wooden gate held by lengths of twisted wire. The structure was surmounted by wooden beams and a mixture of tentcloth; straw and polythene plastic. The interior of the dwelling contained the now-familiar array of rug-covered platforms though its proportions were less elongated than the norm. In the front wall, adjacent to the doorway, was a recessed fireplace beautifully constructed out of Byzantine building rubble and capped by a large limestone block covered by floral bas-reliefs. In summer Ali would be up in the Taurus Mountains living in a black tent with only the barest of stone footings. The following year at about the same time (early September) I found him camped some 200 metres away in a small beige-coloured tent whose interior was almost identical to that observed in the previous winter, but which was devoid of any foundation other than a cleared earth floor and a small hearth consisting of three stones. The term nomad architecture may appear to contain an inherent contradiction. In fact there is a sizeable literature on the subject (Fagre 1979; Andrews 1981; Ferdinand 1959–60; Feilberg 1944; Edelberg 1966–67.)

The advent of new techniques of dental ageing has permitted inferences about the age-structures of ancient animal populations on the basis of faunal remains. Unfortunately, inference from archaeological populations of faunal elements to the age-structure of ancient herds is fraught with both sampling problems and logical difficulties. The relationship between a living herd—a dynamic system characterized by growth—and a static archaeological population is more complex than that assumed by current models based on kill-off patterns and survivorship curves. Using a computer simulation, these logical relationships are explored, and the effects of herd growth on the composition of live and death populations are evaluated. By employing the simulation within a deductive framework, constrained by ethnographically derived criteria for reproduction, mortality, and economic viability in the Near East, it is possible to determine whether certain archaeological kill-off patterns could represent viable herding systems. Examples were found to vary widely in terms of both demographic plausibility and economic viability. Some implications for the possible course of ova-caprine domestication in the Near East are discussed.

The notion, first advanced by Higgs and Jarman, that the archaeological record of the Upper Paleolithic provides evidence for animal husbandry has been bolstered by the research of several of their former students. Close examination of the evidence from southwestern France indicates, however, that, while plausible, such early forms of husbandry are not supported by the material record. It is proposed here that there is no currently acceptable evidence for animal husbandry in France before the Neolithic. It is also emphasized that the proponents of pre-Neolithic animal control have not developed the theory and method required to deal with this important issue.

The following is a preliminary report on archaeological work undertaken in September and October 1985 in conjunction with an ethnographic mapping project carried out by the South Australian Museum and Arukun Shire Council. The mapping project, which has continued in some form for the past 15 years, was set up by anthropologists Peter Sutton and John von Sturmer along with the traditional owners of clan estates. As this work, and similar work in eastern Cape York, has had as one of its primary aims the elucidation of traditional patterns of land tenure, it represents a major potential resource for archaeology (Chase 1980; Sutton 1978; von Sturmer 1978).