|
ref:
Before Farming 2004/4 article 8
Before,
during and after farming
For
a journal devoted to hunter-gatherers and called Before
Farming the set of four papers in this issue may appear
to be misplaced. On closer inspection there is a thematic
unity here that is directly relevant to hunter-gatherer
studies – and not just for Africanists, but also for
those interested in modelling foragerfarmer interaction
more generally. (My editorial in the last issue explains
the origin of these papers.) The syntheses by Mitchell
and Gronenborn should be read together because they
offer complementary perspectives on the complex processes
of cultural change associated with the expansion of
farming communities into landscapes inhabited by hunter-gatherers.
Mitchell argues persuasively that the southern African
record is an under-appreciated resource of historical,
linguistic, ethnographic, genetic and archaeological
data that together highlight the fluidity of hunter-gatherer
responses to the presence of food producers. Gronenborn
takes this Africanist perspective and applies it to
a central European context by considering the many possible
permutations of interaction between Linienbandkeramik
(LBK) farmers and indigenous Mesolithic hunter-gatherers.
The result is not a new model to add to the migrationist-diffusionist
debate, but a sober appreciation of the complexity and
rapidity of hunter-gatherer reaction to changing opportunities
and constraints. Both these papers highlight the need
for archaeologists to embrace disparate sources of information
if we are to begin to approximate the mosaic of behaviours
that arose from interactions between differing ways
of doing, thinking and being.
The flexibility of hunter-gatherer societies also features
in the Hobart’s analysis of the late Holocene archaeological
record from Lesotho and surrounding regions of South
Africa. He argues for the development of small-scale
pastoralism among some highland Bushmen groups who were
engaged in regional exchange networks with other hunter-gatherers
and pastoralists. Here he uses the term neolithic to
characterise these highland communities and to recognise
their active role in choosing to be hunters, herders,
and foragers. This is a timely reminder that as well
as re-evaluating the role of Bushmen as agents of change,
we as archaeologists need to be alive to alternative
interpretations of the archaeological record. Associations
of hunter-gatherers’ tools with what appear to be signatures
of farming or pastoralism need not be simply the result
of taphonomic mixing – our natural caution based on
field experience may be constraining our interpretive
vision.
Archaeological vision, or more properly its material
limitations, features in Fauvelle-Aymar’s analysis of
the identity of Khoekhoe herders in southern Africa.
The Khoekhoe have long been characterised by archaeologists
as essentially hunters with sheep rather than true pastoralists
with all that implies economically and ideologically.
This paper counterpoises ethnographic and historic sources
for Khoekhoe treatment of their stock (drawing on a
wider African database) against the archaeological evidence,
and the latter is shown to be wanting. The question
of Khoekhoe origins remains unanswered, but their identity
as pastoralists seems clearer and consequently the southern
African record of the last 2,000 years is enriched with
this added cultural diversity. It is tempting to draw
modern parallels, but I will resist….
The recent announcement of the discovery of a new human
species, Homo floresiensis, is generating considerable
debate about the validity of the species and by implication
the associated behavioural record. We feature an extended
news item in this issue that includes critical comments
on the finds from Liang Bua cave and a vigorous reply
by Peter Brown and Mike Morwood.
After a brief gap, ‘Benefit of foresight’ returns with
a personal account by Mitsuo Ichikawa (Director of the
Graduate School of Asian and African Area Studies, Kyoto
University) of how he began his research among the Mbuti
of the Ituri forest and how three decades later his
research interests have both broadened and become more
focused at the same time. He charts the impact of shifting
academic agendas on his own research, and the rise of
an ecological anthropologist actively engaged in efforts
to conserve tropical rainforests and those who depend
on them. The aspiring student and seasoned anthropologist
alike can benefit from Ichikawa’s example of remaining
open to new and unexpected influences.
THE
EDITOR
Liverpool,
December 2004
©
Western Academic & Specialist
Press Ltd 2004
|
|
