NOMADS OF SOUTH PERSIA was written in the 1950s when the (nearly always male) researchers tried to conform to a perceived scientific norm. At the time, Barth wrote a book for specialists, not for general readers and his work has become a minor classic in the field. However, anthropology has gone through many a twist and turn since then. It is doubtful if many anthropologists want to read the same book today. I recently did. I have no idea whether nomadic life continues in Iran today, or, if it does--- (the New York Times recently reported a 'nomad conference' that took place in Ethiopia with some Iranian participation)---if it resembles the description in this book. We might call Barth's work "social history" now. It is a book that gives no quarter to non-specialists. If you can't use industrial-strength kinship terminology, you will have a hard time following several chapters. However, there are a number of interesting matters, for example, the nomads' animals thrive best if kept to a nomadic life. Staying all year at one place increased mortality dramatically. More centrally, nomad women had a stronger role to play than those in villages because their cooperation was an economic necessity. Decision making at the lowest level of nomadic society (chiefly about moving or not moving camp) was complex and subtle, due to the relative independence of everyone and complex family relations. The connection of the Basseri nomads with other nomads and with the larger, sedentary society was equally interesting. The tendency of richer nomads was to invest surplus money in land; the tendency of poorer nomads to leave the nomadic life and settle down as landless labor in villages. Barth contrasts nomad and sedentary, not as separate ethnic groups so much, but as different life patterns extant in the same country. A vast social gulf existed between powerful village landowners and the subject landless laborers, but among nomads, though all were subject to the chief, each household maintained considerable freedom and, as long as they had enough animals, economic independence.



Barth concentrated on describing economic, social, and political organization. There is virtually nothing else in the 153 pages. You can admire this focussed approach so typical of the time, or you can regret the lack of a more humanistic style which would have allowed the nomads some voice, given a reader more sense of people and place, examined symbol and ritual to a far greater extent, or provided some clue as to Barth's own role among the Basseri. Alas, self-revelation was not often thought of in that era, we can hardly blame him. What startled me was the information that the author spent only three months with the Basseri. I finished the book wondering how accurate his description was, and how much reflected a fine theoretical mind with an innovative cast. Barth did seem to be properly cautious about what informants said, but with three months, he would not have had enough time to observe actual life. Thus, if the author had stayed longer with the Basseri, a different book might have been written. Like Margaret Mead, Barth seems to have made the most out of a short period of field work. I can only admire him for that, but questions do remain.