The Origins of Transhumant Pastoralism in Temperate SE Europe - Arnold Greenfield

8/16/2019 The Origins of Transhumant Pastoralism in Temperate SE Europe - Arnold Greenfield

1/212

The Origins of Transhumant

Pastorialism in Temperate SouthEastern Europe:

A Zooarchaeological Perspective

from the Central Balkans

Elizabeth R. Arnold

Haskel J. Greenfield

BAR International Series XXXX

2006


2/212

BOOK JUSTIFICATION

This book is designed as a test case for the identification of transhumant pastoralism using zooarchaeologicaltechniques that have been proposed in the literature. Most studies that try to identify transhumance do not usezooarchaeological methods and hence are open to a variety of interpretations. By moving the study out of an aridenvironment and into a temperate environment, we remove the important variable of environment as a constraint. Most

studies have tried to identify transhumance as deriving from the Early Neolithic (and beginning of animaldomestication), where it is difficult to see differences because of similarities between hunter-gatherer and early pastoral

behaviour. In our study, we try to get beyond these issues by working in an area without any expectation oftranshumance associated with the earliest farming cultures and testing for its later appearance as part of a package oflarger changes associated with the secondary products revolution. Little is still known about the evolution of thisimportant and ancient form of land use and domestic animal management, especially in temperate environmental zones.Yet, zooarchaeological data can be used to answer basic questions concerning the origin and nature of earlytranshumant pastoralism. Such research has yielded data suggesting that transhumant pastoralism may have initially

appeared in the central Balkans early in the Post Neolithic (Eneolithic – ca. 3300 B.C., calibrated radiocarbon dating).This is the earliest dates for the appearance of transhumant pastoralism in the temperate zones of Europe.


3/212


4/212

ABSTRACT

This book addresses the issue of the temporal origins of transhumant pastoralism in temperate southeastern Europe

(northern half of the Balkan Peninsula). In this region, there is little of the environmental imperative frequently cited toaccount for the origins of transhumance, in contrast to the Mediterranean littoral. The climate does not force themigration of animals from the lowlands in the summer into the highlands, and back into the lowlands because of

insufficient graze and harsh temperatures. Yet, this form of land use and animal exploitation pattern has a very longhistory in southern Europe, extending at least to the Roman period. However, little is known about its origins anddevelopment.

In recent years, several hypotheses have been suggested to explain when and why transhumant pastoralism withdomestic animals appeared across the southern Mediterranean. Each hypothesis proposes a different point in time when

transhumance would appear, ranging from the appearance of the earliest domestic animals (advent of the Early Neolithic), to the appearance of secondary product exploitation (advent of the Post Neolithic), and to the appearance ofcomplex societies (advent of the Iron Age). Previous attempts to test these hypotheses has indicated that transhumancewith domestic stock did not appear in the temperate zone until the advent of the Eneolithic (c. 3300 BC), long after the

beginning of animal domestication in the Early Neolithic (c. 6100 BC).

The hypotheses are tested by examining the tooth remains from three domestic animal taxa (Ovis/Capra, Bos taurus andSus scrofa) from archaeological sites in the central part of the northern Balkans (also known as the Central Balkans).Data from eleven sites in the region, with statistically sufficient samples and spanning the period from the Early Neolithic through to the Early Iron Age, were tabulated to test the hypotheses.

The primary technique involved the creation of harvest profiles from mandibular tooth wear and eruption data of

domestic animal to examine age of death, the associated season of death and exploitation strategies. Season of death andthe seasonality of culling practices were also examined for each taxon through additional graphical evaluation of the

data and were supplemented by the secondary technique of cementum analysis of modern and archaeologicalmandibular Ovis aries and Capra hircus teeth. The specific hypothesis used in this investigation was that transhumant pastoralism would appear at the temporal point where complementary culling patterns between highland and lowland

sites in the region appear. Based on other sources of data, such a pattern was expected to appear at the advent of thePost Neolithic.

Several overriding taphonomic issues affecting sample size greatly hampered the creation of the traditional harvest profiles and limited the capability to evaluate the original hypotheses by these means. However, the harvest profile datadoes lend itself to provide further support for the secondary products revolution model, which is hypothesized to occurat the advent of the Post Neolithic (Eneolithic-Iron Age) in the region. The seasonality data, both graphically and fromthe cementum analysis, show complementary profiles between highland and lowland areas in the Post Neolithic,lending support to the original hypotheses of transhumant movement. At the same time, problematic divisions of age

groups of Ovis/Capra are revealed as potentially masking herd movements that might otherwise be revealed in thetraditional harvest profiles.

It is clear from the analysis that strong changes in not only culling patterns, but also land use take place during the

Eneolithic and Bronze Age of the region. These are interpreted in light of two regional developments – the advent oftranshumant pastoralism and the beginning of the Secondary Products Revolution.


5/212


6/212

CHAPTER SUMMARY

Chapter 1 presents the theoretical background to the research problem and outlines the methodology, techniques anddata that are utilized in the research.

Chapter 2 provides a definition and discussion of transhumant pastoralism and relevant environmental and ecological parameters.

Chapter 3 examines previous research on the origins of transhumant pastoralism in Europe focusing on both theMediterranean and the northern temperate region of the Balkans. The research of Geddes, Halstead and Greenfield are

the focus.

Chapter 4 introduces the characteristics of the regional environment including topography, climate and vegetation inorder to consider the viability of transhumant pastoralism within the northern Balkans.

Chapter 5 summarizes the culture history of southeastern Europe from the Neolithic through the Early Iron Age.

Aspects of settlement, fauna, and evidence for sedentism and mobility are examined.

Chapter 6 describes the methodology to be utilized and details the two chosen techniques, tooth wear and eruption andcementum analysis.

Chapter 7 describes the data examined in this investigation. In the chapter, each site is described, including sitelocation, environment and nature of deposits. The mandibular and loose teeth remains are quantified by species and bymajor period. It also describes the thin sectioning data, both the modern comparative collection and the archaeological

sample.

Chapter 8 presents the results of the data analysis. The first part focuses on the tooth wear and eruption data, examining both production strategies and implications for the transhumant movement of herds. The second part focuses on the thinsectioning results.

Chapter 9 presents the final conclusions regarding the data and discusses their implication in terms of the origins oftranshumant pastoralism in the northern Balkans.


7/212


8/212

FOREWORD

This work is an example of an idea that had a long gestation period and that has gone through almost 20 years of datacollection. It was one of those tasks that required the collection of data from a long range of time periods and over a

vast geographic scale. As a result, it has its origins in the PhD thesis research of Haskel Greenfield and it becamecomplete with the MA thesis research of Elizabeth Arnold. In 1977, Greenfield began to work in Serbia under thesupervision of H. Arthur Bankoff (Brooklyn College). This initial field season of survey and test excavations in thecentral Balkans led to their return and the beginning of systematic excavation at the Post Neolithic site of NovačkaĆuprija. The faunal data from this and other excavations by Bankoff were offered to Greenfield for analysis as part ofhis developing PhD thesis on Post Neolithic subsistence practices. In preparation for the identification of

zooarchaeological specimens from the central Balkans, Greenfield received training in Budapest by the late SandorBökönyi. The experiences at Novačka Ćuprija eventually led to the analyses of many other collections in the regionfrom both the Neolithic and Post Neolithic, many of which were reported in Greenfield (1986) and subsequent publications. Greenfield’s thesis and early publications were primarily concerned with testing Andrew Sherratt’shypothesis on the advent of secondary products exploitation in Europe.

Early on in the analysis of the specimens for the testing of the secondary products hypothesis, Greenfield noticed anapparent discrepancy between the patterns for highland and lowland Post Neolithic harvest profiles of ovicaprines and

cattle, which he interpreted as evidence for the advent of transhumant pastoralism (1988, 1991, 1999a, 2001a).However, he felt that he only had sufficient data to point out the possible pattern rather than to comprehensively test thishypothesis. One gap in his early research was the paucity of highland (alpine or subalpine assemblages). In order torectify this gap, he joined Blagoje Govedarica’s research project which was in the process of excavating Post Neolithicsettlements on the Glasinac Plateau (east Bosnia). The project eventually focused on the site at Kadica Brdo which wasexcavated from 1986-1990. The excavations, as many others, were terminated by the Yugoslavian civil wars and have

never resumed. Only preliminary reports of the excavations were ever published. However, sufficient fauna wererecovered and analyzed to finally provide a test for transhumance from the highland zone for the EIA.

One of the major problems that Greenfield encountered in his initial analyses was that he included all fragments in hisageing of specimens in order to maintain high sample sizes. The detailed tooth eruption and wear data were neverseparately analysed because of problems with the early computer recording of the information. In the 1990’s, with the

appearance of easily accessible computer spreadsheets, Greenfield was able to recover all of his old data from theregion and make them comparable for reanalysis. This included the tooth wear and eruption data.

During the later years of Greenfield’s research in the region, new and exciting techniques in zooarchaeology were beginning to appear and spread throughout the discipline – i.e. tooth cementum analysis. Influenced by its potential forthe study of transhumance, Greenfield began to collect what were then considered to be suitable specimens for such

analysis. These were brought back to the University of Manitoba for eventual study, and there they lay until ElizabethArnold entered the picture.

Arnold worked with Greenfield on a variety of data sets from the region, upgrading them and putting them all intocompatible computer formats (Excel spreadsheets). From this database, the tooth wear and eruption data were extracted by Arnold for a more complete analysis. Some of the archaeological faunal assemblages described herein were stored at

the University of Manitoba. These were sorted and all the teeth were separated for analysis by Arnold. Under theguidance of Dr. Ariane Burke, Arnold gained the knowledge and experience of thin sectioning and cementum analysis.

A sample of the domestic Ovis/Capra material was selected for testing of the transhumance hypotheses using thesetechniques. Comparative modern Ovis/Capra material was collected on monthly trips to local abattoirs and small-scalefarms over the course of a year and prepared in a similar manner. This work is a result of these combined efforts andauthor order does not imply relative effort in completing this monograph.


9/212


10/212

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

There are too many people to properly thank for access to data used in this work. They include all of Greenfield’s

various collaborators through the years in ex-Yugoslavia. In particular, we would like to thank the directors (orcodirectors) of the various projects or people who arranged access to the data from each of the sites used in the analyses presented within this book, including Florin Draşovean (Foeni-Salaş), Željko Jež (Petnica), Mirjana Vukmanović andPetar Popović (Livade), H. Arthur Bankoff (Novačka Ćuprija), Blagoje Govedarica (Kadica Brdo), MilenkoBogdanović (Ljuljaci), Mihalis Fotiadis (Megalo Nisi Galanis), Ljubomir Bukvić (Opovo) and the late SvetozarStanković (Blagotin, Stragari-Šljivik), and the late Professors Milutin Garašanin and Dragoslav Srejović (Vinča-BeloBrdo). Other individuals also played vital roles in the data collection from the region, including Vesna Jeremenko, TinaJongsma, Dimitrije Madas, Guilmine Eygun, Igor and Andrej Starović and the staff of the Istraživačka Stanica Petnica,Alexandr Radoman, Bojana Vojković, Zev Greenfield, and the late Vladimir Leković. Without the help of each andevery one of the above, it would never have been possible to have accumulated such a wealth of comparativeinformation from the region.

Thanks to Clayton Robins (Manitoba Sheep Association) and Sharon Peddler (Manitoba Goat Association) for

providing contacts and direction; to Monica Griffiths, for supplying all the modern goat specimens as well as valuedinformation, and for continued interest; to Lee Perreault and the staff at Prairie Abattoir and Jim and Doris Holmes andstaff from Carmen Meats; and Randy and Solange Eros for having the interest and taking the time to provide sheepspecimens.

Thanks must go to our colleagues and graduate students at the University of Manitoba who helped at various stages inthe preparation of specimens, organization of data, and presentation of results. In particular, we would like to thank ValMcKinley and Ariane Burke for Elizabeth Arnold’s training and their assistance in the University of Manitoba’s thinsectioning laboratory. Val’s support went far beyond simple technical advice. Special thanks must also be accorded toTina Jongsma who aided in the field collection and analysis of many of the specimens described here and has allowedthem to be incorporated into our analysis. In addition, we would like to Chris Meiklejohn and Karin Wittenberg for theirinvolvement, patience and advice during the various revisions of this work and Dennis Murphy (Statistical AssistanceCenter, University of Manitoba) for his help with statistical issues. Figures 6.3, 8.4, 8.24, and 8.25 are reproduced with

the permission of Sebastian Payne.

Most of all, special thanks must be extended to our families for their constant support. None of this could have beenaccomplished without them. They continuously sacrificed in order to ensure that this work would see the light of day.

This work is dedicated to the memory of Rita Fecher, Haskel’s mother, who passed away on June 13, 2003. Thisresearch could not have been undertaken without her inspiration for Haskel to persevere in the face of insurmountableodds during his studies and especially during the long periods of field work that were required to collect the body ofdata. She would have been proud to have seen its completion before her untimely passing.


11/212


12/212

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER AND SECTION TITLES

Book Justification iAbstract iii

Chapter Summary vForeword viiAcknowledgments xiTable of Contents xi

I. Chapter and section titles xiII. List of Figures xv

III. List of Tables xviiIV. List of Appendices xix

CHAPTER 1: I NTRODUCTION 1

I. Theoretical background to research problem 1II. Research hypotheses 1

III. Method and Technique 2IV. Data 3

A. The region 3B. Temporal span 3C. Data 3

V. Conclusions 5

CHAPTER 2: TRANSHUMANT PASTORALISM: SOME ETHNOGRAPHIC CONSIDERATIONS 7

I. Introduction to pastoralism 7II. Types of pastoralism 7

A. Nomadic pastoralism 7B. Semi-nomadic pastoralism 7C. Transhumant pastoralism 8

III. Aspects of modern transhumant pastoralism in the northern Balkans 8IV. Conclusion 11

CHAPTER 3: PREVIOUS R ESEARCH ON ORIGINS OF TRANSHUMANCE 13PASTORALISM IN PREHISTORIC SOUTHERN EUROPE

I. Introduction 13II. Theories on the origins of transhumant pastoralism 13

A. Political instability 13B. Regional symbiosis 13C. A by-product of initial animal domestication in an ecologically varied habitat 14D. Secondary Products Revolution 14

III. Previous research on the origins of transhumant pastoralism in Mediterranean Europe 14A. Mesolithic/Neolithic continuity 15B. Complex societies 15

IV. Previous research in temperate southeastern Europe 16VI. Differences between models – comparing apples and oranges 17VII. Conclusions 18


13/212

CHAPTER 4: R EGIONAL E NVIRONMENT 19

I. Introduction 19

II. Landforms 19A. Topography 19B. Rivers 20

III. Climate 20

A. Temperature 20B. Precipitation 21

IV. Environmental Regions 22A. Highland areas 22B. Lowland areas 22

VI. Regional environment and climate in prehistory 23A. Environment and climate in the Balkans during the Neolithic 23B. Anthropogenic environmental changes during the Neolithic 23

C. Environment and climate in the Balkans during the Post Neolithic 23D. Anthropogenic environmental changes during the Post Neolithic 24

VII. Site locations in relation to major environmental regions 24VIII. Conclusion 24

CHAPTER 5: EVIDENCE FOR SETTLEMENT, SEDENTISM AND 25MOBILITY IN CENTRAL BALKAN CULTURE HISTORY

I. Introduction 25II. Early Neolithic 25

A. Chronology 25B. Cultures 25C. Settlement 25D. Fauna 26

E. Evidence for sedentism/mobility 26III. Middle Neolithic 27

A. Chronology 27B. Cultures 27C. Settlement 27D. Fauna 27E. Evidence for sedentism/mobility 27

IV. Late Neolithic 28


V. Eneolithic (Chalcolithic) 29A. Chronology 29B. Cultures 29C. Settlement 29D. Fauna 29E. Evidence for sedentism/mobility 29

VI. Early Bronze Age 30A. Chronology 30B. Cultures 30

C. Settlement 30D. Fauna 30E. Evidence for sedentism/mobility 31

VII. Middle and Late Bronze Age 31

A. Chronology 31B. Cultures 31

C. Settlement 31


14/212

E. Evidence for sedentism/mobility 31VIII. Early Iron Age 32


IX. Conclusions 32

CHAPTER 6: METHODOLOGY 33

I. Introduction 33II. Tooth wear and eruption 34III. Establishing absolute age using tooth eruption and wear 35IV. Production strategies and construction of harvest profiles 35V. Cementum analysis 38

VI. The control sample 38VII. The fossil sample 39VIII. Age determination with cementum analysis 39IX. Season of death determination with cementum analysis 39X. Conclusion 39

CHAPTER 7: DESCRIPTION OF SITES, TIME PERIODS, AND NATURE OF SAMPLES 41

I. Introduction 41II. Blagotin 41

A. Site description 41B. Mandibular and loose tooth remains 41

III. Foeni-Salaş 43A. Site description 43B. Mandibular and loose tooth remains 44

IV. Kadica Brdo 44A. Site description 44B. Mandibular and loose tooth remains 46

V. Livade 46A. Site description 46B. Mandibular and loose tooth remains 48

VI. Ljuljaci 48A. Site description 48B. Mandibular and loose tooth remains 50

VII. Megalo Nisi Galanis 50

A. Site description 50B. Mandibular and loose tooth remains 50VIII. Novačka Ćuprija 53


IX. Opovo 56A. Site description 56B. Mandibular and loose tooth remains 56

X. Petnica 56A. Site description 56B. Mandibular and loose tooth remains 56

XI. Selevac 59A.Site description 59

B. Mandibular and loose tooth remains 62XII. Stragari-Šljivik 62A. Site description 62


15/212

XII. Vinča 62


XIII. The modern tooth wear and eruption control sample 64XIV. Cementum analysis data: archaeological and modern 64

A. The modern control sample 65B. Archaeological cementum analysis sample 65

XV. Conclusions 65

CHAPTER 8: THE IDENTIFICATION OF TRASHUMANT PASTORALISM 71

THROUGH HARVEST PROFILE AND CEMENTUM A NALYSES

I. Introduction 71II. Construction of harvest profiles – first stage of analysis 71

A. Sus scrofa dom. 71B. Ovis/Capra 80

C. Bos taurus 92III. Regional scale of analysis – second stage of analysis 102A. Transhumant movement of pigs 103B. Transhumant movement of ovicaprines 103C. Transhumant movement of cattle 104

IV. Comparison of tooth wear and eruption ageing methods – third stage of analysis 104V. Cementum analysis – fourth stage of analysis 116

A. The modern comparative sample 116B. The archaeological sample 116

VI. Conclusions 117

CHAPTER 9 CONCLUSIONS 119

I. Introduction 119

II. Methodological concerns 119III. The Secondary Products Revolution 119

IV. Evidence for transhumant pastoralism 120V. Conclusions 122

REFERENCES CITED 123


16/212

LIST OF FIGURES

1.1 The Central Balkans and site locations 4

4.2 Map showing climatic divide between Mediterranean 21and temperate central Europe

6.3 Proportional allocation example 36

8.4 Payne’s production models 73

8.5 Harvest profile (Sus scrofa) Middle Neolithic Petnica 758.6 Harvest profile (Sus scrofa) Late Neolithic Petnica 75

8.7 Harvest profile (Sus scrofa) Late Neolithic Vinča 768.8 Harvest profile (Sus scrofa) Late Neolithic Opovo 768.9 Harvest profile (Sus scrofa) Middle/Late Neolithic Selevac 778.10 Harvest profile (Sus scrofa) Eneolithic Petnica 77

8.11 Harvest profile (Sus scrofa) Early Bronze Age Novačka Ćuprija 788.12 Harvest profile (Sus scrofa) Early/Middle Bronze Age Ljuljaci 78

8.13 Harvest profile (Sus scrofa) Middle Bronze Age Vinča 798.14 Harvest profile (Sus scrofa) Late Bronze Age Livade 798.15 Harvest profile (Sus scrofa) Early Iron Age Kadica Brdo 808.16 Harvest profile (Ovis/Capra) Early Neolithic Foeni-Salaş 828.17 Harvest profile (Ovis/Capra) Early Neolithic Blagotin 828.18 Harvest profile (Ovis/Capra) Early Neolithic 83

8.19 Harvest profile (Ovis/Capra) Middle Neolithic Stragari 838.20 Harvest profile (Ovis/Capra) Late Neolithic Vinča 848.21 Harvest profile (Ovis/Capra) Middle/Late Neolithic Selevac 848.22 Harvest profile (Ovis/Capra) Late Neolithic Petnica 858.23 Harvest profile (Ovis/Capra) Late Neolithic 858.24 Paynes Milk Production 86

8.25 Paynes Wool Production 878.26 Harvest profile (Ovis/Capra) Eneolithic Novačka Ćuprija 888.27 Harvest profile (Ovis/Capra) Eneolithic Petnica 898.28 Harvest profile (Ovis/Capra) Early Bronze Age Novačka Ćuprija 898.29 Harvest profile (Ovis/Capra) Middle Bronze Age Vinča 948.30 Harvest profile (Ovis/Capra) Late Bronze Age Novačka Ćuprija 948.31 Harvest profile (Ovis/Capra) Late Bronze Age Livade 958.32 Harvest profile (Ovis/Capra) Late Bronze Age Petnica 958.33 Harvest profile (Ovis/Capra) Late Bronze Age 968.34 Harvest profile (Ovis/Capra) Early Iron Age Kadica Brdo 968.35 Harvest profile (Ovis/Capra) Final Neolithic Megalo Nisi Galanis 978.36 Harvest profile (Ovis/Capra) Final Neolithic/Early Bronze Age Megalo Nisi Galanis 97

8.37 Harvest profile ( Bos taurus) Early Neolithic Foeni-Salaş 988.38 Harvest profile ( Bos taurus) Early Neolithic Blagotin 988.39 Harvest profile Early Neolithic Bos vs. Ovis/Capra 998.40 Harvest profile ( Bos taurus) Middle Neolithic Stragari 998.41 Harvest profile ( Bos taurus) Middle Neolithic Petnica 1008.42 Harvest profile ( Bos taurus) Middle Neolithic 1008.43 Harvest profile ( Bos taurus) Late Neolithic Opovo 101

8.44 Harvest profile ( Bos taurus) Late Neolithic Vinča 1058.45 Harvest profile ( Bos taurus) Late Neolithic Petnica 1058.46 Harvest profile ( Bos taurus) Middle/Late Neolithic Selevac 1068.47 Harvest profile ( Bos taurus) Late Neolithic 1068.48 Harvest profile ( Bos taurus) Eneolithic Blagotin 1078.49 Harvest profile ( Bos taurus) Early/Middle Bronze Age Ljuljaci 107

8.50 Harvest profile ( Bos taurus) Middle Bronze Age Vinča 1088.51 Harvest profile ( Bos taurus) Late Bronze Age Livade 1088.52 Harvest profile ( Bos taurus) Early Iron Age Kadica Brdo 1098 53 P f (S f ) N li hi 109


17/212

8.54 Percentage of age groups (Sus scrofa) Post Neolithic 110

8.55 Percentage of age groups (Ovis/Capra) Neolithic 1108.56 Percentage of age groups (Ovis/Capra) Post Neolithic 1118.57 Percentage of age groups ( Bos taurus) Neolithic 1118.58 Percentage of age groups ( Bos taurus) Post Neolithic 1128.59 Modern comparative thin sectioning sample (Sheep #1) 1138.60 Modern comparative thin sectioning sample (Goat 14 b) 113

8.61 Modern comparative thin sectioning sample (Goat #13 b) 1138.62 Archaeological thin sectioning sample (Kadica Brdo sample #2) 1148.63 Archaeological thin sectioning sample (Kadica Brdo sample #4) 1148.64 Archaeological thin sectioning sample (Kadica Brdo sample #6) 1148.65 Archaeological thin sectioning sample (Kadica Brdo sample #10) 115 8.66 Archaeological thin sectioning sample (Vinča sample #1) 1158.67 Archaeological thin sectioning sample (Vinča sample #10) 115


18/212

LIST OF TABLES

6.1 Sheep/Goat mandibular wear stages (MWS) and suggested ages 36

6.2 Cattle mandibular wear stages (MWS) and suggested ages 366.3 Pig mandibular wear stages (MWS) and suggested ages 37

7.4 Stage distribution of Ovis aries mandibles and loose teeth from Early Neolithic Blagotin 427.5 Stage distribution of Ovis/Capra mandibles and loose teeth from Early Neolithic Blagotin 427.6 Stage distribution of Ovis/Capra mandibles and loose teeth from Early Iron Age Blagotin 427.7 Stage distribution of Bos taurus mandibles and loose teeth from Early Neolithic Blagotin 437.8 Stage distribution of Bos taurus mandibles and loose teeth from Eneolithic Blagotin 437.9 Stage distribution of Ovis aries mandibles and loose teeth from Early Neolithic Foeni-Salaş 457.10 Stage distribution of Ovis/Capra mandibles and loose teeth from Early Neolithic Foeni-Salaş 457.11 Stage distribution of Ovis/Capra mandibles and loose teeth from Early Iron Age Foeni-Salaş 457.12 Stage distribution of Bos taurus mandibles and loose teeth from Early Neolithic Foeni-Salaş 467.13 Stage distribution of Ovis aries mandibles and loose teeth from Early Iron Age Kadica Brdo 47

7.14 Stage distribution of Ovis/Capra mandibles and loose teeth from Early Iron Age Kadica Brdo 477.15 Stage distribution of Bos taurus mandibles and loose teeth from Early Iron Age Kadica Brdo 47

7.16 Stage distribution of Sus scrofa mandibles and loose teeth from Early Iron Age Kadica Brdo 487.17 Stage distribution of Ovis/Capra mandibles from Late Bronze Age Livade 497.18 Stage distribution of Bos taurus mandibles and loose teeth from Late Bronze Age Livade 497.19 Stage distribution of Sus scrofa mandibles and loose teeth from Late Bronze Age Livade 497.20 Stage distribution of Bos taurus mandibles and loose teeth from Early/Middle Bronze Age Ljuljaci 517.21 Stage distribution of Sus scrofa mandibles and loose teeth from Early/Middle Bronze Age Ljuljaci 51

7.22 Stage distribution of Ovis aries mandibles and loose teeth from Late Neolithic/Final Neolithic 51Megalo Nisi Galanis

7.23 Stage distribution of Ovis/Capra mandibles and loose teeth from Late Neolithic/ 52Final Neolithic Megalo Nisi Galanis

7.24 Stage distribution of Ovis aries mandibles and loose teeth from Final Neolithic Megalo Nisi Galanis 52

7.25 Stage distribution of Ovis/Capra mandibles and loose teeth from Final Neolithic Megalo Nisi Galanis 527.26 Stage distribution of Ovis aries mandibles and loose teeth from Final Neolithic/ 54

Early Bronze Age Megalo Nisi Galanis

7.27 Stage distribution of Ovis/Capra mandibles and loose teeth from Final Neolithic/ 54Early Bronze Age Megalo Nisi Galanis

7.28 Stage distribution of Ovis/Capra mandibles and loose teeth from Eneolithic Novačka Ćuprija 547.29 Stage distribution of Ovis/Capra mandibles and loose teeth from Early Bronze Age Novačka Ćuprija 557.30 Stage distribution of Ovis/Capra mandibles and loose teeth from Late Bronze Age Novačka Ćuprija 557.31 Stage distribution of Sus scrofa mandibles and loose teeth from Early Bronze Age Novačka Ćuprija 577.32 Stage distribution of Bos taurus mandibles and loose teeth from Late Neolithic Opovo 577.33 Stage distribution of Sus scrofa mandibles and loose teeth from Late Neolithic Opovo 577.34 Stage distribution of Ovis/Capra mandibles and loose teeth from Late Neolithic Petnica 587.35 Stage distribution of Ovis/Capra mandibles and loose teeth from Eneolithic Petnica 58

7.36 Stage distribution of Ovis/Capra mandibles and loose teeth from Late Bronze Age Petnica 607.37 Stage distribution of Bos taurus mandibles and loose teeth from Middle Neolithic Petnica 607.38 Stage distribution of Bos taurus mandibles and loose teeth from Late Neolithic Petnica 607.39 Stage distribution of Sus scrofa mandibles and loose teeth from Middle Neolithic Petnica 617.40 Stage distribution of Sus scrofa mandibles and loose teeth from Late Neolithic Petnica 617.41 Stage distribution of Sus scrofa mandibles and loose teeth from Eneolithic Petnica 617.42 Stage distribution of Ovis/Capra mandibles and loose teeth from Middle Neolithic Stragari 63

7.43 Stage distribution of Bos taurus mandibles and loose teeth from Middle Neolithic Stragari 637.44 Stage distribution of Ovis/Capra mandibles and loose teeth from Late Neolithic Vinča 637.45 Stage distribution of Ovis/Capra mandibles and loose teeth from Middle Bronze Age Vinča 657.46 Stage distribution of Bos taurus mandibles and loose teeth from Late Neolithic Vinča 667.47 Stage distribution of Bos taurus mandibles and loose teeth from Middle Bronze Age Vinča 667.48 Stage distribution of Sus scrofa mandibles and loose teeth from Late Neolithic Vinča 66

7.49 Stage distribution of Sus scrofa mandibles and loose teeth from Middle Bronze Age Vinča 677.50 Modern Ovis/Capra comparative cementum analysis – Summary of readings 68

7.51 Archaeological Ovis/Capra cementum analysis – Summary of readings 69


19/212

8.52 Summary of sieving and weathering 72

8.53 Expectations for movement in transhumant pattern 738.54 Summary of strata and weathering 91


20/212

LIST OF APPENDICES

A. SUMMARY OF AGEABLE TOOTH WEAR AND ERUPTION DATA BY SITE , TAXON AND PERIOD. 133

B. STAGE DISTRIBUTION DATA OF SMALL SAMPLES:

Table B1. Stage distribution of Ovis/Capra mandibles and loose teeth from Eneolithic Blagotin. 177Table B2. Stage distribution of Bos taurus mandibles and loose teeth from Early Iron Age Blagotin. 177Table B3. Stage distribution of Sus scrofa mandibles and loose teeth from Early Neolithic Blagotin. 177Table B4. Stage distribution of Sus scrofa mandibles and loose teeth from Early Iron Age Blagotin. 178Table B5. Stage distribution of Ovis aries mandibles and loose teeth from Early Iron Age Foeni-Salaş. 178Table B6. Stage distribution of Bos taurus mandibles from Early Iron Age Foeni-Salaş. 178Table B7. Stage distribution of Sus scrofa mandibles and loose teeth from Early Neolithic Foeni-Salaş. 179Table B8. Stage distribution of Capra hircus mandibles and loose teeth from Early Iron Age Kadica Brdo. 179Table B9. Stage distribution of Ovis/Capra mandibles and loose teeth from Early Bronze Age Ljuljaci. 180

Table B10. Stage distribution of Ovis/Capra mandibles and loose teeth from Early/ 180Middle Bronze Age Ljuljaci.

Table B11. Stage distribution of Ovis/Capra mandibles and loose teeth from Middle Bronze Age Ljuljaci. 180Table B12. Stage distribution of Bos taurus mandibles and loose teeth from Early Bronze Age Ljuljaci. 181

Table B13. Stage distribution of Sus scrofa mandibles and loose teeth from Early Bronze Age Ljuljaci. 181Table B14. Stage distribution of Sus scrofa mandibles and loose teeth from Middle Bronze Age Ljuljaci. 181Table B15. Stage distribution of Bos taurus mandibles and loose teeth from Final Neolithic Megalo 182

Nisi Galanis.

Table B16. Stage distribution of Sus scrofa mandibles and loose teeth from Late Neolithic/ 182Final Neolithic Megalo Nisi Galanis.

Table B17. Stage distribution of Sus scrofa mandibles and loose teeth from 182Final Neolithic Megalo Nisi Galanis.

Table B18. Stage distribution of Bos taurus mandibles and loose teeth from 183

Eneolithic Novačka Ćuprija.Table B19. Stage distribution of Bos taurus mandibles and loose teeth from 183Early Bronze Age Novačka Ćuprija.

Table B20. Stage distribution of Bos taurus mandibles and loose teeth from 183Late Bronze Age Novačka Ćuprija.

Table B21. Stage distribution of Sus scrofa mandibles and loose teeth from 184Eneolithic Novačka Ćuprija.

Table B22. Stage distribution of Sus scrofa mandibles and loose teeth from 184

Late Bronze Age Novačka Ćuprija.Table B23. Stage distribution of Ovis/Capra mandibles and loose teeth from Late Neolithic Opovo. 184Table B24. Stage distribution of Ovis/Capra mandibles and loose teeth from Middle Neolithic Petnica. 185Table B25. Stage distribution of Ovis/Capra mandibles and loose teeth from 185

Late Neolithic/Eneolithic Petnica.

Table B26. Stage distribution of Ovis/Capra mandibles and loose teeth from 185Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age Petnica.

Table B27. Stage distribution of Bos taurus mandibles and loose teeth from Eneolithic Petnica. 186Table B28. Stage distribution of Bos taurus mandibles and loose teeth from Late Bronze Age Petnica. 186Table B29. Stage distribution of Bos taurus mandibles and loose teeth from

Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age Petnica.Table B30. Stage distribution of Sus scrofa mandibles and loose teeth from Late Bronze Age Petnica. 186

Table B31. Stage distribution of Sus scrofa mandibles and loose teeth from 187Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age Petnica.

Table B32. Stage distribution of Ovis aries mandibles and loose teeth from Middle Neolithic Stragari. 187Table B33. Stage distribution of Sus scrofa mandibles and loose teeth from Middle Neolithic Stragari. 187Table B34. Stage distribution of Ovis/Capra mandibles and loose teeth from Eneolithic Vinča. 188Table B35. Stage distribution of Sus scrofa mandibles and loose teeth from Eneolithic Vinča. 188


21/212

C. COMPARISON OF THE KNOWN AGE OF DEATH FROM MODERN SPECIMENS 189

WITH GRANT (1975) AND PAYNE’S (1973) TOOTH ERUPTION AND WEAR SEQUENCES RECORDING METHODS.

D. DETAILS OF THE DENTAL CEMENTUM ANALYSIS FROM ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND MODERN SPECIMENS. 197

E. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS DATA 199

Table E1. Statistical analysis data - Late Neolithic Sus scrofa.Table E2. Statistical analysis data - Bronze Age Sus scrofa.

Table E3. Statistical analysis data - comparison of major periods (Sus scrofa).Table E4. Statistical analysis data - Early Neolithic Ovis/Capra.Table E5. Statistical analysis data - Late Neolithic Ovis/Capra.Table E6. Statistical analysis data - Eneolithic Ovis/Capra.

Table E7. Statistical analysis data - Early/Middle Bronze Age Ovis/Capra.Table E8. Statistical analysis data - Late Bronze Age Ovis/Capra.

Table E9. Statistical analysis data - Early Neolithic Bos taurus.Table E10. Statistical analysis data - Early Neolithic Bos vs. Ovis/Capra.Table E11. Statistical analysis data - Middle Neolithic Bos taurus.Table E12. Statistical analysis data - Late Neolithic Bos taurus.


22/212

CHAPTER 1

I NTRODUCTION

I. Theoretical background to research problem

Transhumant pastoralism is an economic activityinvolving the seasonal movement of domestic herds between altitudinally differentiated and complementary

pastures (Geddes 1983; Khazanov 1984). It is still animportant form of land use in many parts of the world, in particular in mountainous regions in Africa (e.g. Evans-Pritchard 1940; Dahl and Hjort 1975), Europe (southernEurope—Bartosiewicz and Greenfield 1999; Greenfield2001b; Norway—Paine 1994), South America (Argentina —Glatzer 1982; the Andes—Lynch 1971, 1980, 1983),

Near East (Barth 1961; Bates 1974; Irons 1975; Sweet1965), and Asia (Pakistan—Ehlers and Kreutzmann2000; and Tibet—Ekvall 1968). With a strongerunderstanding of its origins, we can better understand itsdevelopment and effects on the shaping of a culture’ssocial organization (Bartosiewicz and Greenfield 1999).

Historically, transhumant pastoralism has been asignificant part of the economy in southern Europe,including the Mediterranean littoral and the BalkanPeninsula (Bartosiewicz and Greenfield 1999; Chang andKoster 1986; Cherry 1988; Nisbet et al . 1991; Whickham1985). Archaeologically, many researchers assume and

some explicitly argue (Geddes 1983; Greenfield 1986a,1988, 1999a, 2001a; Halstead 1981, 1996; Harding 2000;Sherratt 1981, 1983a; Sterud 1978) that it was also animportant element of the economy in prehistoric times.However, the exact temporal origins of transhumant pastoralism in southern Europe are still debated withinthe archaeological literature (Bartosiewicz and Greenfield

1999), and generate intense discussions.

Over the past twenty years, several research projects have been directed at elucidating these temporal origins. Mostscholars have focused on the Mediterranean littoralenvironment. Geddes (1983) and others (e.g. Miracle and

Forenbaher 2005) proposed that transhumant pastoralismappeared at the Mesolithic-Neolithic junction because theyargued that prehistoric hunters and gatherers and earlysubsistence farmers would have easily incorporateddomestic migratory stock into their seasonal exploitation ofland and resources. Halstead (1981, 1991, 1996) suggestedthat transhumance only appears with the emergence of Late

Bronze Age and Classical complex societies in theMediterranean. Lewthwaite (1981, 1984) and Walker (1983)argued that transhumance appeared even later, during theClassical or Medieval periods, with the need for themovement of specialized pastoralism for urban markets.

In contrast, few projects have focused on the temperateEuropean environment, immediately to the north of themountainous divide between Mediterranean and central

Europe. Greenfield (1986, 1988, 1991, 1999a, 2001b)hypothesized that transhumant pastoralism became amajor element of the subsistence strategies in temperate

southeastern Europe (northern Balkans) only at the beginning of the Post Neolithic, that is, the Eneolithic and

Bronze Age (ca. 3300 BC). At this time, there weresignificant changes in land use, such as the colonizationof agriculturally marginal highlands. He proposed that theappearance of transhumant pastoralism was part of the

shifts in settlement patterns, mortuary practices,architectural and artifactual remains, and economy

(including the appearance of secondary animal

products—following Sherratt 1980, 1982) that occurredat this time.

Although it has been argued that transhumant pastoralism, as a strategy of domestic animal

management and land use, has had a long history ofdevelopment in the arid regions of the Mediterraneanlittoral (e.g. Barker 1973; 1975; Chapman 1981; 1982;Chapman and Müller 1990; Geddes 1982; Higgs et al.1967; Hesse 1982; Hole 1978; Hole, Flannery and Neely1969; Wheeler Pires-Ferreira 1975), little is known about

its evolutionary development in the temperateenvironmental zones found in the mountainous interior of

the European sub-continent. Transhumant pastoralismcan be historically documented in the Balkans at least asfar back as the Roman era (e.g. in Dalmatia—Antonijević 1982; Dedijer 1916; Cvijić 1918; Sterud

1978). Few studies dealing with earlier periods in thetemperate zone have convincingly established its

presence or absence in the temperate zone. Thisinvestigation seeks to delimit the origins of transhumant pastoralism in Europe, specifically within the temperateregions of southeastern Europe (northern Balkans). Theresults of this study will provide an importantcomparative example and determine if the ancestry of

transhumant pastoralism lies deeper in the pasts than

suggested by historical reconstructions.

II. Research hypotheses

Temporally, three major temporal “moments” have beenhypothesized to be the points in time when transhumant pastoralism might have appeared. They are the following:

1. Early Neolithic—Transhumant pastoralism has long been proposed to have existed from the beginning ofanimal domestication in Europe. It is thought to be

either a continuation of the migratory patterns ofMesolithic indigenous hunter-gatherers who adopteddomestic animals into their repertoire (Geddes 1982;Sterud 1978) or appeared as a natural consequence ofpastoralism during the Neolithic periods (Barker 1973;


23/212

I NTRODUCTION

1975; Chapman 1981; 1982; Chapman and Müller

1990; Hesse 1982; Hole 1978; Nisbet et al. 1991;Miracle and Forenbaher 2005; Wheeler Pires-Ferreira

1975).

2. Early Post Neolithic—The Secondary Products Revolution model posits that the diffusion of new production technologies and domestic breeds from theEast at the onset of the Post Neolithic (Eneolithic or

Early Bronze Age) enabled domestic animalexploitation patterns to shift from primary (meat, hide

and bone) to secondary products (wool, milk andtraction). Herds increased in size to more effectively produce secondary products. To avoid placing strainsupon local economies (to produce and store winterfodder), herds were moved to unoccupied highland pastures for the summer and returned to the lowlands

with the onset of inclement weather (Sherratt 1981,1983a).

3. Iron Age (or later)—Transhumant pastoralism ishistorically known from vast areas of theMediterranean littoral by classical times (e.g. Dalmatiaand Greece Classical era (Antonijević 1982; Halstead

1987, 1991; Nisbet et al. 1991; Sterud 1978). Thelarge scale long distance specialized transhumant

adaptations characteristic of the area (Antonijević 1982; Sterud 1978) and elsewhere in southern Europe(Chang and Tourtelotte 1993; Halstead 1981, 1987;Lewthwaite 1981, 1984; Walker 1983) appear to be

very late (early historical periods) phenomenon.Transhumant pastoralism has been hypothesized to be

a function of the appearance of large urban marketsand productive specialization that appear in Classical

or Medieval times (seen also in the Near East at anearlier time—Lees and Bates 1974). As a result, it can be hypothesized to be a result of the formation of earlycomplex societies in the Iron Age or with theintroduction of the Roman era.

The hypotheses can be aptly summarized to propose that

transhumant pastoralism appears at the beginning of the Neolithic, the beginning of the Post Neolithic, or in later

periods with the emergence of complex urban societies.

III. Method and Technique

Can transhumant pastoralism be identified from faunalremains? Several decades ago, Fleming (1971) arguedagainst the identification of pastoralism using archaeologicalmaterial. Most scholars in the intervening years, in contrast,agree that zooarchaeological (animal remains fromarchaeological contexts) material can be a suitable base for

testing hypotheses about animal exploitation strategies (e.g.Barker 1985; Davis 1987; Hesse and Wapnish 1986;

O’Connor 2000; Reitz and Wing 1999).

This economic adaptation probably arose as a result ofshort term movement of animals between highland and

It is with the shift to longer distance transhumance, where

the animals are away from the village for a lengthy periodof the year, that transhumance may become

archaeologically identifiable.

Long versus short distance transhumant migration wouldhave different archaeological signatures because of thedifferences in the scale of movement. Long distancemovements by specialists require the construction of pens

and huts in both highland and lowland pastures (e.g.Chang and Tourtellotte 1991; Creighton and Segui 1998).

This additional architectural investment results inidentifiable archaeological signatures. In contrast, shortdistance village based herders rarely require theconstruction of such temporary structures, except wherethey are very distant from their home bases (e.g. amonglowland herders who have moved into summer highland

pastures). These differences are borne out by theethnoarchaeological studies (e.g. Barker 1991; Baker1999; Chang and Koster 1986; Nandris 1985, 1991) andwe maintain should be apparent in the zooarchaeologicaldata, as well.

On the basis of ethnographic analogy, several scholars

have argued over the past twenty years that transhumance pastoralism should be identifiable on the basis of the

presence or absence of different age classes of domesticanimals (e.g. Arnold and Greenfield 2003; Geddes 1983;Grant 1991; Greenfield 1999a; Nisbet et al. 1991).Transhumant pastoralism involves the movement of herds

as part of a regional subsistence strategy. As a result,there should be a complementary pattern in season of

death of these animals between highland and lowlandsites. The transhumant movement of domestic stock is

predictable in a mountainous temperate environmentalzone. The herd will move into highland pastures in theearly spring, soon after lambing/calving occurs andreturns to the lowlands during the autumn. In asubsistence economy, the age groups that are slaughteredin the highlands and the lowlands will be different.Therefore, animal remains should be particularly relevant

to answering the question.

Therefore, the appearance of transhumant pastoralism ina region may be identified through the initiation ofcomplementary culling practices between highland andlowland settlements. For example, if transhumant

pastoralism appears in temperate southeastern Europe atthe advent of the Post Neolithic, then a complementary

seasonal culling pattern will begin to be apparent between from this period onwards between highland and

lowland sites. The previous periods should have little orno evidence of complementarity. This hypothesis presupposes that herds were largely absent from parts ofthe region for part of the year. The null hypothesis is,therefore, that transhumant pastoralism was not

practiced. The null hypothesis can be accepted if herdswere resident year-round in each region. This would bedemonstrated by a random culling pattern between


24/212

THE ORIGINS OF TRANSHUMANT PASTORALISM IN TEMPERATE SOUTHEASTERN EUROPE

Two techniques within zooarchaeology will be utilized in

this investigation—tooth wear and eruption and dentalcementum analysis. These two sources of data are usedhere because they are appropriate for testing the abovehypothesis concerning herd movements.

First, harvest profiles are created from the analysis of the

tooth wear and eruption data from the mandibles ofdomestic animals, specifically, sheep (Ovis aries), goat(Capra hircus), cow ( Bos taurus) and pig (Sus scrofadom.). This technique provides information on both ageand season of death information for each species. Iftranshumant pastoralism was present, then the tootheruption and wear patterns from archaeological teeth ofthe youngest age classes will show complementary

slaughtered age groups between highland and lowlandregions. Those ages that are slaughtered in highland sites

will be missing from the lowland sites and vice versa.The null hypothesis is therefore, if transhumant pastoralism was not practiced, all age groups will be present in both areas.

Second, the results of the tooth wear and eruptionanalysis are supplemented by cementum analysis ofmandibular Ovis/Capra teeth to provide additionalseasonality estimates. If transhumant pastoralism was present in temperate southeastern Europe during the Post

Neolithic, then the season of death information will showcomplementary season of occupation of highland andlowland sites. The null hypothesis is that if transhumant

pastoralism was not practiced, then the data will not showa complementary pattern of seasonal culling betweenhighland and lowland sites.

While not new, techniques such as tooth wear and

eruption and cementum analyses have not previously been applied to this problem at the same time. Themandibular remains of four species of domestic animals(Ovis aries, Capra hircus, Bos taurus and Sus scrofa) areexamined for evidence of transhumant movement. Thefirst three species are believed to have engaged in such

movements, while the latter species is included as acontrol, as pigs are not commonly herded in a

transhumant manner.

IV. Data

A. The region

In order to fill the lacunae in our knowledge concerningthe emergence of transhumant pastoralism, the abovehypotheses will be tested by re-examining the evidencefrom one region—the central Balkans (central region ofthe northern Balkans in southeastern Europe— Figure

1.1). This region was chosen because it was hypothesized

by Greenfield to be the first region in temperate Europe

(north of the Mediterranean littoral) to experience theadvent of transhumant pastoralism. The region isappropriate for this type of analysis because of the nature

often juxtaposed in close proximity. This is the kind ofenvironment in which one would expect transhumant pastoralism to exist. Historically, transhumant pastoralism is part of the regional subsistence system

(e.g. Cvijić

1918; Dedijer 1916). Hence, it is logical toexpect that this practice extended back in time. Also, it is

one of the few regions which have experiencedtranshumant pastoralism in Europe that have easilyavailable archived zooarchaeological data from a varietyof environments (including highland and lowland).

B. Temporal span

Data from the beginning of the Early Neolithic throughthe Early Iron Age of the central Balkans will be

evaluated. This time range was selected because all previous research indicates that the origins of

transhumant pastoralism in the region occurred withinthis time span. Therefore, the time range has to extend beyond the point where transhumant pastoralism occursin order to be identified. It is necessary to include periods

where it probably did not yet exist in order to pin pointthe appearance, rather than simply the existence, oftranshumant pastoralism.

C. Data

There are two sources of data in this investigation—ancientand modern. The ancient data from the region are used to

directly test the above hypotheses. The modern data were

collected and used as a control for the application of bothtechniques (above) used to test the hypotheses.

The ancient data can be divided into two types:computerized database and limited archaeological tooth

material. Greenfield collected a large database on thezooarachaeology of the region between 1977 and 1994.These data are computerized and archived at theUniversity of Manitoba.

The identification stage of analysis, including species

determinations from all of the sites to be presented here,have already been completed and presented elsewhere

(e.g. Greenfield 1986a, 1994, 1997, 2005b, in press a, b;Greenfield and Fowler 2002, 2005). These data were the basis for his previous analyses (Greenfield 1986a,1988a, 1999a, 2001a) to identify the advent of

transhumant pastoralism. Greenfield’s research lumpedtogether the cranial and post-cranial data. However, the

cranial material, specifically the mandibles and teeth,were not given the separate attention they deserve.Many researchers (e.g. Payne 1973; Grant 1975, 1982;Crabtree 1982) would argue that mandibular data

provide the most accurate age information forarchaeological material since it is less affected by

differential preservation and recovery. Mandibular tooth

eruption and wear data will provide better control over both age and season of death information for eachspecies.


25/212

Megalo Nisi

Galanis

Petnica

KadicaBrdo

N

HUNGARY

Foeni-Salas

ROMANIA

GREECE

ALBANIA

THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA

BOSNIA

AND

HERZEGOVINA

Adriatic Sea

Montenegro Kosovo

Vojvodina

Transylvania Alps

Balkan

Mts.

Pindos Mts.

Danube

Belgrade

Novacka Cuprijav

Vincav

Scale 1: 3,550,000

0 50km

Opovo

Mures

Drava

Sava

Danube

T i s a

M o r a v a

LjuljaciBlagotin

Stragari

YUGOSLAVIA

Livade

River

Autonomous province boundary

Republic boundary

D a n u b

e

*

* Modern city

Archaeological site

BULGARIA


26/212


This study presents the analysis of the mandibular tooth

wear and eruption data of domestic animals, specifically,sheep (Ovis aries), goat (Capra hircus), cow ( Bos taurus)

and pig (Sus scrofa dom.), from the central Balkanassemblages previously analyzed by Greenfield. It alsoincludes new and unpublished data from previouslyunreported sites. It is expected that the specific focus on

this material will provide more concise data than has been provided by previous analysis. It will also expand the

regional coverage of the study of transhumant pastoralism by including a larger sample of sites. Greenfield also brought back from his fieldwork selected samples ofanimal bone remains from many of the sites, includingmandibular tooth remains. A portion of these remainswere sectioned for cementum analysis in order to

determine seasonality of slaughter, and by implication,season of occupation of sites. It is hoped that this would

allow for determination of the presence of transhumantherds at sites. The University of Manitoba thin sectioninglaboratory provided access to the equipment and trainingnecessary for this investigation.

The modern data consists of comparative data from

modern livestock breeders in Manitoba, including Ovisaries and Capra hircus mandibles with teeth. These datawere collected by Arnold. Tooth wear and eruption datawere recorded on all mandibles and a sample of teeth was

selected for cementum analysis. A modern control sampleis necessary to establish the time of formation of

incremental growth structures in the cementum in order

to apply this information to the study of an archaeologicalsample (Burke and Castenet 1995). It is hoped that thecementum analysis will provide additional seasonalinformation to the question of the origins of transhumant pastoralism.

V. Conclusions

Transhumant pastoralism is hypothesized to become amajor element of the subsistence strategies of cultures insoutheastern Europe during the Post Neolithic. Itsadoption is proposed as the essential ingredient for thesignificant shifts in economic organization, settlement

patterns, and social and political organization that occurduring this time (Greenfield 1988, 1999a, 2001b).

The proposed results of this research should reveal the

temporal origins of transhumant pastoralism in atemperate environment, specifically in the northernBalkans. This will have a significant impact on themodels for cultural development in this region. It is notuntil the origins of transhumance are established that itsrole in the evolution of complex systems of land use in

temperate climate zones of southeastern Europe can befully understood.

In this book, both tooth wear and eruption and cementumanalysis will be used to test for the advent of transhumant pastoralism in the central Balkans. Both tooth wear anderuption and cementum analysis have been criticallyevaluated for their utility in age and season of death

determination within the archaeological literature. Eachhas problems which can affect the overall analysis. For

example, tooth wear and eruption can be subject to errordue to variations in diet, nutrition and health of theanimals (Monks 1981: 189). These same problems may be relevant to cementum analysis, as the same factors

may affect the deposition of cementum (Lieberman1993a, b). Cementum analysis has also been criticized as being too subjective (A. Stutz, pers. comm., 2000). It ishoped that through the utilization of these techniques inconjunction with each other, some of the difficulties thatlimit their use may be overcome. If the application of this

methodology proves successful, it should end the debateas to whether transhumant pastoralism can be revealedthrough archaeological remains. The application of these

zooarchaeological techniques to the question of pastoralmovements in prehistory promises to yield valuableinformation, given appropriate samples. If the applicationof this methodology is successful, it may be extrapolated

to increase understanding of other cultures with atranshumant pastoral basis. As a result, its methodologycan be applied to other areas of the world, to cultures thathave a similar economic basis. Understanding the natureof pastoral patterns in an area will have significantimplications for the understanding of behavioral andsocial patterns of the culture. This discussion continues in

the next chapter with a summary of previous approachesto the archaeological investigation of transhumant

pastoralism in Europe, including both the Mediterraneanand the northern temperate region of the Balkans.


27/212


28/212

CHAPTER 2

TRANSHUMANT PASTORALISM: SOME ETHNOGRAPHIC CONSIDERATIONS

I. Introduction to pastoralism

One of the problems in investigating the origins of anytype of pastoralism is the lack of any clear or agreed upondefinition of pastoralism, generally, and transhumant pastoralism specifically (Bartosiewicz and Greenfield1999; Khazanov 1984; Nisbet et al. 1991). Pastoralism is

both a land use strategy and a system of animal production (Krader 1959: 499). It is a distinctive form ofhuman subsistence economy in which domestic animals play a predominant, but not an exclusive role in theshaping of the economic and cultural lives of the peoplewho depend on them (Galaty and Johnson 1990).

There is a wide spectrum in the forms of pastoralism(Ehlers and Kreutzmann 2000: 13). This is due to a rangeof factors and can include the quantitative and qualitativecharacteristics of the herds, the extent and range ofmobility, degree of inclusion of agricultural products,

environment and ecological aspects of the region and theextent of ties with an external market (Logashova 1982:53). In this chapter, we will discuss the various forms of pastoralism that are suspected to have relevance to thearchaeological record in the region.

II. Types of pastoralism

Ethnographic research on pastoral societies provides

some general elements of a pastoral economy and society.In general, pastoralism is grouped into two basic types,nomadic pastoralism and semi-nomadic pastoralism. On avery basic level, both types of pastoralism can be definedas the movement of domestic herds between seasonallycomplementary pastures. Two basic variables are used to

distinguish the types of pastoralism: the degree ofmobility of the human community accompanying theirherds (Ehlers and Kreutzman 2000; Rafiullah 1966), and

degree of reliance upon animal and agricultural products(Khazanov 1984: 19). Further distinctions arise fromconsideration of the spatial (geographical and altitudinal)

relationship between herd pastures (Chang 1993: 709).The choice of the variable to be emphasized often leadsto confusion and contradictions in the type of pastoralism being discussed.

The mobility of pastoral groups is not limitless.

Constraints, such as geographic knowledge, socialcontacts, and access to resources (such as pasture), often

result in pastoralists revisiting encampment points on anannual or semi-annual basis. The mobility of livestock

has both spatial and temporal elements. A variety offactors will affect the distance, timing and location of themovement of livestock. These can include the location

outbreaks, localized drought, the number of peopleinvolved in the herd movement and relations with non- pastoral groups. The mobility of livestock does notalways correlate with human mobility. The proportion of

the human population traveling with the transhumantherds can vary culturally, but also in response to a variety

of political, economic and ecological circumstances(Niamir-Fuller and Turner 1999: 22). The speciescomposition, the age and sex structure of herds aredetermined by several factors. Major domestic speciesused by pastoralists include sheep and goats, cattle,camel, horses, reindeer, llamas, and alpacas. The biology

of the species and geographic conditions will be the primary determinate. These same factors will affectwhether animals are utilized for primary products (suchas meat), or for secondary products (such as wool, milk,or traction). Additionally, it is important to realize thateconomic, social, political and cultural factors are also

influential (Khazanov 1984: 27).

A. Nomadic pastoralism

Nomadic pastoralism (also known as pure pastoralism)has been characterized by the absence of agriculture,

“even in a supplementary capacity” (Khazanov 1984: 19).However, some researchers (e.g. Whittaker 1988)maintain that nomadic pastoralism never existed in a pureform, in other words with the total absence of agriculture.

There is “always a spectrum in the relative importance ofone towards the other” (Whittaker 1988: 1).

Nomadic pastoralism involves the movement of peopleand animals within a large and defined geographic areaaccording to a set schedule. This is an economicadaptation where the major economic orientation of theculture relies upon domestic stock (Barth 1961). In

nomadic pastoralism, all or the majority of the human

population migrates with their domestic herds year-roundwithin a system of pastures and do not have a fixed (i.e.sedentary) settlement (Chang 1993: 709). These pastoralists are highly mobile, move over vast areas, andare characterized by the absence of, or minimal

investment in agriculture. This is the form of pastoralismhas been long practiced by the Basseri tribe of South

Persia (Barth 1961). Their migratory pattern involvesmovement between arid steppes and mountainousenvironments in order to utilize extensive but localized pasturelands for their herds.

B. Semi-nomadic pastoralism

The difference between nomadic and semi-nomadic pastoralism is the degree of mobility of the human


29/212

TRANSHUMANT PASTORALISM

pastoralism, the herd moves between fixed locations

(winter vs. summer pastures), but the human populationhas less residential flexibility and a lower degree of

mobility over space and through time in comparison tonomadic pastoralism (Chang 1993: 709). Semi-nomadic pastoralism is characterized by an economy where pastoralism is the predominant activity but includesvarying emphasis on agriculture as a supplementaryactivity. All elements of a semi-nomadic pastoral

existence, including species composition, routes andtiming of migration, will be affected by even limited

investment in agriculture. Within semi-nomadic pastoralgroups, two main alternatives are observed. It may be thatthe entire population in a given society is involved in both agriculture and pastoralism. Alternatively, there arespecialized groups within the society that devotethemselves primarily, or even exclusively, to pastoralism,

alongside groups that are primarily occupied withagriculture (Khazanov 1984: 19-20).

C. Transhumant pastoralism

There are two main types of movement in all types of pastoralism: vertical and horizontal. Length of

transhumant migrations vary highly depending upontopography, climate, political conditions, and other

variables. These periodical movements may involve journeys of several hundred kilometers or only a fewkilometers (Rafiullah 1966: 5; Walker 1983: 37).Horizontal (or lateral) pastoralism occurs in large flat

basins and steppes and involves the movement betweenspatially differentiated pastures within the same

altitudinal zone. In this situation, herds are movedlaterally within the same altitude zone in order to exploit

seasonally available resources. Vertical (or transhumant) pastoralism occurs between altitudinally differentiated pastures, typically located in mountainous and highlandzones. In this instance, herds are moved up and downmountains in order to exploit seasonally availableresources at different altitudes. In transhumance, theseasonal migration of domestic herds occurs between

summer pastures in the mountains and winter pastures inthe lowlands (Ehlers and Kreutzmann 2000: 16). Both

types of movement are apparent for Mediterranean andtemperate southern Europe. Vertical pastoralism is foundunder conditions of topographic variability (e.g. in themountainous areas of the Alps and Dinarics). Lateral

pastoralism is found under conditions of littletopographic variability (e.g. on the steppes of Eastern

Europe and in the Hungarian/Pannonian Plain—Matley1970; Szabadfalvi 1968; Vincze 1980).

Transhumant pastoralism is part of a more broadly basedeconomic system, which incorporates crop cultivation andtranshumance in a single economic scheme (Geddes 1983:51). The practitioners of this type of pastoralism, often-

termed mixed or specialized pastoralists (Cherry 1988: 7),are often semi-sedentary (Geddes 1983: 51). In thissituation, they would be semi-nomadic pastoralists. The

from movement of the entire community, to no movement

of the community but rather solely movement of animalsunder the supervision of professional shepherds (Rafiullah

1966: 6). It is possible that the same groups in a givensociety (or sub-society) are occupied with both agricultureand pastoralism, or conversely, there are specializedgroups that devote themselves primarily, or evenexclusively, to pastoralism, in conjunction with groupswhich are primarily occupied with agriculture (Khazanov

1984: 20). Transhumant pastoralism may also involvespecialized groups within a community. The majority of

the population may be involved in agriculture or othereconomic activities, such as hunting or gathering, while aspecific group within the community is focused on themaintenance of herds as a specialized occupation. Theexistence of variation is also supported by recentethnographic investigations, which have shown that in

modern transhumant economies, shepherds are wagelabourers hired by livestock owners. This is in contrast tomodern nomadic pastoral groups, where relatives managetheir personal resources. This further distinction oftranshumance from other forms of pastoralism in recentethnographic literature stems from a focus on the relationship of the shepherds to the animals (Ehlers and

Kreutzmann 2000: 16).

Historically, transhumant pastoralism has been, and is, asignificant part of the economy in the Mediterranean andthe Balkans. Even today, seasonal migrations of herdsand herdsmen takes place on a fairly large scale in

different parts of the Balkans and neighboring countries(i.e. Albania, Bulgaria, Greece, Romania, and the variouscountries of the former Yugoslavia) (Bartosiewicz andGreenfield 1999; Rafiullah 1966). Many researchers

(Halstead 1981; Geddes 1983; Greenfield 1986a, 1991,1999a, 2001a) agree that it was also an important elementof the economy in prehistoric times (Harding 2000: 138).As a result, this investigation will focus on a specific typeof semi-nomadic pastoralism, that is, transhumant pastoralism, rather than nomadic pastoralism.

III. Aspects of modern transhumant pastoralism in

the northern Balkans

Descriptions of the traditional way of life of transhumant

shepherds are far less abundant in the ethnographic andhistorical literature of the northern than southern (along theMediterranean littoral) Balkans. The dividing line is theDinaric Mountain. In the more arid Mediterranean littoral(including the Adriatic coast) or alpine environments, theadvantages of pursuing transhumant strategies are moreobvious than in temperate climatic zones. In the arid zones,stock is moved from lowland to highland pastures to

escape the devastating summer heat and to secure adequatewater and pasture. This would be the case in the southern

Balkans or along the Mediterranean littoral. Similarly,

alpine communities would move stock back up to themountains so that their products may be more efficientlyexploited. The herds of both would be moved down the


30/212


temperatures and precipitation in the mountains, while

taking advantage of the abundant winter grass growth inthe lowlands (Bates 1973; Hole 1978; Rhoades andThompson 1975; Sterud 1978).

In the temperate environment of the northern Balkans, the benefit of doing so is not as apparent. Pastoralists in non-

alpine temperate environmental zones may herd theiranimals up into the mountains during the summer toavoid the greater heat and humidity in the lowlands andto take advantage of delayed plant growth, and to accessthe potentially a higher quality summer graze in thehighlands. However, the need to do so is not as great.Temperature extremes in the lowland are not sufficientlyextreme during the summer to drive lowland-based

livestock into the mountains in search of grazing andwater. Sufficient water and graze are available year-round

in most low and mid-altitude pastures in temperateclimatic zones. In the northern Balkans, sufficientmicroenvironments exist in and close to the lowlands,such as marshes, streams, hills and plains, to allow for

stock to be safely herded throughout the year in thelowlands. As a result, ecologically, there are fewerincentives for pastoralists from low and mid-altitudesettlements in temperate regions to practicetranshumance.

Lowland based herds do not have to be moved betweenaltitudinally differentiated and seasonally complementary pastures in the search for graze and water. Instead, they

are moved laterally. Even today (and in the ethnohistoric past), most livestock in the temperate lowlands are (were)grazed locally, rather than moved between distanthighland and lowland pastures (Gaál and Gunst 1972;Halpern 1967; Szabadfalvi 1968; Vincze 1980). Forests

(and clearings), marshes and swamplands served as pastures in the winter and early spring. In winter, thesnow was thawed by the high temperatures of the“decaying, steaming boggy soil” enabling animals to findforage. This was such a favorable environment for winterthat highland herders often sought them out (Szabadfalvi

1968: 145). This system was used for cattle, sheep, goatsand horses, whereas pigs were often left to roam freely

through nearby forests (Halpern 1967; Halpern andKerewsky-Halpern 1986; Szabadfalvi 1968). In thesummer, lowland based herds are often brought to nearbyhills or to non-cultivated steppe environments (if hill

country is lacking). In drier environments, thegeographical range of annual migration is wider in orderto access graze and water resources since they are oftenspread out farther (Gaál and Gunst 1972; Szabadfalvi1968; Vincze 1980).

The highland and lowland zones present differentopportunities (and trials) for lowland and highland based

temperate zone pastoralists (Sterud 1978; as well as

Mediterranean pastoralists—Koster and Koster 1976).While the lowland based herder is not necessarily drivento a transhumant lifestyle in the temperate zone, the same

villages. Highland shepherds practice verticaltranshumance as a means to avoid variations in climateand in order to economically exploit two environmentalzones that would otherwise be unable to support livestock

(Nandris 1975; Sterud 1978; Zdanovski 1954). This is theenvironment that presents the greatest difficulties in terms

of herd survival. Highland winters are severe and overwintering creates great challenges for the herd and theherder. It is also the environment most subject toovergrazing (and consequent erosion), and the need forshorter stays (Matley 1968; Zdanovski 1954).

Under conditions of vertical transhumance, two differentstrategies of settlement are found: normal and inverse. In

normal transhumance, a permanent village base ismaintained in the lowlands. In inverse transhumance, the permanent base is maintained in the mountains. The

former is more common in the Mediterranean zone, whilethe latter is more common in the temperate zone(Alpine—Sterud 1978: 389). In this way, herders are able

to spend a substantial amount of time close to home. A portion of the village population tends to be absentseasonally from the village since they (often men and boys) accompany the herds in their seasonal migrations.

Studies of traditional pastoralism in temperate southeast

Europe may be generalized into five basic types of herdmovements and village settlement (cf. Matley 1970; Nandris 1985, 1991; Vincze 1980):

1. Village is located proximate to both lowland andhighlands. There will be localized herding from a

village base, without overnight stays. There are no pens or huts away from the village.

2. Village is in or surrounded by mountains. There will be localized herding on summer pasture near thevillage, and wintering in the village. There are pensand huts in the summer pastures.

3. Village is in the lowlands. Herds will be moved tosummer pastures in the mountains, but wintered in

the village. There are pens and huts in the summer pastures.

4. Village is in the lowlands. Spring pasturing will take

place near the village, during which arable land ismanured. Summer pasturing will occur in themountains. Herds will be wintered outside of thevillage, often near the edge of forests or in swamps.

There may be pens and huts in both the highlandsand lowlands.

5. Herds are not village based. In this situation, herdswill be moved by professional transhumantshepherds from lowland winter to highland summer pastures.

In terms of seasonality of movement, the following

model can be postulated. Winter settlement is in the

lowlands and the herd moves into the mountains in lateApril or early May. The herds return to the lowlands inlate September or early October (Popović 1971; Ryder


31/212

TRANSHUMANT PASTORALISM

Vinšćak 1983, 1988; Zdanovski 1954: 121). The exacttime of the movements depends largely on environmentalconditions such as the melting of mountain snows inspring and the onset of bad weather in the autumn.Originally, entire families made the seasonal migration,while today it is largely the work of men (Dedijer 1916;Gürsan-Salzman 1984; Ryder 1999: 191).

In terms of specialization of herds, the production of milk(stored as cheese) is the major focus of moderntranshumant herds (Ryder 1999: 190). This is followed

by meat and wool. In the 17-18th century, 65% of therevenues in Bosnia came from milk, whereas only 10-13% came from wool (Šmalcelj 1954: 203). In moderntimes with the widespread appearance of syntheticmaterials and importation of cotton, the exploitation ofwool has further declined throughout the region. Shifts in

meat consumption have also affected the nature of milkexploitation. For example, only goats are milked inDalmatia and most of their milk is used for makingcheese and for shepherd’s food. In contrast, sheep (ewes)are not milked. Instead, their milk is given to the lambs inorder that the lambs can gain weight faster. The weight ofthe lamb affects its sale price—the heavier the lamb, themore it will yield in the market place and the more theherder will reap (Vinšćak 1988). This is a reflection ofthe shift in sheep exploitation away from wool towardmeat. The same is not true for Romania, where sheepwere milked as well. However, sheep are milked less inorder to allow lambs to rapidly gain weight (Gürsan-

Salzman 1984). Among herds in Bosnia, ewes lactatefrom 5.5-7.0 months. They tend to finish lactating and thelambs are weaned by the end of September (Dracun 1954:257). Historically, however, sheep and goats wereexploited for their full combination of potential

products—milk, meat, hide and wool (Gaál and Gunst1972: 10, 38; Serić 1956).

Cattle exploitation depended upon whether the animalswere part of migratory herds or was stabled locally. Itwas only in locally stabled herds that cattle wereintensively milked and used for draught (Gaál and Gunst1972: 10). With the shifts in transport and opening of

new markets, cattle production undergoes profoundchanges. While previously, cattle were bred with an eyeto their exploitation for draught potential, meat and milk

production become the principal aims (Gaál and Gunst1972: 30). With the appearance of the tractor as a normal

part of local agricultural industries, the draught potentialof cattle further declined (Mileusnić 1987). The same isnot true in Hungary with respect to sheep meat. Therewas an aversion to sheep meat, while wool remained themajor product for herders (Gaál and Gunst 1972: 38). It isapparent that market conditions and local tastes affectwhich products are exploited. Transhumant pastoralistsare summer visitors to the mountains of temperate SE

Europe. In the past, they walked (or rode horses or mules)to and from pastures, moving with their flocks. Presently,many use vehicles to truck their animals and supplies

and Koster 1994; Gürsan-Salzman 1984; Vinšćak 1988).Lowland based herders often retain seasonal huts orlodgings in the highlands (Lockwood 1975; Vincze 1975:397-8; Vinšćak 1999).

Traditionally, transhumant pastoralists were integratedinto the communities through which they passed, bynetworks of exchange and lineage (marital, filialrelationships, etc.—Antonijević 1982; Chalkea 1999;Lockwood 1975; Vincze 1983). These ensured access to

pastures and supplies, and entailed various socialobligations. But, it also meant that herders were neverisolated from the mainstream of village life in thesurrounding countryside.

During 1985 (and subsequent visits in 1987-88),Greenfield was able to visit and interview shepherds in

the area of the Glasinac Plateau (E. Bosnia) near the siteof Kadica Brdo about contemporary patterns of animalhusbandry in the area. In combination with ethnographicand ethnohistoric studies of pastoralism in the region andfrom nearby areas (e.g. Antonijević 1982; Halpern 1967;Lockwood 1975), is apparent that modern practices are ascomplex as are the hypotheses (and implications) of the

prehistoric economy. There are two patterns that areapparent: long distance and local movements. These aresimilar to those found even among lowland villages(Vincze 1974, 1980).

Most domestic animal production in the highlands

involves sheep and goats, with some cattle (see Plate 1

).Locally, few farms raise pigs, but this may reflect thestrong Moslem influence exerted over the region until thelatter half of the last century. Cattle are grazed locally and

brought home every night in order to milk them. Cattleare stalled and fodder fed through the winter. Almost alltranshumance is conducted with ovicaprines (sheep andgoats).

Local farmers tend to move their ovicaprine flocksaround the region in order to take advantage of seasonallyavailable pasture and/or fodder. Locally moved herds aresmall in size and there is enough natural pasture and

fodder to support the animal population. Some foddercrops are also cultivated to supplement winter supplies,mostly for the stalled cattle. Of the few sheep kept in thehighlands during the winter, many of these animals areeaten through the winter as fodder supplies dwindle.

Transhumant pastoralists bring flocks into the mountain basins during the summer and return to the lowlands (viathe Drina) for the winter. Local herders will often buytranshumant stock in the lowlands at the end of winter(when they are cheapest), then bring them to highlands(e.g. Glasinac) during the spring. They are fattened overthe summer and slaughtered during the fall/early winter.

This avoids the costs involved in supporting largeresident herds throughout the winter within the basin and,at the same time, satisfies local demand for meat without


32/212


subjective observation offered by several informants is

that the quality of meat (as measured by taste) fromanimals who annually migrate is considered to be poorerthan that of locally bred stock. This may be the result ofthe increased toughness in the meat of animals who aremore active (as would occur in transhumant populations),thereby lowering taste value (cf. Jochim 1976).

The evolution of the large scale long distancetranshumant adaptations characteristic of the area(Antonijević 1982; Serić 1956; Sterud 1978) seem to be afunction of the appearance of large urban markets and productive specialization (Halpern 1999). Toward the endof the 18th century, the traditional pattern of agricultureis disrupted with the development of new modes of

transportation. With the creation of extensive canals inthe Hungarian lowlands, large quantities of grain could be

moved inexpensively from producers to consumers. Thistrend is accelerated with the appearance of railroads inthe 19th century (Gaál and Gunst 1972: 8, 18). Prior tothis, cattle could be moved to distant markets on the hoof,

but it was not economic to move animals such as pigs.Pigs, sheep, and horses were raised and mostly consumedlocally. Sheep and pigs were raised as food animals andin order to provide clothing, while horses were raised forriding and draught (Gaál and Gunst 1972: 8). From this point in time, we begin to see large scale movement of

pigs to distant markets (Halpern 1999) and a shift inemphasis from cattle to sheep production, especially onthe large estates. The large estates turn to sheep

production as a consequence of increases in wool pricesand the need to raise cash to pay land taxes. There arefewer changes in the small-scale peasant land holdings(Gaál and Gunst 1972: 8).

IV. Conclusion

From the above discussion, it is obvious that a commonelement of all pastoral societies is the mobility of

domestic herd animals. This movement of livestock has been noted historically as a method to reduce uncertaintyand risk in the environment. The mobility of pastoralherds functions to: 1) take advantage of spatially andtemporally variable ecosystems, 2) take advantage ofunpredictable resources, 3) utilize pastures distant fromsettlements, 4) make use of seasonal pastures, and 5) provide fodder for livestock at minimal labour andeconomic cost (Niamir-Fuller and Turner 1999: 21).

Additionally, the movement of domestic herds also protects against problems such as disease outbreaks anddroughts (Niamir-Fuller and Turner 1999: 22). These

functions have been noted for arid environments, wherethe majority of pastoral economies exist. But, they are

rarely taken into consideration in more temperateenvironments, such as will be investigat

Documents

The Origins of Transhumant Pastoralism in Temperate SE Europe - Arnold Greenfield