ch4 nicky milner

7/30/2019 Ch4 Nicky Milner

1/6

Nicky Milner32

4. Can seasonality studies be used to identifysedentism in the past?

Nicky Milner

Introduction

The nature of sedentariness in the Neolithic remains an

important question in archaeology. In recent decades

there has been a move away from the concept of sedentary

Neolithic societies toward one of a more mobile

population (e.g. Edmonds 1995; Thomas 1991; Whittle

1996; 1997; 2003; cf. Cooney 1997). Whether inter-

preting indicators of sedentariness, such as houses, or

exploring practical constraints on sedentism, such as

flooding, demonstrating mobility or sedentism in the past

is very difficult. Seasonality studies are usually employed

to model mobility or detect sedentism in contexts wherethe archaeological remains allow. The results of season-

ality studies are frequently open to interpretation. This

paper will detail the problems encountered in seasonality

studies and aims to determine whether or not it is possible

to use seasonality assessments to interpret sedentism at a

site.

Sedentism in the Neolithic?

During the long periods during which they had to obtain

their food by appropriating animals and plants wherever

and whenever these might be available, men had normally

to move over considerable distances during the course of

the year and could only exist in small widely distributed

groups. By contrast communities of farmers were able to

concentrate on a much more restricted territory and a

narrower range of animals and plants, to maintain these

within close reach of permanent settlements this in turn

meant that they were able to lead settled lives in

communities at once larger and more closely distributed,

communities in which specialization and the possibility of

large-scale organization made possible the development of

progressively more complex cultures (Clark 1969, 7273).

Traditionally, prehistoric sedentism has been viewed

in terms of cultural evolution. Archaeologists focus

attention on the process of becoming sedentary because it

is often understood to cause dramatic changes in trade,

territoriality, socio-political hierarchy and to lead to the

development of agriculture (Kelly 1992; Rafferty 1985).

In the Mesolithic, foragers lived a mobile, nomadic

existence; towards the end of the Mesolithic people may

have become more settled (e.g. the Erteblle), and this

may have enabled them to adopt a Neolithic, sedentary

life of farming. Whittle suggests that few scholars have

resisted the equation of farming with settled life (Whittle

1996, 6). The same applies to foragers and mobility.

However, there are challenges to this evolutionary

sequence. For instance, a Mesolithic structure dating to

c. 7800 cal BC has recently been found in Northum-

berland, northeast England; the successive rebuilding of

this structure along with its robust form and life-span of

roughly 100 years has led to the suggestion that this

represents permanent or at least semi-permanent occu-

pation. This clearly challenges traditional models of

Mesolithic settlement organisation (Waddington et al.

2003a; 2003b). Conversely, people in the Neolithic may

have been much more mobile than sometimes envisaged.

Kent (1989) demonstrates that horticulturalists do not

have to be sedentary; there are many examples in the

ethnographic literature of groups which practise food

production but which also have a degree of mobility.

Whittle (1996, 52) suggests that while some people mayhave become fully sedentary from an early stage, the

evidence suggests that settling down in south-east Europe

was a gradual process. Whittle hypothesises that the tell

occupations in south-east Europe were anchors in patterns

of radiating mobility, and that low mounds like Opovo

could have been occupied on a seasonal basis. Bailey

(1999, 97) describes tells as visible statements alluding

to a permanence of place that did not in reality exist.

Similarly, for the Linear Pottery culture (LBK) of central

and western Europe, mobility may have been an important

element in economic and social strategy with houses

serving as symbolic tethers for a mobile people whofollowed cattle. The diet was supplemented by some

hunting and gathering and limited cultivation; the pollen


2/6

Can seasonality studies be used to identify sedentism in the past? 33

diagrams indicate limited clearance (Whittle 1997, 18).

While these different perceptions of mobility in the past

do not turn the preconceived pattern into one of sedentism

in the Mesolithic and nomadism in the Neolithic, they do

emphasise the fact that the concept of sedentism in the

past is open to interpretation.As Rafferty (1985) outlines, there are many different

ways to recognise sedentism, including the presence of

houses, ceremonial structures, pottery, heavy artefacts,

large quantities of artefacts and mouse bones, as well as

the proximity of sites to water sources. However, these

indicators are rarely conclusive. There are examples in

the ethnographic literature of communities who build

houses and who use pottery but who are not sedentary

(Rafferty 1985). Indeed, Whittle demonstrates that

although well-built structures are often associated with

the appearance of sedentary settlement, the use of space

at Achilleion (in northern Greece) need not entailpermanent occupation (Whittle 1996, 57).

Practical constraints on sedentism must also be

considered. Rafferty (1985) notes that sites occupied by

sedentary communities should not be regularly threatened

by flooding; on this same basis, sites in some areas of

south-east Europe which would have been located on

active floodplains have been considered suitable only for

seasonal occupation or impermanence (Bailey 1999; van

Andel et al. 1995; Whittle 1996). However, Halstead

points out that by the same logic, future archaeologists

would be entitled to conclude that many modern European

cities were only occupied seasonally (Halstead 1999, 77).

Instead, arguing that these may not have been regularflooding events, he makes a case for sedentism. Because

there are always ambiguities in determining sedentism,

the seasonality of resource use will often play a large part

in the investigation of year round occupation. By

analysing floral and faunal remains and considering the

resources available to a community, models of yearly

resource cycles can be constructed.

Before determining whether or not seasonality studies

can be used to identify sedentism at a site it is important

to clarify what exactly sedentism means. Rafferty (1985)

has demonstrated that the terms sedentary, sedentariness,

sedentism, sedentarism, settled and permanent are usedin different ways by different archaeologists and that few

definitions are given in the literature; often the meaning

must be derived from the context. Sedentary can some-

times be used to mean groups staying in one place all

year round (but does this mean within one territory and

could some, but not all, of the group move around?).

Some use sedentary-cum-mobile or semi-nomadic to

introduce an element of mobility for part of the group

(this could then describe transhumance) but these terms

can include a range of degrees of mobility. Others take

sedentary to mean that most of the group lives at a site for

the greater part of the year; this is open to differing

definitions of most, and does greater part mean over

six months or ten months? Conversely, some authors use

the terms sedentary or permanent for long-term settle-

ments; consequently, swidden agriculturalists who occupy

a site for a couple of years and then move on can be

defined as semi-sedentary or semi-permanent. There is

the added confusion that site size is sometimes taken to

be influential. At larger sites, perhaps such as tell sites,there is often more of an expectation that the community

had been sedentary.

Rafferty (1985, 115) follows Rice (1975, 97) to offer

the following definition: sedentary settlement systems

are those in which at least part of the population remains

at the same location throughout the entire year. This

specifies year-round occupation but allows some mobility

by some of the group, perhaps involved in transhumance,

or trading. This is the definition that I will use here.

Rafferty (1985, 116) also suggests that permanent should

not be used as a synonym for sedentism; instead it should

be used to imply long-term occupation (not necessarily ofa sedentary nature).

Problems encountered in seasonality studies

There are an ever increasing number of scientific

techniques being developed to assess seasonality of floral

and faunal remains from archaeological sites. The two

main methods are identifying the presence of seasonally

available species (migratory animals), and examining

physiological events that occur at certain periodic

intervals (e.g. epiphyseal fusion; tooth eruption and wear;

medullary bone deposits; incremental growth in shell,

otoliths, scales). To understand seasonal patterns in

animal migration, tooth eruption or shell growth, it is

critical that modern controls are studied. However

scientific the basis of the method, reliance on modern

analogy means that results will always be subject to

critical scrutiny.

A common method for identifying seasonality is to

look for the presence of migratory animals. Fish have

been analysed from Danish Mesolithic and Neolithic shell

middens and some species may have been caught

seasonally; the eel is plentiful at Bjrnsholm and is easiest

to catch when migrating downstream in large numbers in

the autumn (Enghoff 1993). However, there is always thepossibility that they could have been exploited at other

times of the year. Migratory birds are also often used as

seasonal indicators but there may be considerable

challenges to the specific identification of ducks, geese

and swans. Bones found at Glastonbury, originally

thought to be whooper swans and thus indicative of winter

exploitation, have since been shown to include mute

swans which are present year-round (Serjeantson 1998,

31). More importantly, the patterns of bird distribution

are dynamic, and seasonal habits can change, sometimes

swiftly; the behaviour we witness today does not

necessarily correlate with the behaviour in the past

(Morales Muiz 1995; Serjeantson 1998).

One of the main methods for detecting season of death


3/6

Nicky Milner34

is examination of dentition eruption and wear sequences.

This has become an established method for a variety of

species (e.g. sheep, pig, reindeer, gazelle) and relies on

the examination of teeth in modern animals at various

stages of their life (Davis 1987). Patterns can be related

to age, which in turn can be related to season of death,providing the month or season of birth is known; this

information is vital because it is needed as an anchor

point. OConnor (1998) reviews the methodology used

for assessing seasonality of sheep. He shows that,

depending on the flock of sheep, there may be different

seasons of birthing: late January to late March; March to

late May; or even autumn lambing by some flocks of

Dorset Horn (OConnor 1998, 7). The spread of birthing

over several months coupled with the variation in birthing

periods mean that there is always quite a large margin of

error in the results; he cautions that season-of-death in

sheep should be considered with great care and then onlyin general terms (OConnor 1998, 10).

The use of an anchor point must also be applied in any

study of incremental growth patterns, such as in analyses

of shellfish or otolith seasonality. In the case of the oyster,

modern samples have shown that an annual line is formed

around March. The season of death is determined by

looking at the amount of shell that has formed between

the last annual line and the growing edge (Milner 2001).

Again, there is the potential for error. Archaeological

oysters may have deposited lines at slightly different times

than do their modern counterparts; depending on their

ambient environment, the range of time for line depo-

sition can cover a couple of months, from the end ofFebruary to the end of April. Again the anchor point is

not firmly fixed and it is imperative therefore that large

samples are taken in order to identify accurate trends in

seasonality.

Another problem is determining whether the fauna

under analysis was killed and butchered at the site, or

whether it was transported there at a later date. Many

foods, such as fish, can be stored and moved, as can

useful raw materials such as antler. The interpretation of

seasonal occupation at Star Carr has changed over the

years, partly because the red deer antler was initially

used in the seasonality assessments. The red deer antlerwas used to posit that occupation occurred primarily in

the winter months (Fraser and King 1954). It has been

argued since then that the antler could have been imported

to the site as a source of raw material and thus should be

discounted from the seasonality assessment (Caulfield

1978). From investigation of the other faunal remains,

the seasonality studies indicate spring and summer

occupation (Caulfield 1978; Jacobi 1978; Legge and

Rowley-Conwy 1988), though there are other inter-

pretations (i.e. that the site had been visited sporadically

during virtually all seasons of the year; Andresen et al.

1981; Pitts 1979; Price 1982).

The case of Star Carr highlights the fact that even on

a site where extensive investigation has been carried out

on faunal remains, there is no consensus of opinion on

the season of occupation. The key issue in the analysis of

seasonality is to define the question being asked: what is

the season of this activity, or what is the seasonal

occupation of the site? The season of the activity is

relatively straightforward; for example, the analysis of anumber of oyster shells may show that oysters were

gathered in the spring time. This result indicates seasonal

aspects of resource acquisition activities only. It does not

demonstrate that the site was only occupied in the spring;

too commonly assumptions are made that relate such

results to season of site occupation (Monks 1981).

In order to investigate the seasonal occupation of the

site it is important that the spectrum of procurement

activities is analysed and their seasons evaluated as a

whole (Monks 1981). The absence of indicators in one

season will always be an obstacle. Imagine a site with

seasonal indicators suggesting winter, spring and summeroccupation. The site could have been abandoned in the

autumn but equally it could have been occupied but no

faunal or floral remains have survived. Either site

formation processes have resulted in a loss of some

seasonal fauna (e.g. fragile fish bone which may be lost

to chemical processes), or the particular elements of the

skeletons left are not the ones on which analysis can be

done (e.g. jaws are needed for analysis of dentition).

When trying to determine year-round occupation, the

problem of absence-of-evidence-is-not-evidence-of-

absence will always lead to ambiguity.

A second problem is that the methods used tend to

have wide margins of error; the actual results ofseasonality analysis are often so crude that the precision

of the assessment is at the level of the season rather than

a month. It is imperative that large sample sizes are used

in order to be more confident about the results, although

there are many cases when the samples used are very

low, sometimes only one or two minimum number of

individuals (Milner 2002). Even if large sample sizes are

used and care is taken, the illusion of year-round

occupation can be created all too easily. Take a hypo-

thetical example of a pit which contains a variety of

faunal material from sporadic occupation at different

times of the year: in reality the people at the siteslaughtered the sheep over two weeks in March, shellfish

were eaten through May and June, and migratory swans

were caught on one day in November (see Table 4.1).

Using various methods of seasonality analysis the

archaeologist could come up with the following results:

sheep assessment = late winter/early spring; shellfish

assessment = late spring/summer; and migratory swans

assessment = autumn/winter. This does not equal year-

round occupation, though it could look that way (Table

4.2). This is a very simple scheme and perhaps with

many more species and more results it would look more

convincing, but the principle remains exactly the same

and the results are misleading. This is the case for some

of the large Erteblle shell middens in Denmark which


4/6


J F M A M J J A S O N D

sheep X X X

shellfish X X X X X

swans X X X X X

are usually described as sedentary sites. On examination

of the seasonality studies there is no definitive evidence

for year-round occupation and it is quite plausible to

envisage more mobility, especially in the winter months

(Milner 2002).

The final fundamental problem in using seasonality

studies to investigate sedentism is that most sites are

palimpsests. When attempting to analyse seasonal events,

the aggregation of seasonal activities that have occurred

through time are always conflated into a single year.

Ethnographers use the concept of the seasonal round

which has been adopted by archaeologists to model

mobility and sedentism, especially for hunter-gatherer

sites. However, Jochim (1991) demonstrates that this is a

normative concept which does not acknowledge

behavioural changes from one year to the next or variation

within a group. When ethnography is based on one years

fieldwork it will not pick up on differences between years;

however, there are many examples of studies which doshow significant year-to-year variation (Jochim 1991,

311). In addition, there are often different options for

people within a group and although, for instance, some

may choose to camp and hunt in one place, other groups

may go elsewhere for another activity.

Taking the hypothetical example above it is possible

that the site was occupied by a group of people over the

period of a year and there were other foodstuffs consumed

though this is not shown in the seasonality studies. It is

equally possible that the three activities could have been

carried out by three different groups of people passing

through that location in three different, short periods,

with each group using the site in very different ways:

some shepherds who are forced to kill their flock due to

a bad outbreak of disease; some women and children

gathering shellfish; and some men needing swan feathers

for a ritual. It is impossible to determine whether each of

these events occurred within one year or perhaps at

intervals of every two years. Alternatively, shepherds

could have visited the site every year for ten years and

each time killed a sheep and within this period there was

one brief encampment when shellfish were eaten, and

another for the hunting of swans, both by different groups.

Site chronologies are not sharp enough to distinguish

between these types of events. There are many different

possible scenarios but with each one the interpretation of

sedentism or seasonal occupation changes.

Conclusion

Can seasonality studies be used to identify sedentism in

the past? In order to investigate whether a site was

occupied year-round by a sedentary group of people thereneeds to be a secure context in which one is certain that

all the faunal and floral material had been deposited

within one year. From this faunal and floral material,

there needs to be convincing evidence for activity

throughout the year. Large sample sizes must be used

and the wide margins of error inherent in these studies

must be acknowledged. These requirements are not

always met. While sites may be permanent, in the sense

of long-term occupation, it is difficult, if not impossible,

to demonstrate that they were ever sedentary. Even if

such a site existed it would not provide a true rep-

resentation of that society. In reality both sedentary and

mobile people use lots of different sites or locations in the

landscape for many different reasons.

Table 4.2. Hypothetical scheme showing the seasonality assessments made for each species.

J F M A M J J A S O N D

sheep X

shellfish X X

swans X

Table 4.1. Hypothetical scheme showing the actual months of death of sheep in March, shellfish in May and June, and

swans in November.


5/6

Nicky Milner36

Perhaps a key problem in using the word sedentism is

that it is used by different disciplines to describe different

things. When ethnographers, anthropologists and social

theorists use it they are talking about the activities of

people in a landscape. Often study takes place over the

period of a year or more and within this time a hugevariety of places may be visited for many different

purposes by different people and groups. Even if there is

a permanent base which is occupied throughout most of

the year, the variability of movement by individuals and

small groups is of equal interest. When sedentism is used

in archaeology it is often used to describe an individual

site or location. This conflates individual and societal

mobility and masks the variability and complexity of

movements of different peoples within a landscape. In

ethnographic terms a society may have had a significant

element of mobility in their lifestyle, but in archaeological

terms a site may suggest a sedentary community.Sedentism has been a key topic in archaeology because

of the notion that sedentariness is fundamental to cultural

evolution, specifically to increased social complexity, to

the development of agriculture, and to the rise of the

state and civilisation. However, sedentism may not hold

the key to understanding these societal changes in the

archaeological record. Indeed, it is possible to identify

changes in past societies without evidence for sedentism:

for example, evidence for agriculture in the form of

preserved faunal and floral remains. As we are aware of

examples of mobile societies which practise cultivation

(Kent 1989; Whittle 1997), we must expect that agri-

culture will not always have been synonymous withsedentism. Perhaps it is not useful to search for sedentism

at all. The very word sedentary is restrictive because it

sets up a binary opposition to mobility. The notional cut-

off points created for where or when a society becomes

sedentary are clearly problematic. Sedentism is laden with

connotations: it may mean to one person what sedentism-

cum-mobile means to another. No cut-off point can be

agreed upon.

In sum, sedentism is difficult to prove. Not only can

the presence of housing, pottery or agriculture be

inconclusive but even the seasonality of resources may be

ambiguous. The term sedentism is also vague in itsmeaning. Kent (1989, 2) questions how sedentary

sedentism is and highlights the fact that although

modern day Euro-Americans are classified as sedentary,

they do not occupy the same location for decades, or

spend every month of the year in the same place.

Therefore, perhaps it is more productive to think in terms

of permanence, meaning occupation over many years

(although not necessarily year-round occupation) and a

spectrum of movements within a landscape.

Acknowledgements

I am very grateful to William Fletcher and Geoff Baileyfor providing useful discussion and comments on this

paper.

Bibliography

Andresen, J.M., Byrd, B.F., Elson, M.D., McGuire, R.H.,

Mendoza, R.G., Staski, E. and White, J.P. 1981. The deer

hunters: Star Carr reconsidered. World Archaeology 13,

3146.

Bailey, D.W. 1999. What is a tell? Settlement in fifthmillennium Bulgaria. In J. Brck and M Goodman (eds),

Making places in the prehistoric world. Themes in settlement

archaeology, 94111. London: UCL Press.

Caulfield, S. 1978. Star Carr an alternative view. Irish

Archaeological Research Forum 5, 1522.

Clark, J.G.D. 1969. World prehistory. A new outline.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cooney, G. 1997. Images of settlement and the landscape in

the Neolithic. In P. Topping (ed.), Neolithic landscapes,

2333. Oxford: Oxbow.

Davis, S.J.M. 1987. The archaeology of animals. London:

Batsford.

Edmonds, M.R. 1995. Stone tools and society. London:Batsford.

Enghoff, I.B. 1993. Mesolithic eel-fishing at Bjrnsholm,

Denmark. Spiced with exotic species. Journal of Danish

Archaeology 10, 10518.

Fraser, F.C. and King, J.E. 1954. Faunal remains. In J.G.D.

Clark, Excavations at Star Carr, 7095. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Halstead, P. 1999. Neighbours from hell? The household in

Neolithic Greece. In P. Halstead (ed.), Neolithic society in

Greece, 7795. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.

Jacobi, R. 1978. Northern England in the eighth millennium

BC: an essay. In P. Mellars (ed.), The early postglacial

settlement of northern Europe: an ecological perspective,

295332. London: Duckworth.Jochim, M.A. 1991. Archaeology as long-term ethnography.

American Anthropologist 93, 30821.

Kelly, R.L. 1992. Mobility/sedentism: concepts, archaeological

measures and effects. Annual Review of Anthropology, 21,

4366.

Kent, S. 1989. Cross-cultural perceptions of farmers as hunters

and the value of meat. In S. Kent (ed.), Farmers as hunters.

The implications of sedentism, 117. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Legge, A.J. and Rowley-Conwy, P.A. 1988. Star Carr revisited:

a re-analysis of the large mammals. London: Birkbeck

College.

Milner, N. 2001. At the cutting edge: using thin sectioning todetermine season of death of the European oyster, Ostrea

edulis. Journal of Archaeological Science 28, 86175.

Milner, N. 2002. Incremental growth of the European oyster,

Ostrea edulis. Seasonality information from Danish

kitchenmiddens. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.

Monks, G.G. 1981. Seasonality studies. In M.B. Schiffer (ed.),

Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 4, 177

240. New York: Academic Press.

Morales Muiz, A. 1995. The mobile faunas: reliable seasonal

indicators for archaeozoologists? In T.R. Rocek and O. Bar-

Yosef (eds), Seasonality and sedentism. Archaeological

perspectives from Old and New World sit es , 12345.

Massachusetts: Harvard University.

OConnor, T.P. 1998. On the difficulty of detecting seasonalslaughtering of sheep. Environmental Archaeology 3, 5

13.


6/6


Pitts, M. 1979. Hides and antlers: a new look at the gatherer-

hunter site at Star Carr, North Yorkshire, England. World


Price, D. 1982. Willow tails and dog smoke. Quarterly Review

of Archaeology, 3, 47.

Rafferty, J.E. 1985. The archaeological record on sedentariness:

recognition, development, and implications. Advances in

Archaeological Method and Theory 8, 11356.

Rice, G. 1975. A sys temat ic explana tion of a change in

Mogollon settlement patterns . Ann Arbor, MI.: University

of Washington Microfilms International.

Serjeantson, D. 1998. Birds: a seasonal resource. Environmental


Thomas, J. 1991. Rethinking the Neol ithic. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

van Andel, T., Gallis, K and Toufexis, G. 1995. Early Neolithic

farming in a Thessalian river landscape, Greece. In J. Lewin,

M.G. Macklin and J.C. Woodward (eds), Mediterranean

Quaternary river environments, 13143. Rotterdam:

Balkema.

Waddington, C., Bailey, G., Bayliss, A., Boomer, I., Milner,

N., Pedersen, K., Shiel, R. and Stevenson, T. 2003a. A

Mesolithic settlement site at Howick, Northumberland: a

preliminary report. Archaeologia Aeliana 32, 112.

Waddington, C, Bailey, G., Boomer, I., Milner, N. and Shiel,

R. 2003b. A Mesolithic coastal site at Howick,

Northumberland. Antiquity 77, 295.

Whittle, A. 1996. Europe in the Neolithic. The creation of new

worlds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Whittle, A. 1997. Moving on and moving around: Neolithic

settlement mobility. In P. Topping (ed.), Neolithic

landscapes, Oxford: Oxbow, 1522.

Whittle, A. 2003. The archaeology of people. Dimensions of

Neolithic life. London: Routledge.

ch4 nicky milner

Documents