See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284229561

Can seasonality studies be used to identify

sedentism in the past?

Article · January 2005

CITATIONS READS

10 103

1 author:

Nicky Milner
The University of York
99 PUBLICATIONS 939 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Materials Science in Archaeology View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Nicky Milner on 12 February 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

32 Nicky Milner
4. Can seasonality studies be used to identify
sedentism in the past?
Nicky Milner
Introduction
The nature of sedentariness in the Neolithic remains an
important question in archaeology. In recent decades
there has been a move away from the concept of sedentary
Neolithic societies toward one of a more mobile
population (e.g. Edmonds 1995; Thomas 1991; Whittle
1996; 1997; 2003; cf. Cooney 1997). Whether inter-
preting indicators of sedentariness, such as houses, or
exploring practical constraints on sedentism, such as
flooding, demonstrating mobility or sedentism in the past
is very difficult. Seasonality studies are usually employed
to model mobility or detect sedentism in contexts where
the archaeological remains allow. The results of season-
ality studies are frequently open to interpretation. This
paper will detail the problems encountered in seasonality
studies and aims to determine whether or not it is possible
to use seasonality assessments to interpret sedentism at a
site.
Sedentism in the Neolithic?
During the long periods during which they had to obtain
their food by appropriating … animals and plants wherever
and whenever these might be available, men had normally
to move over considerable distances during the course of
the year and could only exist in small widely distributed
groups. By contrast communities of farmers were able to
concentrate on a much more restricted territory and a
narrower range of animals and plants, to maintain these
within close reach of permanent settlements … this in turn
meant that they were able to lead settled lives in
communities at once larger and more closely distributed,
communities in which specialization and the possibility of
large-scale organization made possible the development of
progressively more complex cultures (Clark 1969, 72–73).
Traditionally, prehistoric sedentism has been viewed
in terms of cultural evolution. Archaeologists focus
attention on the process of becoming sedentary because it
is often understood to cause dramatic changes in trade,
territoriality, socio-political hierarchy and to lead to the
development of agriculture (Kelly 1992; Rafferty 1985).
In the Mesolithic, foragers lived a mobile, nomadic
existence; towards the end of the Mesolithic people may
have become more settled (e.g. the Ertebølle), and this
may have enabled them to adopt a Neolithic, sedentary
life of farming. Whittle suggests that few scholars have
resisted the equation of farming with settled life (Whittle
1996, 6). The same applies to foragers and mobility.
However, there are challenges to this evolutionary
sequence. For instance, a Mesolithic structure dating to
c. 7800 cal BC has recently been found in Northum-
berland, northeast England; the successive rebuilding of
this structure along with its robust form and life-span of
roughly 100 years has led to the suggestion that this
represents permanent or at least semi-permanent occu-
pation. This clearly challenges traditional models of
Mesolithic settlement organisation (Waddington et al.
2003a; 2003b). Conversely, people in the Neolithic may
have been much more mobile than sometimes envisaged.
Kent (1989) demonstrates that horticulturalists do not
have to be sedentary; there are many examples in the
ethnographic literature of groups which practise food
production but which also have a degree of mobility.
Whittle (1996, 52) suggests that while some people may
have become fully sedentary from an early stage, the
evidence suggests that settling down in south-east Europe
was a gradual process. Whittle hypothesises that the tell
occupations in south-east Europe were anchors in patterns
of radiating mobility, and that low mounds like Opovo
could have been occupied on a seasonal basis. Bailey
(1999, 97) describes tells as visible statements alluding
to a permanence of place that did not in reality exist.
Similarly, for the Linear Pottery culture (LBK) of central
and western Europe, mobility may have been an important
element in economic and social strategy with houses
serving as symbolic tethers for a mobile people who
followed cattle. The diet was supplemented by some
hunting and gathering and limited cultivation; the pollen
 Can seasonality studies be used to identify sedentism in the past?
diagrams indicate limited clearance (Whittle 1997, 18).
While these different perceptions of mobility in the past
do not turn the preconceived pattern into one of sedentism
in the Mesolithic and nomadism in the Neolithic, they do
emphasise the fact that the concept of sedentism in the
past is open to interpretation.
As Rafferty (1985) outlines, there are many different
ways to recognise sedentism, including the presence of
houses, ceremonial structures, pottery, heavy artefacts,
large quantities of artefacts and mouse bones, as well as
the proximity of sites to water sources. However, these
indicators are rarely conclusive. There are examples in
the ethnographic literature of communities who build
houses and who use pottery but who are not sedentary
(Rafferty 1985). Indeed, Whittle demonstrates that
although well-built structures are often associated with
the appearance of sedentary settlement, the use of space
at Achilleion (in northern Greece) need not entail
permanent occupation (Whittle 1996, 57).
Practical constraints on sedentism must also be
considered. Rafferty (1985) notes that sites occupied by
sedentary communities should not be regularly threatened
by flooding; on this same basis, sites in some areas of
south-east Europe which would have been located on
active floodplains have been considered suitable only for
seasonal occupation or impermanence (Bailey 1999; van
Andel et al. 1995; Whittle 1996). However, Halstead
points out that by the same logic, future archaeologists
would be entitled to conclude that many modern European
cities were only occupied seasonally (Halstead 1999, 77).
Instead, arguing that these may not have been regular
flooding events, he makes a case for sedentism. Because
there are always ambiguities in determining sedentism,
the seasonality of resource use will often play a large part
in the investigation of year round occupation. By
analysing floral and faunal remains and considering the
resources available to a community, models of yearly
resource cycles can be constructed.
Before determining whether or not seasonality studies
can be used to identify sedentism at a site it is important
to clarify what exactly sedentism means. Rafferty (1985)
has demonstrated that the terms sedentary, sedentariness,
sedentism, sedentarism, settled and permanent are used
in different ways by different archaeologists and that few
definitions are given in the literature; often the meaning
must be derived from the context. Sedentary can some-
times be used to mean groups staying in one place all
year round (but does this mean within one territory and
could some, but not all, of the group move around?).
Some use sedentary-cum-mobile or semi-nomadic to
introduce an element of mobility for part of the group
(this could then describe transhumance) but these terms
can include a range of degrees of mobility. Others take
sedentary to mean that most of the group lives at a site for
the greater part of the year; this is open to differing
definitions of ‘most’, and does ‘greater part’ mean over
six months or ten months? Conversely, some authors use
33
the terms sedentary or permanent for long-term settle-
ments; consequently, swidden agriculturalists who occupy
a site for a couple of years and then move on can be
defined as semi-sedentary or semi-permanent. There is
the added confusion that site size is sometimes taken to
be influential. At larger sites, perhaps such as tell sites,
there is often more of an expectation that the community
had been sedentary.
Rafferty (1985, 115) follows Rice (1975, 97) to offer
the following definition: ‘sedentary settlement systems
are those in which at least part of the population remains
at the same location throughout the entire year’. This
specifies year-round occupation but allows some mobility
by some of the group, perhaps involved in transhumance,
or trading. This is the definition that I will use here.
Rafferty (1985, 116) also suggests that permanent should
not be used as a synonym for sedentism; instead it should
be used to imply long-term occupation (not necessarily of
a sedentary nature).
Problems encountered in seasonality studies
There are an ever increasing number of scientific
techniques being developed to assess seasonality of floral
and faunal remains from archaeological sites. The two
main methods are identifying the presence of seasonally
available species (migratory animals), and examining
physiological events that occur at certain periodic
intervals (e.g. epiphyseal fusion; tooth eruption and wear;
medullary bone deposits; incremental growth in shell,
otoliths, scales). To understand seasonal patterns in
animal migration, tooth eruption or shell growth, it is
critical that modern controls are studied. However
scientific the basis of the method, reliance on modern
analogy means that results will always be subject to
critical scrutiny.
A common method for identifying seasonality is to
look for the presence of migratory animals. Fish have
been analysed from Danish Mesolithic and Neolithic shell
middens and some species may have been caught
seasonally; the eel is plentiful at Bjørnsholm and is easiest
to catch when migrating downstream in large numbers in
the autumn (Enghoff 1993). However, there is always the
possibility that they could have been exploited at other
times of the year. Migratory birds are also often used as
seasonal indicators but there may be considerable
challenges to the specific identification of ducks, geese
and swans. Bones found at Glastonbury, originally
thought to be whooper swans and thus indicative of winter
exploitation, have since been shown to include mute
swans which are present year-round (Serjeantson 1998,
31). More importantly, the patterns of bird distribution
are dynamic, and seasonal habits can change, sometimes
swiftly; the behaviour we witness today does not
necessarily correlate with the behaviour in the past
(Morales Muñiz 1995; Serjeantson 1998).
One of the main methods for detecting season of death
34 Nicky Milner
is examination of dentition eruption and wear sequences.
This has become an established method for a variety of
species (e.g. sheep, pig, reindeer, gazelle) and relies on
the examination of teeth in modern animals at various
stages of their life (Davis 1987). Patterns can be related
to age, which in turn can be related to season of death,
providing the month or season of birth is known; this
information is vital because it is needed as an anchor
point. O’Connor (1998) reviews the methodology used
for assessing seasonality of sheep. He shows that,
depending on the flock of sheep, there may be different
seasons of birthing: late January to late March; March to
late May; or even autumn lambing by some flocks of
Dorset Horn (O’Connor 1998, 7). The spread of birthing
over several months coupled with the variation in birthing
periods mean that there is always quite a large margin of
error in the results; he cautions that season-of-death in
sheep should be considered with great care and then only
in general terms (O’Connor 1998, 10).
The use of an anchor point must also be applied in any
study of incremental growth patterns, such as in analyses
of shellfish or otolith seasonality. In the case of the oyster,
modern samples have shown that an annual line is formed
around March. The season of death is determined by
looking at the amount of shell that has formed between
the last annual line and the growing edge (Milner 2001).
Again, there is the potential for error. Archaeological
oysters may have deposited lines at slightly different times
than do their modern counterparts; depending on their
ambient environment, the range of time for line depo-
sition can cover a couple of months, from the end of
February to the end of April. Again the anchor point is
not firmly fixed and it is imperative therefore that large
samples are taken in order to identify accurate trends in
seasonality.
Another problem is determining whether the fauna
under analysis was killed and butchered at the site, or
whether it was transported there at a later date. Many
foods, such as fish, can be stored and moved, as can
useful raw materials such as antler. The interpretation of
seasonal occupation at Star Carr has changed over the
years, partly because the red deer antler was initially
used in the seasonality assessments. The red deer antler
was used to posit that occupation occurred primarily in
the winter months (Fraser and King 1954). It has been
argued since then that the antler could have been imported
to the site as a source of raw material and thus should be
discounted from the seasonality assessment (Caulfield
1978). From investigation of the other faunal remains,
the seasonality studies indicate spring and summer
occupation (Caulfield 1978; Jacobi 1978; Legge and
Rowley-Conwy 1988), though there are other inter-
pretations (i.e. that the site had been visited sporadically
during virtually all seasons of the year; Andresen et al.
1981; Pitts 1979; Price 1982).
The case of Star Carr highlights the fact that even on
a site where extensive investigation has been carried out
on faunal remains, there is no consensus of opinion on
the season of occupation. The key issue in the analysis of
seasonality is to define the question being asked: what is
the season of this activity, or what is the seasonal
occupation of the site? The season of the activity is
relatively straightforward; for example, the analysis of a
number of oyster shells may show that oysters were
gathered in the spring time. This result indicates seasonal
aspects of resource acquisition activities only. It does not
demonstrate that the site was only occupied in the spring;
too commonly assumptions are made that relate such
results to season of site occupation (Monks 1981).
In order to investigate the seasonal occupation of the
site it is important that the spectrum of procurement
activities is analysed and their seasons evaluated as a
whole (Monks 1981). The absence of indicators in one
season will always be an obstacle. Imagine a site with
seasonal indicators suggesting winter, spring and summer
occupation. The site could have been abandoned in the
autumn but equally it could have been occupied but no
faunal or floral remains have survived. Either site
formation processes have resulted in a loss of some
seasonal fauna (e.g. fragile fish bone which may be lost
to chemical processes), or the particular elements of the
skeletons left are not the ones on which analysis can be
done (e.g. jaws are needed for analysis of dentition).
When trying to determine year-round occupation, the
problem of absence-of-evidence-is-not-evidence-of-
absence will always lead to ambiguity.
A second problem is that the methods used tend to
have wide margins of error; the actual results of
seasonality analysis are often so crude that the precision
of the assessment is at the level of the season rather than
a month. It is imperative that large sample sizes are used
in order to be more confident about the results, although
there are many cases when the samples used are very
low, sometimes only one or two minimum number of
individuals (Milner 2002). Even if large sample sizes are
used and care is taken, the illusion of year-round
occupation can be created all too easily. Take a hypo-
thetical example of a pit which contains a variety of
faunal material from sporadic occupation at different
times of the year: in reality the people at the site
slaughtered the sheep over two weeks in March, shellfish
were eaten through May and June, and migratory swans
were caught on one day in November (see Table 4.1).
Using various methods of seasonality analysis the
archaeologist could come up with the following results:
sheep assessment = late winter/early spring; shellfish
assessment = late spring/summer; and migratory swans
assessment = autumn/winter. This does not equal year-
round occupation, though it could look that way (Table
4.2). This is a very simple scheme and perhaps with
many more species and more results it would look more
convincing, but the principle remains exactly the same
and the results are misleading. This is the case for some
of the large Ertebølle shell middens in Denmark which
 Can seasonality studies be used to identify sedentism in the past? 35

J F M A M J J A S O N D
sheep X
shellfish X X
swans X

Table 4.1. Hypothetical scheme showing the actual months of death of sheep in March, shellfish in May and June, and
swans in November.

J F M A M J J A S O N D
sheep X X X
shellfish X X X X X
swans X X X X X

Table 4.2. Hypothetical scheme showing the seasonality assessments made for each species.

are usually described as sedentary sites. On examination
of the seasonality studies there is no definitive evidence
for year-round occupation and it is quite plausible to
envisage more mobility, especially in the winter months
(Milner 2002).
The final fundamental problem in using seasonality
studies to investigate sedentism is that most sites are
palimpsests. When attempting to analyse seasonal events,
the aggregation of seasonal activities that have occurred
through time are always conflated into a single year.
Ethnographers use the concept of the seasonal round
which has been adopted by archaeologists to model
mobility and sedentism, especially for hunter-gatherer
sites. However, Jochim (1991) demonstrates that this is a
normative concept which does not acknowledge
behavioural changes from one year to the next or variation
within a group. When ethnography is based on one year’s
fieldwork it will not pick up on differences between years;
however, there are many examples of studies which do
show significant year-to-year variation (Jochim 1991,
311). In addition, there are often different options for
people within a group and although, for instance, some
may choose to camp and hunt in one place, other groups
may go elsewhere for another activity.
Taking the hypothetical example above it is possible
that the site was occupied by a group of people over the
period of a year and there were other foodstuffs consumed
though this is not shown in the seasonality studies. It is
equally possible that the three activities could have been
carried out by three different groups of people passing
through that location in three different, short periods,
with each group using the site in very different ways:
some shepherds who are forced to kill their flock due to
a bad outbreak of disease; some women and children
gathering shellfish; and some men needing swan feathers
for a ritual. It is impossible to determine whether each of
these events occurred within one year or perhaps at
intervals of every two years. Alternatively, shepherds
could have visited the site every year for ten years and
each time killed a sheep and within this period there was
one brief encampment when shellfish were eaten, and
another for the hunting of swans, both by different groups.
Site chronologies are not sharp enough to distinguish
between these types of events. There are many different
possible scenarios but with each one the interpretation of
sedentism or seasonal occupation changes.
Conclusion
Can seasonality studies be used to identify sedentism in
the past? In order to investigate whether a site was
occupied year-round by a sedentary group of people there
needs to be a secure context in which one is certain that
all the faunal and floral material had been deposited
within one year. From this faunal and floral material,
there needs to be convincing evidence for activity
throughout the year. Large sample sizes must be used
and the wide margins of error inherent in these studies
must be acknowledged. These requirements are not
always met. While sites may be permanent, in the sense
of long-term occupation, it is difficult, if not impossible,
to demonstrate that they were ever sedentary. Even if
such a site existed it would not provide a true rep-
resentation of that society. In reality both sedentary and
mobile people use lots of different sites or locations in the
landscape for many different reasons.
36 Nicky Milner
Perhaps a key problem in using the word sedentism is
that it is used by different disciplines to describe different
things. When ethnographers, anthropologists and social
theorists use it they are talking about the activities of
people in a landscape. Often study takes place over the
period of a year or more and within this time a huge
variety of places may be visited for many different
purposes by different people and groups. Even if there is
a permanent base which is occupied throughout most of
the year, the variability of movement by individuals and
small groups is of equal interest. When sedentism is used
in archaeology it is often used to describe an individual
site or location. This conflates individual and societal
mobility and masks the variability and complexity of
movements of different peoples within a landscape. In
ethnographic terms a society may have had a significant
element of mobility in their lifestyle, but in archaeological
terms a site may suggest a sedentary community.
Sedentism has been a key topic in archaeology because
of the notion that sedentariness is fundamental to cultural
evolution, specifically to increased social complexity, to
the development of agriculture, and to the rise of the
state and civilisation. However, sedentism may not hold
the key to understanding these societal changes in the
archaeological record. Indeed, it is possible to identify
changes in past societies without evidence for sedentism:
for example, evidence for agriculture in the form of
preserved faunal and floral remains. As we are aware of
examples of mobile societies which practise cultivation
(Kent 1989; Whittle 1997), we must expect that agri-
culture will not always have been synonymous with
sedentism. Perhaps it is not useful to search for sedentism
at all. The very word sedentary is restrictive because it
sets up a binary opposition to mobility. The notional cut-
off points created for where or when a society becomes
sedentary are clearly problematic. Sedentism is laden with
connotations: it may mean to one person what sedentism-
cum-mobile means to another. No cut-off point can be
agreed upon.
In sum, sedentism is difficult to prove. Not only can
the presence of housing, pottery or agriculture be
inconclusive but even the seasonality of resources may be
ambiguous. The term sedentism is also vague in its
meaning. Kent (1989, 2) questions how sedentary
‘sedentism’ is and highlights the fact that although
modern day Euro-Americans are classified as sedentary,
they do not occupy the same location for decades, or
spend every month of the year in the same place.
Therefore, perhaps it is more productive to think in terms
of permanence, meaning occupation over many years
(although not necessarily year-round occupation) and a
spectrum of movements within a landscape.
Acknowledgements
I am very grateful to William Fletcher and Geoff Bailey
for providing useful discussion and comments on this
paper.
Bibliography
Andresen, J.M., Byrd, B.F., Elson, M.D., McGuire, R.H.,
Mendoza, R.G., Staski, E. and White, J.P. 1981. The deer
hunters: Star Carr reconsidered. World Archaeology 13,
31–46.
Bailey, D.W. 1999. What is a tell? Settlement in fifth
millennium Bulgaria. In J. Brück and M Goodman (eds),
Making places in the prehistoric world. Themes in settlement
archaeology, 94–111. London: UCL Press.
Caulfield, S. 1978. Star Carr – an alternative view. Irish
Archaeological Research Forum 5, 15–22.
Clark, J.G.D. 1969. World prehistory. A new outline.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cooney, G. 1997. Images of settlement and the landscape in
the Neolithic. In P. Topping (ed.), Neolithic landscapes,
23–33. Oxford: Oxbow.
Davis, S.J.M. 1987. The archaeology of animals. London:
Batsford.
Edmonds, M.R. 1995. Stone tools and society. London:
Batsford.
Enghoff, I.B. 1993. Mesolithic eel-fishing at Bjørnsholm,
Denmark. Spiced with exotic species. Journal of Danish
Archaeology 10, 105–18.
Fraser, F.C. and King, J.E. 1954. Faunal remains. In J.G.D.
Clark, Excavations at Star Carr, 70–95. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Halstead, P. 1999. Neighbours from hell? The household in
Neolithic Greece. In P. Halstead (ed.), Neolithic society in
Greece, 77–95. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
Jacobi, R. 1978. Northern England in the eighth millennium
BC: an essay. In P. Mellars (ed.), The early postglacial
settlement of northern Europe: an ecological perspective,
295–332. London: Duckworth.
Jochim, M.A. 1991. Archaeology as long-term ethnography.
American Anthropologist 93, 308–21.
Kelly, R.L. 1992. Mobility/sedentism: concepts, archaeological
measures and effects. Annual Review of Anthropology, 21,
43–66.
Kent, S. 1989. Cross-cultural perceptions of farmers as hunters
and the value of meat. In S. Kent (ed.), Farmers as hunters.
The implications of sedentism, 1–17. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Legge, A.J. and Rowley-Conwy, P.A. 1988. Star Carr revisited:
a re-analysis of the large mammals. London: Birkbeck
College.
Milner, N. 2001. At the cutting edge: using thin sectioning to
determine season of death of the European oyster, Ostrea
edulis. Journal of Archaeological Science 28, 861–75.
Milner, N. 2002. Incremental growth of the European oyster,
Ostrea edulis. Seasonality information from Danish
kitchenmiddens. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.
Monks, G.G. 1981. Seasonality studies. In M.B. Schiffer (ed.),
Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 4, 177–
240. New York: Academic Press.
Morales Muñiz, A. 1995. The mobile faunas: reliable seasonal
indicators for archaeozoologists? In T.R. Rocek and O. Bar-
Yosef (eds), Seasonality and sedentism. Archaeological
perspectives from Old and New World sites, 123–45.
Massachusetts: Harvard University.
O’Connor, T.P. 1998. On the difficulty of detecting seasonal
slaughtering of sheep. Environmental Archaeology 3, 5–
13.
 Can seasonality studies be used to identify sedentism in the past?
Pitts, M. 1979. Hides and antlers: a new look at the gatherer-
hunter site at Star Carr, North Yorkshire, England. World
Archaeology 11, 32–42.
Price, D. 1982. Willow tails and dog smoke. Quarterly Review
of Archaeology, 3, 4–7.
Rafferty, J.E. 1985. The archaeological record on sedentariness:
recognition, development, and implications. Advances in
Archaeological Method and Theory 8, 113–56.
Rice, G. 1975. A systematic explanation of a change in
Mogollon settlement patterns. Ann Arbor, MI.: University
of Washington Microfilms International.
Serjeantson, D. 1998. Birds: a seasonal resource. Environmental
Archaeology 3, 23–34.
Thomas, J. 1991. Rethinking the Neolithic. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
van Andel, T., Gallis, K and Toufexis, G. 1995. Early Neolithic
farming in a Thessalian river landscape, Greece. In J. Lewin,
View publication stats
37
M.G. Macklin and J.C. Woodward (eds), Mediterranean
Quaternary river environments, 131–43. Rotterdam:
Balkema.
Waddington, C., Bailey, G., Bayliss, A., Boomer, I., Milner,
N., Pedersen, K., Shiel, R. and Stevenson, T. 2003a. A
Mesolithic settlement site at Howick, Northumberland: a
preliminary report. Archaeologia Aeliana 32, 1–12.
Waddington, C, Bailey, G., Boomer, I., Milner, N. and Shiel,
R. 2003b. A Mesolithic coastal site at Howick,
Northumberland. Antiquity 77, 295.
Whittle, A. 1996. Europe in the Neolithic. The creation of new
worlds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Whittle, A. 1997. Moving on and moving around: Neolithic
settlement mobility. In P. Topping (ed.), Neolithic
landscapes, Oxford: Oxbow, 15–22.
Whittle, A. 2003. The archaeology of people. Dimensions of
Neolithic life. London: Routledge.