 |
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
 |
|
|
|
3. The Future Of Interpreting The ‘Evidence’; A Note On Climate Studies & ArchaeologyScholars like Toby Wilkinson (see the above article) do not know the desert and her people well enough to write an informed work, hypocrisy aside he exhibits the classic western stereotype that desert inhabitants were constantly in urgent need of food and fresh water – Scholarly thoughts are tempered by the climate as it is now in the Greater Maghreb, not how it was 5 or 6 thousand years ago; and hence they are unable to travel back in time by using cultural analogy from contemporaneous peoples, a simple leap of faith, or preferably, delving into imagination – some scholars exhibit stunted anally retentive ideologies that allow no place for creating in their head a virtual world that at some point could be explored from the perspective of the real examination of actual archaeological data, in the flesh as it were, and mull over what it might have been like during ancient times. Perhaps, being of stereotypical, western Eurocentric scientific mind indicates their incapacity to look in the right places for evidence; the paintings provide as much evidence about the creators of that work and their mindset as what can be obtained from undisturbed material deposits. The vision of an Eden-like existence at a time when the climate was far more conducive to continued survival is not so far removed from the truth. The Sahara in its long history, although designated a Palaeoarctic (ancient dry desert) eco-region has gone through successive stages of greening and desertification. At the two apexes of human creative expression in the Sahara it was a much greener place than it is now. At each of these periods, permanent and semi-permanent lakes existed, and seasonal rivers flowed through the mountainous massifs across grassland phenomenally rich in animal and plant life that we see now as fossilised landforms of dry, stony wadi (river valley) beds, denuded rocky massifs, sand dunes, depressions and stony seas. Survival was not a question of the urgent need to continually break camp every few weeks or months, or travelling long distances moving on to pastures new, more a case of having a number of seasonal temporary camps that provided everything that was needed at the time that they were inhabited. All the people needed was to be found right there in their own back garden. Earliest prehistoric paintings and engravings are rich in symbolism and wild animals, done predominantly by hunter-gatherer-fisher-forager groups. The depictions of domesticated animals and the earliest farming economies were done by those who worked the land and who came after the hunter-gatherer-fisher-forager groups had left, or so we are told. The stylistic differences exhibited by each of these groups’ creations suggested that each were done by different groups at different times. However, there is no longer a defining line between either earlier or later groups as many created styles overlap, which would suggest considerable interaction with groups who lived by hunting and those who lived by farming. It is very easy to say that the farming economy groups came after the hunters had left, but as we’ve seen in historic and even contemporary indigenous groups, both a hunting and farming economy can be practised at the same time. In discussing the creative expression in the context of life philosophies of those who inhabited the desert at any time in its prehistory, and which economy was practised, the animals depicted, be them paintings or engravings that must be acknowledged as creations of indigenous groups who almost certainly developed a sufficiently sustainable lifestyle to take advantage of all the environments they found themselves in, grassland, riverine and lacustrine. This applies to hunter-gatherer-fisher-forager groups and early farming or domesticating groups. There is one defining difference however; hunter-gather-fisher-forager groups have survived for far longer in North Africa in prehistory then those who practised farming. It is also beyond a doubt that the earliest groups that inhabited the Sahara had ample opportunity to develop what we would now call proto-type belief systems and to develop engraving and painting techniques – even to “just sit, think and contemplate”. Having ‘time on their hands’ is crucial for indigenous groups in developing a complicated social life, interaction and community. What can be said about Wilkinson’s book at this stage is that 1) he did not read up sufficiently about the lifestyle/life philosophy of other (albeit contemporary or historic) hunter-gatherer-fisher-forager groups before writing his book. How sad, we must say, because if he had done so, his book would have been far better received than it was. And 2) the book reflects the dismal failure of Wilkinson to grasp a fundamental truth; hunter/gatherer/fisher/foragers, apart from being well-established in predynastic times, with their extended history, throughout the prehistory of the Sahara did not wont for food or water; food was available in sufficiently high quality, and in considerable quantities, and in several forms; fish, meat, gathering seasonal foods, tubers, nuts, berries, roots etc. Hunter-gatherer-fisher-forager groups in other parts of the world, like South America live their lives very much like their ancestors did. These people also have ample time to sit and think, and to develop a proto-belief system or spiritual tradition, and even rock painting or engraving traditions, as is evidenced for the vast corpus of rock painting and engravings traditions found throughout North and South America, Australia, and the Middle East and North Africa. Furthermore, many nomadic (and hunting) groups throughout the world continue to adhere to a lifestyle that has supported them for hundreds of years. Several occupy seasonal camps, or areas of land that can sustain them at different times of the year. Bedu tribes people and some Tuareg Berber groups still continue a lifestyle that sustained their ancestors, so it is not far-fetched to suggest that “Egyptian” pre-dynastic groups lived much the same way as San Bushpeople and Aboriginal Australian indigenous groups live today. Why do the Bedu, Tuareg, Berber, Tubu et al still inhabit their desertified world? You might ask. The answer is simple – recorded history goes back so far, the rest comes to us through oral traditions, from folklore, myth, even references to the supernatural – ancient belief in the Sahara was based on animism, and quite possibly, a form of shamanism that no longer survives in the Sahara (it hasn’t been found yet), with its eclipsing by Islamic incursion from about 700 AD onwards. The relationship of the people to their landscape and the wildlife that they shared their world with is highly complex and symbolic, it is known that nomads today practise a form of sustainability which ensures their continued survival of each and every one of them. The desertlands are their home, and have been so for at least 3 – 4 thousand years; their survival philosophy of a nomadic existence, and to a lesser extend pastoral, is now the preferred option for many of them; it provides a continuing survival mechanism. This is how they survive in the lands that we erroneously refer to as a wasteland. Many tribal groups prefer to continue their old ways – in their experience it hasn’t failed them yet, and they’ve been around long enough to know through this, that they will always be a way to survive in the desert. To put it another way (long live the hunter-gatherer-fisher-forager) why waste ones life limiting your variety of food sources and waiting for your crops to ripen when you can easily go out and trap a small mammal, hunt an antelope, or a mouflon [ovicaprid], or fish in your favourite stretch of water for your next meal? It is just as easily to ‘up-sticks’ temporarily knowing that wherever you lay them down again there is more than enough food and water for your requirements, and a wider variety of choice too. These indigenous groups “walked their talk”, “danced their dance” and also found time to develop a ‘mind’ for making their lives more ‘efficient’, for instance, by tracking their food, and ensuring they strayed relatively healthy by the gathering and use of herbal and medicinal plants. It is known that certain nomadic and hunting groups, during hunting trips often take the babies or younger animals they found of the prey they hunted back to camp. So it is entirely within logistical reasoning and certainly not at all far-fetched to suggest (being forever opportunist and on the look out constantly) that these groups kept the small beasts into adulthood - perhaps as a worst-case scenario and fall-back position? Or perhaps, just in case their food failed temporarily; at least they would have a fresh supply of meat, and maybe milk. Alternatively, why not use the animals to keep the camp free of vermin? An excellent idea – you can still be mobile but you have also provided a contingency plan for continued survival. The development of a sustainable life philosophy may even have included “dreaming” tracks, or ‘songlines’ like the Australian Aboriginal groups, and even shamanism and trance-dance like the San Bushpeople – these groups incidentally, have a long ancestry, stretching back potentially, thousands of years; suggesting a similar situation for pre-dynastic groups as they too have experienced lengthy periods adapting to changing environments; and developing and living sustainable lives within their chosen environments. These groups would almost certainly know intuitively when it was time to move on to different area temporarily, and, if you don’t own many possessions you can be as free and easy as you like. One should feel more assured when the variety of animals as mentioned in historic times were mentioned as holding special status throughout North Africa in a prehistoric setting (Greek and Roman scholars wrote about the people and animals they met on their travels). There is no controversy here that some animals were accorded certain status at certain times in prehistory, but Wilkinson purposely leaves out detailed references to the people of this time, and the status of the animals that inhabited their world. Certainly there was time enough for indigenous groups to develop a unique cultural expression in the forms of depictions of engraved animals, and they did not starve in the process, or die of famine. However, the final comments on Wilkinson’s book “if you have to spend most of your day just looking for your next meal, you are hardly likely to have time or energy to develop arts and crafts, or to sit and think” (p163).This kind of attitude is not only disrespectful to indigenous groups but also totally, totally misguided, and so wrong it beggars belief! Concluding CommentsEqually attention should be given to all interdisciplinary subject areas that have archaeology or anthropology as a baseline; wherever there is a human emphasis there is a human story behind the headlines, and this is why it is also important to consider climate change and all the related disciplines. -X-
|