Introduction

1We conducted ethnographic research in October 2014 for ten days in the districts of Gədəbəy and Şəmkir in order to evaluate present-day pastoral activity in the southwest of Azerbaijan (c). The aim of this study was to build up a modern frame of reference for pastoral practices and herd mobility in a relatively controlled context in terms of archaezoological and isotopic applications. This project was devised by Marjan Mashkour and Rémi Berthon with the participation of Bertille Lyonnet, as part of the YEYLAQ1 Project, which means transhumance, and is the term used by the formerly nomadic populations of the region, now practising transhumant pastoralism, to refer to mountain pastures.

Figure 18.1

2This study enabled us to determine the types of present-day seasonal migratory movements of caprines (sheep and goats) and bovines and to collect osseous and tooth material (sheep and cattle mandibles) for an isotopic baseline. This will enable us to put archaeozoological data on the prehistory of pastoral mobility in Azerbaijan into perspective.

3The constitution of modern baselines in bioarchaeological research sensu lato is pivotal, for understanding the past practices related to humans/animal interactions. Pastoral practices constitute an important area of these investigations. The observation of traditional ways of living, that are supposed to have less evolved than the modern ways of life impacted by mechanisation and intensive production, help in better interpreting the archaeological material. Sheep/goat/cattle teeth of animals with known history collected in a context of pastoral mobility between various ecotones allows the understanding of mechanism of stable isotopic variation on prehistoric bovid tooth remains from sites of the same region.

4Thanks to our international and multi-lingual team, high-quality exchanges in several languages took place between researchers and respondents. We communicated in French, English, Azeri and Persian, as required. The team comprised two archaeozoologists, Marjan Mashkour and Sarieh Amiri, two archaeologists, Tükəzban Göyüşova and Təranə Babayeva, and an ethnologist, Michaël Thevenin. This study was also supported by bibliographical and audio-visual resources, in particular on recent work in Azerbaijan by R. Neudert (Neudert & Allahverdiyeva 20092; Neudert & Rühs 2013) and the film “koç” by R. Ismailov (2010), documenting summer transhumance between Tovuz and Daşkəsən.

5During the course of a 10-day mission of extensive-type research (from the 1st to the 12th October 2014), several types of data were collected. Non-directive interviews in the Azeri language were recorded in the district of Gədəbəy (town of Gədəbəy, villages of Daryurd and Parakənd, summer mountain pastures of the hamlets of Aralıq and Arxaşan), and the district of Şəmkir (pastures and sheepfolds of Ceyrançöl, village of İsgəndərli). Systematic-type questions were asked during these interviews and were supported by survey forms. For some questions on the description of the physical traits of animals, we presented photographs in connection with the subjects broached by means of a tactile tablet, in order to facilitate comprehension of the question and exchange. In parallel, during short phases of in situ observation, we took photographs to complete the investigation, and recorded information in a field book.

6The aim of the use of all these tools was to obtain a qualitative and comparative analysis of the data complied into chosen themes with three main orientations: 1) cartography of the transhumance route, 2) annual organisation (planning for the translator) of pastoral activities, 3) visual, linguistic and descriptive documentation of animal-derived productions and the associated material culture.

7It is important to recall that these results do not in any way constitute standard pastoral practices in the southwest of Azerbaijan. They represent the ways of doing of several families whom we observed and interpreted in the restrictive framework of a short prospection mission. In this way, we conducted an extensive survey, but limited in time, with very short periods of observation and a linguistic barrier, in spite of the presence of an Azeri-speaker among us (SA), but who did not speak the same dialect.

Transhumant pastoralism in Azerbaijan

8Azerbaijan is a particularly propitious terrain for extensive pastoralism. Indeed, more than half of its surface (56%) is mountainous (Dufaure & Thorez 2006). In summer, itinerant pastors walk along the high mountain chains of the Great Caucasus and the Lesser Caucasus with Alpine climates and in winter, along their semi-arid foothills. Summer pastures lie at altitudes higher than 1,700 m and are on average used between the end of May and September. They constitute 32% of the land resources of Azerbaijan. Winter pastures are located in the semi-arid steppes between altitudes of 0 and 700 m and are grazed, in general, between October and May. They represent 20% of the total land surface (Dufaure & Thorez 2006).

9In 2008, the number of small ruminants in Azerbaijan rose to more than 8 million animals, after decreasing to 5.7 million animals in 1989 following the fall of the Soviet Union (Neudert & Allahverdiyeva 20093). However, this increase in livestock, considered to be excessive, led to problems of overgrazing and erosion, even in mountainous regions (de Leeuw et al. 2019). Transhumant herds are mainly made up of sheep and cattle, completed by goats. The latter are used as leaders in the herd, but also for their aesthetic value, as the colour of their coats and the shape of their horns can take on varied and surprising forms, as well as for their milk, which is intended for family consumption or used to pay employed shepherds. Owners earned most of their revenues with the sale of six-month-old lambs. The fall of the Soviet Union, the setting up of new borders with Armenia and Georgia, then the rapid ensuing economic growth from oil resources, played a decisive role in the implementation of pastoral management reforms in Azerbaijan. From 2000 onwards, the State implemented formal regulations for leasing pastures, which remained under state control, unlike arable lands. It became possible to rent pasture lands from a state body, the Committee of Land and Cartography (Azərbaycan Respublikası Dövlət Torpaq və Xəritəçəkmə Komitəsi). This new attribution procedure of allotments reached its peak level nine years later. Some summer pastures remained under the open-access system controlled by municipalities on the basis of verbal agreement, but from then on, all pasturelands were used on a contract basis with the committee (Neudert & Rühs 2013). This policy shaped a pastoralism turned towards a market economy, encouraging large herds like in the Ceyrançöl Massif, with ‘absentee entrepreneurs’ to coin the term used in the study by R. Neudert and N. Allahverdiyeva (2009),4 and individual and family strategies.

The country of Aran

10In the Azeri language, the word aran refers to all plains with a warm and dry climate. For the highlanders in the district of Gədəbəy, aran is the region bordering the Kura Basin, and its inhabitants, in particular, breeders, are known as arancı. It is a semi-arid, steppe-dominated environment. The climate is shaped by dry winds from Asia, across the Caspian Sea, which bring little rainfall, estimated at an annual average of 285 mm at Gəncə (Ganja), the capital of the region (Huseynov & Malikov 2009).5 Breeders reported that harsh winters with snow or drought in the autumn or spring occurred on average every seven years. These meteorological conditions can result in losses of lambs and ewes (Neudert & Allahverdiyeva 2013). Finally, the country of aran in the district of Şəmkir can be divided into three zones: the Ceyrançöl Massif on the left bank of the Kura, an alluvial zone which corresponds to the bottom of the Kura valley, and a foothill zone which constitutes the northern slope of the Lesser Caucasus. Below, we present a description of these three zones. Descriptions of the latter two are combined in a short paragraph, as our survey ran short of time and could not be prolonged.

The Ceyrançöl Massif

11This massif culminates at an altitude of 800 m on the Georgian border, but is mostly at an altitude of around 500 m. It consists of a steppe-like, even semi-desertic plateau of uncultivated land on which collective sheepfolds were developed during the Soviet period (figure 18.2C). These sheepfolds are still in operation today, although most of them are in a dilapidated state, and hold about 600 ewes each (Neudert & Allahverdiyeva 2009).6 Beside long, low-walled stone enclosures lie smaller, half-buried more traditionally built sheepfolds, consisting of a double-sloped roof with reed wattle covered in earth, ridge beams supported by heavy central poles in wood or metal (figure 18.2D-F), corresponding to those described by B. Kobychev (1962). Nomads who officially owned their qışlaq (wintering grounds) in plains under the Russian administration at the end of the nineteenth century built this type of half-buried dwelling adapted to the climatic and pedological conditions of the Kura plains in winter, and to the way of life of transhumant pastoralists. These dwellings were widespread in the Kura Basin and the region of Gəncə. They were the first ‘official’ villages in the plain of nomadic communities caught up in territorial injunctions and the settlement process imposed by the Tzar administration (Karapetian 2007). In Nakhchivan, these traditional shelters were used as private sheepfolds outside collectivisation contexts, as part of small agriculture (Maurel 1985), also called plots (Ardiller-Carras 2004). They are also found around Zagros. The Danish archaeologist Inge Demant Mortensen (1993) described them in the second half of the twentieth century in Lur nomadic communities where they are called Zemgas.

Figure 18.2

12Due to water shortages and strong winds, villages are rare in the Ceyrançöl Massif. Nonetheless, Meskhetian Turks who found refuge in Azerbaijan after being deported from Uzbekistan by Stalin during the Second World War, settled there in 1990. The village of İsgəndərli is an example of this. Land was given to the refugees by the government so that they could cultivate clover, and produce forage for the winter. The possession and exploitation of these lands enables breeders to return to the massif from Alpine pastures earlier as herds can avail of pastureland there. Today, there is also intensive farming on the edges of the Kura, in the massif.

The alluvial zone and the foothills

13These regions are surrounded by the Ceyrançöl Massif and the mountainous region of the Lesser Caucasus. This is the Kura Basin and its water reservoirs. They are literally divided on the right bank by multiple water courses flowing down from the mountains. The whole of the Kura Basin receives very little rainfall and the regime is torrential. Riverbeds are thus often dry. In spite of that, in this zone, crops and hay meadows are prevalent as a result of irrigation. Several plots are reserved for herds and collective sheepfolds. This zone is used as a grazing ground in spring and autumn.

Pastoral practices of the breeders of the land of Aran

14The former collectivist sheepfolds are now farm holdings managed by administrators representing either ‘absentee entrepreneurs’ in private farms, or the State. During our investigation, we met the actors of one of these farms, not far from the village of İsgəndərli. Ali7 is a herd inspector, born in Armenia, installed recently in the area after being forced to leave his country after conflicts there in the 1990s. The State of Azerbaijan gave him 60 hectares of farm land so that he could plant crops for animal forage. His herd returns to the Ceyrançöl Massif before the others to graze on this farming land. He works for the state body of husbandry of the Şəmkir district, which aims to protect sheep husbandry and improve breeds for reproduction. His chief shepherd, Ceyhun, a native of the village of Çənlibel on the highlands on the border of Şəmkir, tends a herd of 1,300 sheep and 200 goats with two other shepherds, which is considerably more than the average figures advanced by R. Neudert and N. Allahverdiyeva (2009).8 The shepherds do not receive salaries from the state body, but instead, 30% of the newly-born lambs belong to them, which accounts for the large size of the herd and the use of half-buried sheepfolds bedside the main sheepfold. They are not generally allowed to use the milk, but sometimes those in a difficult financial situation are authorised to make cheese. In the same way, in the month of October, when herds return from the yaylaq, old ewes that can no longer breed can be sold, bringing in a new monetary supplement for the shepherd. In this farm, the departure for the yaylaq takes place around the 5th of May. The herd heads first of all towards the pastures around Çənlibel, the chief shepherd’s village, where they can stay for a whole month depending on the available grass (figure 18.3). The shepherds stay in tents near the village. Then, they merge towards the summer pastures of Mount Ağqaya (3,057 m alt.), near the Armenian border and Daşkəsən, which are allocated to the village of Çənlibel (figure 18.1). They stay there for two and a half months, sometimes three.

Figure 18.3

15We also met two other herds from the land of aran. One had reached the Ceyrançöl Massif, but had not yet gone to its wintering zone. The other was on the outskirts of Gədəbəy on the 6th of October 2014 during downward transhumance (figure 18.4). The latter herd belonged to the entrepreneurs of Şəmkir and was coming from the yaylaq of the Qocadağ Mountain (3,318 m). It was guarded by four shepherds, and four dogs attached to mules transporting the bivouac material. The convoy had left the summer pastures the day before at 5 o’clock in the morning and arrived in the village of Parakənd in the afternoon of the same day to spend the night beside the river. When we met them, they were taking the road to Gedebey. Then transhumance would take them to Qasımalılar, the last stage on the ridges of the Lesser Caucasus before bringing them to the plain of Kura. The shepherds told us that they would be at Qaracəmerli by twligiht on the 8th of October, to wash the animals in the basins, before reaching the Ceyrançöl plateaus and their farm. They thus took about a week to descend from Qocadağ to Ceyrançöl (figure 18.5).

Figure 18.4

Figure 18.5

16Today, herds more or less follow the asphalt road linking Şəmkir to Gədəbəy, which takes the trail of the upper plateaux of the first ridges of the Lesser Caucasus. The edges of the road provide resting places and sometimes freely accessible grazing lands in a context of dense village networks and overgrazing. The lands are all occupied and shepherds with no links and no grazing possibilities with a local village do not stay for long when crossing the region. This access route to the yaylaq must have been the same in ancient times as it follows the same logic as that used by itinerant breeders in Turkey or in France before movements became motorized, namely that following ridgelines during movements offers the best grazing lands and open spaces for their animals. According to the shepherds who responded to our questions, during the Soviet period, the route of Gədəbəy enabled Azeri breeders, once they had past the summit peaks overlooking Lake Sevan to the east, to reach the summer pastures of Haut-Karabagh by going through the village of Vardenis in Armenia, and on to the Dalidağ Massif southwest of Sushi, which culminates at an altitude of 3,616 m (see figure 18.1). This access is now closed.

The Lesser Caucasus

17In the districts of Şəmkir and Gədəbəy, the Lesser Caucasus is divided into three zones: two montane and subalpine zones where towns and villages are grouped together, and an alpine zone, where the yaylaq are concentrated. On average, these three zones receive between 600 to 900 mm of annual precipitations in the district of Gədəbəy (AWM OJSC 2011), creating a rather wet and continental climate.

Rural and pastoral life in montane and subalpine zones

18This is a mountainous region with peaks culminating at more than 2,200 m in places, with steppe landscapes on the ridges, and forests in the valleys. In the districts of Şəmkir and Gədəbəy, valleys surround the mountainous zone with two deep incisions: the valley of the River Zəyəmçay to the west, and the valley of the River Şəmkirçay, to the east. These two deep valleys practically join each other at the foot of the peak ridges, on the plateau of the village of Parakənd, which constitutes a wide pass at an altitude of around 1,300 m. Apart from the main burgs such as Çənlibel, Gədəbəy, or Slavyanka, the villages are sparse clusters of rural dwellings (figure 18.6). Houses are generally two storeys high, with a roof with four slopes: a ground floor used as a cellar and the living area on the first floor. The house is entered directly by a staircase in a room used as a veranda, with glass windows completely lining both sides, before reaching the more partitioned part of the building. This seasonal duality of the habitation (de Planhol 1960) is a practice described in Iran on the foothills of the Sahand Massif south of Tabriz, among others, and presents the advantage of being able to use two different types of rooms, one more or less closed off for the winter, the other more or less ventilated for the summer. The latter part was also used to store and dry wood and vegetables during the winter (Ardillier-Carras & Balabanian 2003). However, the arrival of free gas in each household changed these habits. Families who own a small herd keep the animals in separate stables, at some distance from the house. These stables are built in stone and regularly covered with dry dung, which acts as cement, with a roof with two slopes. They are often entirely closed with an entrance door. The floor consists of rough paving. These stables seem to be used mainly for cattle and several sheep that spend the winter at the farm. Sometimes, the small family sheep herd goes down onto the foothills of the alluvial zone of the Kura in winter, or onto rented lands in the Ceyrançöl Massif, where they are tended in a collective herd by salaried shepherds, who own several animals themselves. We did not see any sheepfolds for large sheep herds belonging to specialised breeders. These seem to be inexistent in the region of Gedebey.

Figure 18.6

The organisation of pastoral life in alpine levels

19The alpine zone is mainly on the ridges in the southwest of the district of Gədəbəy. It consists of peaks covered with alpine meadows at altitudes of more than 3,000 m, with a point culminating point of 3,318 m (Mount Qocadağ) for the district. On the other side of the ridges lies Armenia and the great Sevan Lake. Most of the summer pastures of both districts, including those that we visited, are situated on the northern slopes. Indeed, there are also yaylaq on the first mountains of the subalpine zone, in particular around the burg of Slavyanka. The altitudes of these zones (around 2,000 m), and the indications of R. Neudert concerning transhumance over a distance of 40 km from the Ceyrançöl Massif, are in keeping with this use.

Pastoral practices of the breeders of Gədəbəy

20During our fieldwork, we reconstructed the overall annual programme of local herds (figures 18.7 and 18.8), based on the pastoral practices of two families from the villages of Parakənd and Daryurd. Their cows accompany the sheep and goats on the summer pastures of Mount Qanlı (3,020 m alt.) (figure 18.9A), but remain in the villages during the cold seasons. In summer, the cows are kept by the village women, who tend to the animals, milk them and make cheese. Cattle graze around the camps and do not stray far, unlike the sheep herds, which go as far as the ridges in search of grass. The sheep are entrusted to salaried shepherds from neighbouring villages during the year. In this way, Aria, an inhabitant of Daryurd, entrusts her 29 ewes to a shepherd from Yenikənd, a friend of the family, and pays him between 100 and 150 AZN for the summer season9. He receives a salary supplement in the form of kilos of milk and butter. In this region, lambing takes place from December to March, but can continue later than that. There is no specific organisation, unlike the arançi. Rams are not separated from ewes and nature is given free rein. The summer camps are divided into two groups of high and low pastureland. We did not get to see the former, due to the lack of time and means, and we suppose that they are situated above 2,000 m. They are occupied by herds of sheep and cattle between June and the end of August. We visited two low summer pastures inhabited from the end of August until the beginning of October, depending on climatic conditions: the pastureland known as Arxaşan for the breeders of the village of Daryurd, and the pastures called Aralıq for the breeders of the village of Parakənd. Breeders had already left the first, situated at an altitude of 1,825 m, by the time we arrived. The other, situated 100 metres lower, was still in use (figure 18.9D).

Figure 18.7

Figure 18.8

Figure 18.9

Seasonal pastoral movements

21Ascending transhumance, which occurs earlier than for the herds of the aran area, seems to bring animals to the high summer pasturelands at the end of May —beginning of June. At the end of August, the herd is brought down to lower summer grazing grounds. If conditions allow, they remain there until the beginning of the month of October. Then, the animals go down again to graze around the villages of the families. Finally, in mid-October or at the end of the month, those who have the means to pay a shepherd send the animals to the Aran region, where thy spend six months until the month of May. The animals that stay in the village in autumn and winter are given forage harvested in the summer. Sometimes, from January to March, and in spite of the fact that there is a lot of snow, the sheep are taken out of the sheepfolds. Thus, there are four or five stages of herd movements with two or three intermediary stages between the summer and winter poles (see figure 18.7 and 18.8). In this way, the sheep of Gədəbəy can spend six months in the mountain and six months in the plain, unlike herds from the sheepfolds of the Aran region, which spend four to five months per year in the mountain. The latter reach the summer grazing grounds later and leave earlier. According to the shepherds we interviewed, this time lag is due to the characteristics of the different sheep breeds. Breeds from the plain are less resistant to the cold than the Gədəbəy breeds, called Yerli by local breeders. On another note, it seems to us that this differentiation contributes to an organised management of movements and the use of transhumance routes. This organisation implies that herds are clearly differentiated between animals from the highlands and animals from the lowlands, highland farmers and lowland ‘absentee’ entrepreneurs.

Summer camps

22At both of the observed camps, the farmers (a woman or a couple —we did not see any children) generally use two huts: a living area and a stable for cattle. Sheep are kept in outdoor enclosures. Beside the living hut, geese or other poultry are kept in a small cage. Small wooden tables set in the ground are used as a worktop for cheese production (figure 18.9B). The horizontal surface, made of small spaced out logs, serves as a press for straining the dairy products and by products with stones. Production does not remain on the lower summer grazing lands and is regularly moved down to the villages. The rest of the installation consists of small sheds used as toilets and heaps of dung generally gathered beside the stable. Animal faecal matter is retrieved to be sold as fertiliser in the villages or in the plain. Holes with a diameter of a metre are dug out behind the tents, to be used as locations for dogs. The huts are composed of central poles with an average height of two metres, stuck into the ground, supporting a double-sloping roof held up by bars and covered with blue nylon tarpaulins. Dimensions vary, but Aria’s hut measured nine metres by three. Sometimes, modern tents with metallic poles are used. Generally, the structure of these huts is made of wooden branches fastened or tied together. This structure remains there during the winter after the farmers’ departure. The doors are closed by branches secured to the jambs, whereas the structure itself without the awning is totally open to the elements. Inside, the walls are sometimes lined with manufactured fabrics.

23Before, these huts were covered with woollen felt (keçə in Azeri), the floor was covered with rugs and people lived on the ground. These features are remains of the way of life in the Alaçiq tent, which was the shelter used by most nomadic farmers in this region at the beginning of the twentieth century. The Alaçiq tent, was also named depending on its shape and could be hemispherical, oval or tubular; Topak, Çatma, or Kula in Persian (Cribb 1991). The tent had hoops, wooden or reed latticework, covered with pieces of felt. It was present in the Karabakh (Chantre 1893), and in Mugan plain in Iran (Tapper 1997), in the south and the east of the region of Gəncə. In Azerbaijan, we are at the northernmost limit of its distribution zone (Feilberg 1944). It seems to be absent on the northern slopes of the Great Caucasus (de Planhol 1956; de Reparaz & Thorez 1987; Hoesli 2018). In the south, it does not extend beyond the limits of Iranian Azerbaijan: the Kurds of Iran and Iraq (Thevenin & Giraud 2019), the Lurs (Mortensen 1993), the Bakhtyâri (Digard 1981), or the Qashqai in Iran (Beck 1986) use the black tent. This element of cultural distinction is particularly interesting as in the west of Armenia, behind the line of the Gegham mountain ridges overlooking Lake Sevan opposite the Azeri peaks, Kurd and Yezidi nomads also use the black tent (Chantre 1893; Thevenin et al. 2017). Thus, the ridgeline separating Lake Sevan and the region of Gedebey, and which continues until the Vorotan Pass in Armenia, must have constituted a natural and cultural barrier between nomads from the Ararat plain and those from the Kura Basin and lower Karabakh10. Nonetheless, on both sides, the rationalism of collectivism was favoured over traditional shelters (Thevenin et al. 2017).

24We also observed half-buried shelters with stone walls on two or three sides, with a double-sloping roof, more noticeable than the other huts, and with ridge bars supported by wooden poles. The walls were consolidated by dung (figure 18.9C). Sometimes, these shelters were built on the mountain slope, using the slope of the ground to bury one side of the structure. Finally, our guide Mays Dayi brought us to the sheep and goat wash-house, which was also abandoned. It was dug into the ground beside a stream so that water ran into it through a prepared channel and it was used to wash the animals’ hooves.

Discussion and conclusion

25Upon completion of this survey, the available data enable us to sketch the outlines of pastoralism practised in the districts of Şəmkir and Gədəbəy. Practices seem to be divided into two groups: 1) a state and entrepreneurial pastoralism, assimilated by R. Neudert to semi-nomadism and which corresponds to the pastoralism of large herds from the land of Aran (Ceyrançöl Massif, and the alluvial zone of Şəmkir Plain). 2) the pastoralism of villagers from the Lesser Caucasus practised by the inhabitants of mountainous zones as part of subsistence agriculture and the production of complementary revenues. We could compare these two systems with those of the large mountains and small mountains described by P. Arbos (1922). For the latter French geographer, family herds were brought to the small mountain whereas the large mountain was reserved for collective herds entrusted to a team of shepherds.

26In our case, mountain farmers entrust the family sheep herd to the collective village herd, also tended by paid shepherds, who seem to be organised into teams. We observed a separation of animals (ewes and lambs?) into small herds of about 300 animals for the descent to the lower summer pastures near the villages. Each herd is overseen by a shepherd who stayed in contact with the other herds. Only the cattle are kept by one or several members of the family, often women. A lot of husbands and young men are absent, as they left to work in Baku as part of internal rural-urban migrations. They were attracted to town by the development induced by the oil economy, leaving behind the most vulnerable populations, namely children and the elderly, but also women who do not have access to new job openings in the oil industry (Aliyev 2008). Herds from the plains are grouped together in a large private or state herd of sheep (and goats) and cattle, combined with a few animals belonging to the shepherds, who are also salaried. The shepherd’s family (nuclear or extended, we cannot specify) follows the shepherd to the summer pastures. It is important to note that during our survey, we did not observe any examples of cattle movements from the plains like those shown in the film köç. In the same way, we saw no evidence of famers from Gedebey sending cattle to the Kura plain for wintering.

27As observed elsewhere, particularly in Iraqi Kurdistan (Thevenin & Giraud 2019), the summer pastures of arancı from İsgəndərli, Şəmkir and the villages of the foothills (Çənlibel) —in fact farmers with the furthest wintering zone and locality from the yaylaq—, are also the most remote in the massif (the nearest to the border), while the summer pastures and subalpine villages (such as Daryurd or Parakənd) are located above them. Here, we find the distinction between the summer pastures managed by municipalities under open-access regimes with verbal agreement, and pastures under contract with the State described in the introduction by R. Neudert & M. Rühs (2013). However, the distinction that we make between the two observed systems must be nuanced. On one hand, the employment of a paid shepherd to oversee the sheep is standard in both cases. And, on the other hand, the fact that the inhabitants of the first ridges of the Lesser Caucasus can also be shepherds in plain herds tends to render the limits between these two groups rather porous.

28We can also note the absence of an example of a collective rotational system for collective herd surveillance like that described in Armenia (Thevenin & Mikhkian 2018). Sheep are always tended by one or several paid shepherds, but never by all the village farmers taking turns according to a predefined calendar, where all the ewes are grouped together to form a single herd. In Armenia, this system derives from collectivism and the plot of land, the precarious economic, political and social situation of the country, but also its culture11. In Azerbaijan, if the apparent absence of a sheep patrol (Thevenin & Mikhkian 2018) is confirmed, it could be explained by the same reasons: an economic factor (a richer country as a result of oil and gas income which provides opportunities for rural zones by rebound effects - Aliyev 2008), a political factor (a rapid resumption of the control of the farming sector and the use of pastures, which was not the case in Armenia where only 25% of the highland pastures are occupied) and lastly, cultural borrowing. Itinerant sheep farming practices are anchored in the memory of Muslim, Turkish-speaking, nomadic and pastoral tribes, whose Tərəkəmə (Turkmen) identity is still active today in the country12. There, the shepherd figure is different. The shepherd is an integral part of the wage system (like in Armenia, but where the term ‘employee’ is preferred to ‘shepherd’), and part of a professionalised system characterised by a specific shepherd’s crook, a large stick with an average height of 140 cm called Garmağ (‘hook’ in Azeri)13 which bestows recognition on the function (figure 18.10). The object is ostentatious and gratifying. It is sold at markets and genuinely used by Azeri shepherds in a specific corporal attitude (crook stuck under the armpits and legs crossed, or hands placed on the crook with the head resting on the hands). No similar functional object (in the anthropological sense of the term) is known on the other side of the border.

Figure 18.10

29Are the mobile breeders that we met Tərəkəmə, that is, families of nomadic breeders claiming a Turkmen origin and speaking the Tərəkəmə dialect? In view of the gathered data, this does not seem to be the case. And the ethnonym never appeared during our survey. R. Neudert spoke of semi-nomadism for arancı herds, but these are not the Tərəkəmə communities who live in the valleys of (low-lying plains between the Kura and Araxe, now called Kur-Araz Mil Plain). Furthermore, although the name arancı is used by breeders and shepherds living in the foothills to refer to the people from below, we did not note any elements characterising the use of a specific name by the latter to refer to the people from the heights. This can be explained by the fact that the workforce of the observed sheepfold farms of Ceyrançöl consists of refugees or paid workers who also come from the Lesser Caucasus Mountains. Nonetheless, we could not evaluate the frequency or the efficacy of the term arancı, either for those who use it or for those for whom it is used. In the same way, we cannot say if the term is only used for herds, herd owners or those accompanying them, or if it characterises all the people coming from the plain. We must thus remain cautious regarding this category of otherness. In the same way, we saw in Baku that the town intelligentsia looked on populations from the district of Gedebey with condescension and amusement. A mountain region with a population that brings a smile to onlookers’ faces is reminiscent of the Lazes populations in the Pontic Alps in Turkey and those of the Gilân in Iran (Elias 2013). In the case of the region of Ganja, this differentiation between people from the heights and people from below, based on an identity distinction linked to the land and practices, must now be questioned in the framework of the debate on the notions of territorial identity and anthropological place (Augé 1992).

30Although our study aimed at analysing present-days pastoral practices in the Northern foothills of the Lesser Caucasus and adjacent plains, it is also embedded in a longue durée perspective. The increase of archaeological excavations in the area during the last decade (Helwing et al. 2017, Lyonnet et al. 2016, Lyonnet & Guliyev 2010) brought new data on the exploitation of the river valley and foothill territories by agro-pastoral communities during pre- and proto-historic times. Present-day practices are not considered as reflecting ancient practices but they illustrate the bans and boons of the pastoral practices in both the highlands and lowlands. Isotopic analyses (namely the study of the variations of oxygen, carbon and strontium isotope ratio along a tooth crown) on faunal remains retrieved from archaeological excavations are now commonly used to unveil detailed pastoral practices from the past. The interpretation of these isotopic data is however strongly influenced by local environmental conditions. The present-day sheep and cattle teeth collected during our study reflect the pastoral practices that we recorded and described. Isotopic analyses were performed on the present-day teeth in order to document the isotopic signature of the different pastoral practices. It will provide us with an invaluable empirical and theoretical frame to interpret the archaeological data and shed light on the prehistoric pastoral practices.

Acknowledgements

31This project was funded by the programme Convergence-Sorbonne University (convention SU-2013-R-SCE-03) and the French Archaeological mission in Azerbaijan (MAEE) directed by Bertille Lyonnet (CNRS-UMR 7192 Proche-Orient, Caucase, Langues, Archéologie, Cultures (PROCLAC) and Farhad Guliev (the Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography of Baku - IAEB Republic of Azerbaijan). We thank the director of the Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography for the authorisation for the mission in the region of Gedebey and Şəmkir. We were accompanied by Dr Tükəzban Göyüşova and Ms Təranə Babayeva (IAEB), who introduced us to the breeders of Gedebey, to whom we extend warm thanks. We also wish to thank the breeder Mays Dayi who brought us to the most remote mountain areas by jeep and gave us access to other people in the Gedebey Mountains.

32Among the many people we met and interviewed during this investigation, we cannot omit to express our gratitude to the shepherds of the lowlands of Şəmkir and the transhumant shepherds. The testimony of each of these people was decisive for our investigation. Finally, we thank Bertille Lyonnet, as well as the editors of this volume, and the anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments.