Holmes knelt quickly, pinching a bit of ash between his thumb and long forefinger. His eyes darted left, settling upon a small flat pebble. He extracted his magnifying lens and examined the slightly pocked stone.
“Yes, Watson, as I suspected. Early Bronze Age cooking ware. I would hatard a guess that this hearth is some 5,000 years old. Clear evidence of nomads. Watson, I fear the trail has grown somewhat cold.”
In its effort to find evidence of ancient nomads, modern archaeology is only now catching up with Sherlock Holmes.
Recent research1 has revealed that, contrary to earlier ideas,2 nomads leave plenty of remains; finding them is simply a question of looking. We can now go beyond Holmes’s feat of simply dating the remains and noting their presence; archaeologists can make reasonable guesses about the nomadic seasonal round and about relations between nomads and their settled cousins. This kind of data is especially useful to Biblical archaeologists who study Iron Age settlements in the Negev that provide the background for the Israelites’ emergence in Canaan.3
The term nomad implies simply nonpermanent settlement. Nomadic societies vary, however, in almost all other particulars, from what they eat and how often they move, to how they are organized and what technologies they use.
In Israel and the Near East, we deal with pastoral nomadism, that is, nomadism based on seasonal movement to provide grazing for domesticated animals—usually sheep, goats and camels. But even here, pastoral nomads—the ancient equivalents of modern Bedouin—played varying roles in different periods.
Let us look briefly at the variety of pastoral nomadism in the Near East as it exists today, because this can also tell us a great deal about ancient pastoral nomadism. With respect to movement, the Basseri nomads of Iran may shift camp every three or four days during most of the year, settling for only a few weeks in specific seasons; the Kurdish Shirdasti of Iran, on the other hand, have only four or five main bases each year.
In terms of distance, the Ruwalla of Transjordan often complete a round trip migration of more than 500 miles each year, while Bedouin in South Sinai may move their main base only the length of a few football fields.4 The ecological settings of the different groups account, in most cases, for this variability.
Different groups also support themselves in different ways. The Al Murrah in Central Arabia rely exclusively on camel husbandry and on employment as laborers. In Israel’s Negev, sheep/goat pastoralism plays the largest role, with some trade in camels and, in certain areas, even some farming. The Ruwalla in Transjordan practice little farming, although they graze sheep, goats and camels. In Cyrenaica in Libya, related Bedouin groups may engage in significantly different types of herding, depending on the specific ecological zone of the group. In the past, raiding also played a significant role in the Bedouin economy.5 For example, Israeli historian Amnon Cohen6 has described how, in 18th-century Ottoman Palestine, travelers from Jaffa to Jerusalem paid a road toll to Bedouin in control of the region between the cities; there can be little doubt that similar scenarios occurred in earlier periods as well.
Different groups also establish different relationships with their settled cousins. Points of contact may involve trade in such goods as flour, meat, textiles and other objects; grazing rights and schedules; and military protection. Of course, Bedouin raiding also has had major effects on settlement and the economy in the heartland, as well as in the desert along the trade and pilgrimage routes.
Finally, the transition from pastoralism to farming and vice versa, especially by individuals, is not only common, but also provides economic safety valves for the failed herder, who can hire himself out as a farm laborer, and for the failed farmer, who can become a hired shepherd. In some cases, the dividing line between the Bedouin and the fellah (farmer-villager) may become very blurred. While different groups may retain their distinct identities, it is not uncommon for individuals to cross over.7
Given such a wide range of behavior classified as pastoral nomadism, archaeologists need to be wary of simply assigning the rubric “nomads” to any group that is not urban. The term includes a wide spectrum of cultural diversity.
With care we may be able to make these distinctions in the archaeological record. Archaeologist Israel Finkelstein8 has suggested that Iron Age structures in the Central Negev Highlands that he identifies as forts represent the sedentarization, or settling down, of ancient pastoral nomads. Finkelstein also claims that the precursors of these people have not been discovered because they were nomads and thus left no archaeological remains. In support of this argument, he cites the large Bedouin population of the Negev before 1948 and the supposed absence of any modern “archaeological” evidence for this population. Were it not for the literature on this pre-1948 Bedouin population, he asserts, we would not know of this large Bedouin population.
In fact, there are archaeological remains of thousands 048of pre-1948 Bedouin sites in the Negev; one simply has to know what to look for and how to look for them. Furthermore, these “modern” sites provide important examples of what ancient sites may look like.
In my own work in the Negev,9 I have found scores of sites with scatters of black Gaza pottery—the evidence of modern Bedouin settlements that Finkelstein says does not exist. Although these sites have not been recorded systematically (for, among other reasons, the large number of sites would have doubled the length of time required to survey an area), two main impressions may be noted.
First, the number of modern Bedouin sites is roughly comparable to, or perhaps greater than, the number of sites from the Byzantine period, which was one of extremely heavy settlement. In a survey covering about 75 square miles, more than 200 sites attributable to the Roman and Byzantine periods were recorded; a similar number of modern Bedouin sites could easily have been collected. In general, the modern Bedouin sites seem to follow a similar settlement pattern; indeed the reoccupation of Byzantine campsites by modern Bedouin is common. This suggests the possibility that the modern Bedouin population, at least in my region of the Negev (the Ramon Crater and its environs) was roughly similar in both size and ecological niche to the “Byzantine Bedouin.”10
My survey also disclosed many different types of sites. The five most common types are:
1. Ephemeral sites, which consist of light ceramic pottery scatters, often covering only a few square yards. Nearby we find, in areas cleared of stone, such features as hearths and other small constructions, animal dung and other artifacts. These sites are usually found on the terraces of wadis (dry river beds that flow with water from flash floods only once or twice in winter).
2. Graveyards, graves, stone markers and stone piles, which are very common in the Negev, although difficult to date. Typical Bedouin graves in the Ramon Crater show an elongated ring of medium-size stones, sometimes with upright head and foot stones, and a gravel mound fill.
3. Matmurot, or storage caves, which are walled-off 049rock shelters with small windows. In these Bedouin storage caves, I have seen such items as plastic sheeting, jerry cans, cans of food, flax, wool, tools and eating utensils.
4. Agricultural dam systems, which were probably originally constructed during Nabatean (first century B.C. to second century A.D.) or Byzantine (fourth to seventh centuries A.D.) times; these were sometimes repaired and reused by modern Bedouin. In some cases, I found signs of relatively recent plowing.
5. Occupation sites, which are often built on remains from earlier periods. Walls of the ancient sites often show significant repair and modification, usually easily distinguishable from the original construction. These sites generally show a high density of organic matter, presumably dung, as well as high densities of artifacts, including much modern Gaza pottery.
With respect to recent Bedouin, Finkelstein has claimed: “This population left behind almost no physical remains (except the remnants of tent encampments, which are difficult to date and are washed away in a few decades), and without contemporary documentary evidence we would not know of its existence.”11
The fact is that precisely such scrappy remains have been found, and dated, to such periods as the Early 050Bronze Age (c. 3000 B.C.), Middle Bronze I (c. 2100 B.C.), the Iron Age (tenth century B.C.) and the Nabatean (first century B.C. to second century A.D.), Roman (second to fourth centuries A.D.), Byzantine (fourth to seventh centuries A.D.) and Early Arabic (seventh to eighth centuries A.D.) periods. These sites have not disappeared; they have left traces, and they are readily identifiable by archaeologists employing proper methods in the field.
Likewise, 20th-century Bedouin sites are present in abundance. They can be dated and presumably will not totally disappear from the archaeological record. While detailed knowledge of these sites is sadly lacking, this is a result of archaeological biases, not the absence of materials for study.
How to Find Ancient Nomad Sites
Prehistoric archaeologists have never had any problem finding the remains of nomadic hunter-gatherers. Prehistoric surveys in the Negev and Sinai12 have discovered the remains of hundreds of archaeological sites dating anywhere from the Old Stone Age from 1 million to 10,000 years ago through the Neolithic (10,000–7,000 years ago) and Chalcolithic periods (fourth to fifth millennia B.C.). Sometimes these sites cover only 20 square yards. While it may be argued that prehistorians are able to find these sites because of the large quantities of flint tools and waste the early people left, in fact these sites are discovered as a result of the exhaustive and painstaking efforts that prehistorians take to find them. When similar methods are applied to the archaeology of later periods, similar results accrue.
There has been relatively little discussion of survey methods in the literature of Biblical archaeology. This is unfortunate and has led to the mistaken assumption that all surveys are the same, and that numbers generated from one survey conducted in one area by a specific archaeologist are readily comparable to those generated by another archaeologist in another area. Unless the methods employed are similar, surveys are not comparable.
When it comes to discovering the remains of ancient nomads in an archaeological survey, there are three major methodological considerations:
• the nature of the sample, • the nature of the terrain, • the nature of the recording system.
The key point in the nature of the sample is the completeness of the coverage. In my work in the Negev—and this is common among prehistorians—the distance between surveyors is generally held down to under 100 feet, which means that the farthest any site can be from a member of the survey team is 50 feet. In some places, the distance is even less. It goes without saying that all survey work is done by foot; it is impossible to see a small hearth or a scatter of ceramics from a jeep traveling at 25 miles per hour. On slopes and cliffs, distances naturally tend to be stretched out, but this occurs only when the survey itself is physically difficult and dangerous. Using proper methods, even the smallest sites can be found.
Sometimes the nature of the terrain has much to do with the number of sites identified in an archaeological survey. The great advantage of surveying in the Negev is the absence of vegetation. Artifacts and structures on the surface are visible. Moreover, the natural processes governing landscape formation in the Negev result in 051few sites being buried. Indeed, in the Negev, most ecological processes erode, deflate and generally expose sites, rather than cover them. Thus, while in some cases this means that preservation may be less than ideal, in general it implies that sites are readily visible on the surface. This is in contrast to sites in northern Israel, which are often totally buried, either by natural or human agencies.
The way sites are recorded is critical for interpreting the remains. It is important to record even the smallest sites. In my work in the Negev, I have recorded sites with as little as a single hearth and one or two potsherds. While such sites are not particularly interesting in themselves, they may become important in the larger picture. In short, if you search only for large sites, you will find only large sites.
Different patterns of pastoral nomadism leave different patterns and types of sites. Different levels of technological sophistication will influence site type and will result in different types of artifacts being left. By comparing modern Bedouin sites to ancient archaeological sites, we can make educated guesses as to the nature of ancient settlements.
I will concentrate on two contrasting periods, the Early Bronze Age (c. 3000 B.C.) and the early Iron Age (tenth century B.C.).
052
Early Bronze Age desert sites—in the Negev as well as Sinai—are architecturally distinctive. They have a central courtyard (usually interpreted to be an animal pen) with attached living structures and other buildings around it. Several Negev surveys have found clusters of quite large sites with this plan, which seem to reflect seasonal aggregate base camps of pastoral nomads who also engaged in some agriculture.13
The clustering of sites, the clear dependence on domesticated animals, as reflected in the courtyards, and the architecturally insubstantial nature of the structures are all duplicated in modern Bedouin settlement patterns.14 In my survey, I found that modern Bedouin sites, like the Early Bronze Age sites, are clustered along wadis, which provide the only grazing area available to flocks during the dry summer months.
A range of site types is also found in the Early Bronze Age, including ceramic scatters, tumuli and graves, rock shelters and occupation sites. Sickles and grinding stones at some sites indicate that agricultural fields were also there in ancient times, although they are no longer readily identifiable. Finally, the scarcity of water and grazing area during the summer, and the apparent absence of Early Bronze Age cisterns (in the Central Negev) for collection and storage of water, suggests that seasonal mobility may have been a simple necessity.
The Iron Age settlement system contrasts markedly with both modern Bedouin and Early Bronze Age patterns. For example, Iron Age forts and towers,15 perhaps better classified as government outposts or minor administrative centers, are almost always located on hilltops and plateaus, and not along the wadis themselves. These sites are substantial structures, which were even more difficult to build because they were located on high ground. Subsidiary structures are usually found along the wadis below the forts. These structures should probably be interpreted as auxiliary occupation sites. Forts are always associated with one or more major water cisterns, eliminating the need for seasonal migration. A great deal of effort was involved in digging these cisterns. Like the substantial forts themselves, the cisterns suggest direction by a central authority. The technology for open cisterns seems to have been available before the Iron Age, yet the pastoralists of preceding periods did not build them, certainly not in the vast numbers found at Iron Age sites.
Iron Age agricultural installations also differ significantly from those of earlier periods. The terraced fields associated with Iron Age farmhouses seem to reflect much more labor investment, both in initial preparation of the terraces, and in later upkeep. There is little, if any, terracing for agriculture in the Early Bronze Age Negev sites.
Interestingly, in the area of my survey, no Iron Age sites exist south of Nahal Ramon; there are Iron Age sites in the Ramon Crater, but they are rare. This is in contrast to the picture in both the Early Bronze Age and the modern Bedouin period. Settlements from these periods were found throughout my survey area. Perhaps there was a border to the settlement area in the Iron 053Age, as opposed to a pastoral periphery in the Early Bronze Age.
Finally, if Iron Age forts are to be understood as reflecting the sedentarization of pastoralists (as Finkelstein has suggested), then we would expect to find evidence for pastoralists from the directly preceding periods, just as we do from earlier periods. Because this evidence is totally absent—to the best of my knowledge, not a single Late Bronze Age (13th to 14th centuries B.C.) sherd has been recovered from the Negev Highlands—it is difficult to make a case that these Iron Age forts represent a sedentarization of pastoral nomads.
There is much more evidence that archaeology could provide, but generally has not, regarding pastoral nomadism. For the Negev, for example, there are virtually no studies of animal bones, seeds, ceramic tempers, or for that matter almost any artifacts other than pottery. No radiocarbon dates are available from these Negev sites, despite controversies regarding the dating of many of them. These lacunae reflect significant weaknesses in our approaches to the archaeology of the Negev. Ultimately, many of the current questions being asked will be answered only by reference to a much wider range of evidence.
For the anthropologist, the study of pastoral nomads is important in and of itself. For the Biblical historian, it is crucial for understanding the Biblical text. Many peoples mentioned in the Bible and in other ancient texts—including the ancient Hebrews—had pastoral nomadic roots. To discover the roots of these peoples, we must understand the archaeology of pastoral nomadism.
On another level, the interplay between the desert and the town has always had a significant effect on the history of the Near East. The two are complementary, and we can hardly understand one without reference to the other.16 To broaden our understanding of history, it is necessary to broaden our archaeological perspectives.
Holmes gazed over the dunes toward the horizon.
“Do you see that man standing there, Watson? He was a desert Canaanite 5,000 years ago.”
“I see nothing, Holmes.”
“Yes, Watson, you do see, but you do not observe. Elementary.”
Holmes knelt quickly, pinching a bit of ash between his thumb and long forefinger. His eyes darted left, settling upon a small flat pebble. He extracted his magnifying lens and examined the slightly pocked stone. “Yes, Watson, as I suspected. Early Bronze Age cooking ware. I would hatard a guess that this hearth is some 5,000 years old. Clear evidence of nomads. Watson, I fear the trail has grown somewhat cold.” In its effort to find evidence of ancient nomads, modern archaeology is only now catching up with Sherlock Holmes. Recent research1 has revealed that, contrary to earlier […]
You have already read your free article for this month. Please join the BAS Library or become an All Access member of BAS to gain full access to this article and so much more.
Frank Hole, “Rediscovering the Past in the Present,” in Ethnoarchaeology, ed. Carol B. Kramer. (New York: Columbia Univ. Press, 1979), pp. 192–218; E. B. Banning, “Peasants, Pastoralists, and Pax Romana Mutualism in the Southern Highlands of Jordan,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research (BASOR) 261 (1986), pp. 25–50, Y. Goren and I. Gilead, “Quaternary Environment and Man at Nahal Sekher, Northern Negev,” Mitekufat Haeven 19 (1986), pp. 66–79; Steven A. Rosen, “Byzantine Nomadism in the Negev: Results from the Emergency Survey,” Journal of Field Archaeology 14 (1987), pp. 29–42.
2.
For example, much of the implicit reasoning behind the Amorite nomadic explanation for the end of the Early Bronze Age was based on the assumption that nomads leave few remains. The original apparent relative scarcity of sites following Early Bronze III was thus taken a priori as evidence of the nomadic character of the invaders.
Fredrik Barth, Nomads of South Persia (Boston: Little Brown, 1961), p. 6; Patty J. Watson, Archaeological Ethnography in Western Iran (Tucson: Univ. of Arizona, 1979), pp. 247–252; Douglas Johnson, The Nature of Nomadism (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago, 1969), pp. 40–46; Ofer Bar-Yosef, “Early Nomads in Southern Sinai,” National Geographic Research Reports—1976 Projects (1983), pp. 147–159.
5.
Emanuel Marx, “Ecology and Politics of Middle Eastern Pastoralists,” in The Nomadic Alternative, ed. Wolfgang Weisslander (The Hague: Mouton, 1978), pp. 41–74; Dan P. Cole, Nomads of the Nomads (Arlington Heights, Il.: Harlan Davidson 1975), pp. 25–53; Roy H. Behnke The Herders of Cyrenaica (Urbana: Univ. of Illinois, 1980), pp. 74–92.
6.
Amnon Cohen, Palestine in the 18th Century (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1973), pp. 90–92, 104–110.
7.
Barth, Nomads of South Persia, pp. 109–111, 116–121, Marx, “Ecology and Politics,” pp. 41–74; Avshalom Shmueli, “Two Faces to the Village of Sa’ir,” in The End of Nomadism, ed. Shmueli (Jerusalem: Reshefim, 1980), pp. 13–25 (in Hebrew).
8.
Finkelstein, “The Iron Age Sites,” p. 51; “The Iron Age Fortresses of the Negev Highlands—Sedentarization of Desert Nomads,” Tel Aviv 11 (1984), pp. 189–209.
9.
Rosen “Byzantine Nomadism;” “Demographic Trends in the Negev Highlands: Preliminary Results from the Emergency Survey,” BASOR (in press).
10.
Rosen, “Byzantine Nomadism.”
11.
Finkelstein, “The Iron Age Fortresses.”
12.
Cf. Bar-Yosef and J. Phillips, Prehistoric Investigations in Gabel Maghara, Northern Sinai, Qedem 7: Monographs of the Institute of Archaeology (Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 1977); Anthony E. Marks, ed. Prehistory and Paleoenvironments in the Central Negev, Israel, vols. I, II and III, (Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press, 1976, 1977, 1982); Bar-Yosef, and Naama Goren, “Afterthoughts Following Prehistoric Surveys in the Levant,” Israel Exploration Journal 30 (1980), 1–16.
13.
M. Haiman, “Tumulus Fields on the Western Periphery of the Negev Highlands,” Paper presented at the 10th Archaeological Congress in Israel (Jerusalem, 1982), Itzhak Beit-Arieh and Ram Gophna, “Early Bronze Age II Sites in Wadi el Qudeirat,” Tel Aviv 3 (1976), pp. 142–150; U. Avner, “Biqat Uvda Survey,” Hadashot Arkheologiyot 78–79 (1982), pp. 93–95 (in Hebrew).
14.
Beit-Arieh, “Two Cultures in the Southern Sinai in the Third Millennium B.C.,” BASOR 263 (1986), pp. 27–54, makes an interesting case for two distinct settlement patterns in South Sinai in Early Bronze II, one essentially related to early copper trade, and the second to indigenous pastoralism. While essentially based on architectural criteria, it seems to reflect some real difference in cultural affinities. Most sites especially in the Negev Highlands, seem to reflect the indigenous pattern.
15.
Cohen, “The Iron Age Fortresses”; Finkelstein, “The Iron Age Fortresses.”
16.
M. B. Rowton, “Dimorphic Structure and the Parasocial Element,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 36 (1977), pp. 181–198; “Autonomy and Nomadism in Western Asia,” Orientalia 42 (1973), pp. 247–58.
