The studies contained in this book focus on the impact of interrelations between nomadic and sedentary societies. The authors, anthropologists and historians, have examined a wide range of nomad-sedentary relations and have discussed the effects of these interrelationships. Their inquiry exposes many facets of the diversity and flexibility characteristic of nomadic economy, social organization and practices, as they explain how these determine, and result from, interaction with sedentary social environments. The topics include ancient Egypt, North-Africa in Roman antiquity, the Near East from late antiquity till modern times, East-Africa, Iran and Central Asia, as well as gypsy groups in Turkey and in the Black Sea area. This comparative perspective, and also observations concerning the fluidity of boundaries between both ways of life have encouraged the development of a deeper understanding for the systematic aspects of nomadic life. Historical case studies have detected nomad-sedentary relations in several fields, such as military organisations, administration and political institutions. Their analysis correlates historical incidence to circumstantial and recurrent conditions. The authors also point out that nomadic, and particularly Arab Bedouin legacy have given rise to discursive practices and mental attitudes. The assertions and assignments of nomad identities therefore tend to appear as self-regulating social realities, being rather disconnected from mobile pastoral existence, and thus contribute to the interrelatedness of both worlds. Among the authors: Hans-W. Fischer-Elfert, Kurt Franz, Stefan Heidemann, Wolfgang Holzwarth, Anatoly Khazanov, Stefan Leder, Emmanuel Marx, Michael Meeker, Saad Sowayan, Birgit Schäbler, Günther Schlee, Charlotte Schubert Die vorliegende Studie nimmt erstmals Stammeskonflikte aus dem 2. und 3. Jahrhundert der Higra systematisch in den Blick. Dabei wird deutlich, dass der Wechsel von Umaiyaden zu Abbasiden für die Stämme ein weniger einschneidendes Ereignis dargestellt hat als bisher vermutet. Unter Hinzuziehung ethnologischer Forschungsergebnisse wird das Verhalten einzelner Clans und Stammesführer analysiert und insbesondere nach den Eigeninteressen kleiner Stammeseinheiten gefragt. Zunehmend kommen hierdurch Zweifel an der praktischen Bedeutung übergeordneter Stammeskonföderationen auf. Die Studie stellt daher gängige Erklärungsmuster, die von einer polaren Spaltung der Stämme in Qais und Yaman ausgehen, auch für die Umaiyadenzeit in Frage.