Recognising sedentism and the processes leading to it in the archaeological record is neither simple nor straightforward. A number of criteria are employed but there is not always agreement on their effectiveness. Bellwood (2005:23) termed several regularly used determinants “ambiguous”; Wyncoll and Tangri (1991:158) considered that such identification remains largely dependent on cultural markers very much “equivocal”; while Hardy-Smith and Edwards (2004:257, 259) spoke of “questionable evidential yardsticks” and “archaeometrical indicators [that] do not all pull in the same direction”, suggesting both mobility and sedentism.
The matter is dealt with more incisively by Edwards (1989:14) commenting that in dealing with interpretative issues of social behaviour, scholars have tended to have recourse to ethnography. He stated that the theoretical difficulty in this case, and the one which besets all explanations involving ethnographic associations between activity and material correlates, is that a uniform correlation must be assumed to have held between the phenomena under investigation from the prehistoric past to the present. If there are not contemporary equivalents of prehistoric systems, then the procedure is logically untenable; only extrapolation of a model or process would be legitimate. In dealing with problems in distinguishing between the prehistoric settlement remains of sedentary semi- mobile and mobile hunter-gatherers in Southwest Asia, Edwards (1989:38) stated:
Many of the material markers of sedentism … show too much overlap with former Pleistocene sites or more recent mobile sites to be separable as novel developments. The most distinctive development in Natufian sites is seen to be the aggregates of curvilinear residential structures and, in some cases, their successive reconstruction. Many of the supposed sedentary markers look to ethnographic equivalents for reference, and it is here that precise, well-excavated and published equivalents are lacking. While the detailed excavation of further Levantine prehistoric sites will undoubtedly revolutionise our evidential base, much more ethnographic and experimental archaeological work is necessary for detailed comparative data to be gained, relating to site formation of known sedentary hunter-gatherer sites of the recent past. We may be forced to concede that the characteristics of early sedentary sites near the mobile/sedentary transition are more strongly influenced by particularistic local, historical developments, than those characteristics stemming from universal organisational principles underlying sedentism.
Edwards (1989:11, 15) refers to the Kebaran site, Ein Gev I, where excavation revealed flaked stone artefacts stylistically an idiosyncratic facies of the period; but at a
technological level, the site possessed many substantive elements of later Natufian assemblages, including basalt vessels and pestles, bladelets bearing silica sheen, and also sub-floor burial. Heconsidered the difference reflecting sedentism to lie in a marked overall rise in the magnitude of previously known features:
Even though clear breaks in occupation can sometimes be discerned in archaeological deposits, it should be stressed that at present there is no definitive or clear-cut way to distinguish deposits resulting from sedentary occupations from those produced by continual, intermittent occupations.
11.1 MANAGING THE ISSUES
To deal with the issues it is necessary to consider two questions: if sedentism is seen to involve year-round settlement in permanent structures, does ‘permanent settlement’ equate with year-round occupation; and does it represent permanent settlement?
The first is dealt with by adopting the Edwards (1989:9) definition as stated on earlier, extended to embrace the construction of a permanent structure with functions other than domestic. The approach encompasses the range of activities considered associated with a sedentary way of life, and sites exhibiting varying degrees of permanence. It then proceeds on the understandings that: (a) whether or not permanent year-round occupancy can be established conclusively, mobility in particular areas changed in terms of longer and multi-seasonal stays at sites; (b) certain sites within the territorial round came to be occupied more frequently and for longer periods than others, and for purposes other than domestic; and (c) eventually some sites, without doubt, became permanently occupied. This is not to propose a direct line in the transitional process from (a) to (c) but rather a general trend.
The second issue is more problematic. While Hassan (1977) has stated that permanent structures demarcate the boundary of ownership rights and are used for storage purposes and non-transportable food-processing facilities, questions arise: what about those used only seasonally but over a long-time period; what if particular structures were part of the culture, being specifically designed to be dismantled and transported to another location; and what if long-term occupation of a site occurred without the need for such
architecture — all known or strongly suspected realities?
These issues can be managed by examining sites for features generally accepted as indicators of sedentism. While not considered absolute, by their number and in
combination with others they are likely to attest to it, particularly over a short time span and as part of a development sequence. Accordingly, as stated earlier, the archaeological record is examined in toto.
11.2 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECOGNITION OF SEDENTISM
Evidence for sedentism falls into two broad categories: that identified by scholars in this area; and those elements which might be expected as a consequence of it. It is
equally provided under conditions of mobility by seasonal aggregation, and others to a greater or lesser extent on the size of the residential group.
Reference is made to studies that have explored issues fundamental to the transition to sedentism such as the social context of the processes involved and the nature of political, economic and ideoreligious practices; how these might assist in understanding some of the material and symbolic ways in which people were identified; how they are reflected through archaeological data sets; and the process by which social differentiation emerged. These include the detailed Hitchcock (1982) study of the quantitative and qualitative attributes of recent developments among the Basarwa of Eastern Botswana in their transition to sedentism; that of Edwards (1989) focusing on the Natufian period of the Levant and Anatolia in Southwest Asia; and Rafferty’s (1985) paper on the
recognition of sedentism in the archaeological record.
Archaeological correlates of decreasing mobility and increasing sedentism are outlined in Appendix F. As stated earlier, not all indicators listed are likely to be present at any one site or in any one settlement. No one is either sufficient or necessary for recognising sedentariness, nor is it without criticism of some sort; instead, they must be used in conjunction to build a case for the presence of settled life. Rafferty (1985:137) advised that the best procedure for identifying ‘sedentism/sedentariness’ is based on having available a developmental sequence so that the site characteristics can be compared over time and changes in indicators highlighted.