AMBIGUITY AND THE SELF-EVIDENT IN THE STUDY OF SEDENTISM ROSEMARY WHITECROSS A THESIS SUBMITTED IN FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY FACULTY OF ARTS AND SOCIAL SCIENCES UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY 2016 ABSTRACT The thesis considers the basis and the logic of the propositions made in the past 300 years about the transition from a mobile lifestyle to a sedentary one, assessing the propositions in relation to their intellectual milieu. No particular position is defended or legitimated, nor is the study an attempt to create new definitions of sedentism or to seek to identify new indicators of sedentism in the archaeological record. Instead it considers how other people have sought to do this, in order to assess whether there has been something inherently problematic in the assumptions and logic that have been used. The study illustrates its point primarily through a review of English language scholarship with some small inclusions of English translations of opinions expressed in other languages. No stabilised, agreed or paradigmatic theories exist concerning a shift to sedentism, despite that transition being a major change in human behaviour, partially associated with the expansion of agricultural economies and integral to the development of urban life and the huge population increases of the last 8,000 years. Notwithstanding the scale and importance of the phenomenon, with a few notable exceptions, theorising on the subject has involved both ambiguity and the apparently self-evident. There is considerable ambiguity in English language definitions about what constitutes sedentism, and this becomes more complicated when definitions and opinions from other languages and cultural backgrounds are incorporated. The terminology and classifications used by scholars have been, and still are, ambiguous, and this makes any “answer” problematic because the various opinions and debates do not refer consistently to the same phenomena or to their relationship to other components of human behaviour. There are also differences in regional interpretations. Several interrelated debates and topics add to the complexities and ambiguities, such as the relationship between sedentism and agriculture, the nature and residential behaviour of complex hunter-gatherer communities and the characteristics of pastoralism. The “self-evident” component had its genesis in the 18th century, when social philosophers proposed linear progression models of human development, which have had a continuing influence on archaeological assumptions about the process of becoming sedentary. By the later part of the 20th century some scholars were re-engaging with the issue and reassessing these assumptions, but the fundamentals are still not resolved, despite scholars often writing as if they are. ii Additional problems further complicate the study of the formation of sedentary communities. Unlike other aspects of human behaviour, there is no comparable theory or empirical data on sedentising in other animal species. This has meant that archaeological theorists cannot either “borrow” theory from the biological sciences or test their predicates against its evidence. There are also difficulties with the use of ethnographic analogy to retrodict recent sedentising trends to the conditions prevailing at the time societies initially became sedentary. The problem is that the previous circumstances must logically be considered to have differed from current and recent circumstances in which people making a transition to sedentary life already know about other people who are sedentary. There is, of course, a difference between the processes involved in a community becoming settled, or sedentising, and the state of a community residing in one place, or being sedentary, often referred to as sedentism. Becoming sedentary was a process, not an instantaneous change. The majority of communities around the world became sedentary before writing or other recording systems were introduced. It is not, therefore, possible to directly study the social processes through which communities became sedentary, only what remains in the archaeological record. The archaeological signatures of the transition continue to be a topic of inconclusive debate despite the recent use of new analytic technologies. An operational analysis will be necessary, to consider what sedentism actually was at the time of the initial transitions, rather than defining it in contrast to something else. To proceed further with a coherent analysis of sedentising will likely need the discovery of an unequivocal marker, possibly biomechanical or biochemical, for a newly sedentary population before any agreement can be reached on the definition of sedentism. A universally agreed definition of what is meant by the terms “sedentism” and “becoming sedentary” in the prehistoric context is required for future investigations to be coherent and a more cohesive concept of sedentism to be actualised. iii PREFACE The scholarly study of the initial transitions to sedentism has been a rather unstructured mix of ambiguity and assumed self-evidence. As a consequence, presenting the thesis requires a structure which is independent of the subject. This is why the middle five chapters of the thesis provide a historical overview of the problems which have repeatedly occurred through the study of sedentism and sedentising over the last three hundred years, rather than an overview of the issues involved. Chapter 1 gives a broad overview of the issues and Chapter 2 covers the substantive theoretical problems. Chapter 8 returns to an overview of the issues, and Chapter 9 highlights the situation currently faced by archaeological scholars and covers potential opportunities. The purpose of the thesis is not to provide an answer to the question of why sedentising occurred in the past, or what the definition of sedentism should be, but rather sets out the reasons why such answers have not come about and the ways in which scholars have approached the issue. There are, at present, no agreed definitions or explanations. Although the term sedentism and its associated terminology is used throughout the thesis, in line with common practice, it is not intended to give the impression that there is any certitude as to precise meaning in the circumstances in which it is used. Australian spelling has been used in this thesis, except where exact quotations are taken from publications. iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First and foremost I have to thank my Supervisor, Professor Roland Fletcher, who, wherever he has been in the world, has been both incredibly helpful and incredibly patient as I have worked on this project. Scholars around the world have given their time to discuss aspects of sedentism with me. In particular, my deep thanks go to Emeritus Professor David Harris, who not only talked with me but also gave me many copies of his publications. Professors Junko Habu, Janet Rafferty, Evan Peacock, Mark Aldenderfer and Miriam Stark were all very kind and helpful, and I thank them. I also must thank my Auxilliary Supervisor, Professor Allison Betts, who has provided many helpful suggestions. Other academic staff have also been helpful and generous with their time. My fellow students along the way have kept me going and provided all kinds of support. Linda, in particular, for her final proofreading and other help in the last few days. Helen and D’Arne both proofread and made many helpful comments last year. I’m sorry I let so many of you beat me to the finish line. The Library staff and the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences staff here at the University of Sydney have always been helpful. The other Angkor Room students, both past and present, and from the wider Archaeology cohort, thank you for your friendship, help, smiles and assistance. In the times that I have been in the various PGARC facilities, thank you all. You have all made the journey so much more enjoyable. And last, but not least, my husband Peter – who has been very patient with me and supported me both emotionally and financially. This research was funded in part by an Australian Postgraduate Award scholarship and also funding from the Carlyle Greenwell Bequest of the University of Sydney. In memory of my parents, Kay and Maurice, who both passed away while I undertaking this study, but who provided support and encouragement beforehand. v TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract ii Preface iv Acknowledgements v Table of Contents vi PART I – BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW Chapter 1: The Conundrum of Sedentism and the Practice of Archaeology 1 1.1 Introduction 1 1.2 Ambiguity and the Self-evident 10 1.3 Does a phenomenon exist under the label “sedentism”? 18 1.4 The significance of sedentism 22 1.5 Conclusions 32 Chapter 2: Opinions and Problems in the Study of Sedentism 34 2.1 Introduction 34 2.2 Definitions of sedentism 36 2.3 Ambiguities and inconsistencies 39 2.4 The issue of self-evident propositions 45 2.5 Agriculture 47 2.6 Indices of sedentism and the problem of the Neolithic 49 2.7 Proposed archaeological markers for sedentism 55 2.8 Conclusions 64 PART II – HISTORY AND CONTEXT Chapter 3: From Ancient Greece to the Enlightenment and the mid-19th century 65 3.1 Introduction 65 3.2 Writings relating to sedentism and the “three stage theory” from the 7th century BC to the Enlightenment period 67 3.3 The Englightenment Philosophers 71 3.4 The Enlightenment to the mid-19th century 79 3.5 Concepts of property and ownership 82 3.6 Conclusions 83 vi Chapter 4: The 19th century from the 1850s 86 4.1 Introduction