13 Pastoralism

Ajeet Jaiswal

Contents:

1. Introduction

2. General Sociopolitical Organization

3. Types of Pastoralism

3.1 Nomadic pastoralism

3.2 Seminomadic pastoralism

3.3 Semisedentary pastoralism

3.4 Herdsman husbandry

3.5 Sedentary animal husbandry

4. The Geography of Pastoralism

5. The Origin of Pastoralism

6. Some Parameters of Pastoralism

6.1 Pastures

6.2 Types of Animals

6.2.1 Grazers

6.2.2 Browsers

6.3 Herd Composition and Size

6.4 Movement of Herds

6.5 Pastoral Products

7. Environmental Manipulation and Resource Management

8. Relations with other groups

9. Summary

Learning objectives:

The course aims to provide an introduction to the pastoralism and general socio-political organization.
This module also enables the learner to learn about types of pastoralism and the geography of pastoralism.
The study of this module enables the students at postgraduate level to understand the the origin of pastoralism and different parameters of pastoralism.

1. Introduction

Pastoralism is the form of agriculture in which its practitioners specialize in, and obtain their primary subsistence from, the husbandry of one or a few domesticated animal species. These species are invariably herbivores such as cattle, horses, sheep, llamas, alpacas, goats, camels, reindeer, and similar animals. Plant cultivation often forms one component of pastoralism but is not generally dominant.In some cases, however, such as reindeer, the species of focus is not domesticated.

A precise definition of pastoralism is elusive, with the primary disagreement centering on the proportion of horticulture/agriculture in the economy and degrees of mobility (Krader, 1959; Spooner, 1973; Goldschmidt, 1979; Khazanov, 1984; Cribb, 1991). The term nomad has generally been used by anthropologists to refer to mobile pastoralists and should not be applied to hunter-gatherers (Krader, 1959).

A brief history of the study of pastoralists was presented by Dyson-Hudson in 1972 (Waller and Sobania, 1994). Pastoralists and their animals have developed a long-term mutually beneficial relationship (Krader, 1959). Animals provide humans with products suchas meat, milk, hide, dung, wool, labor, and services such as companionship andthe transportation of people and goods. Humans provide animals with protection from predators, a steady food supply, health care, an expanded habitat, and assured reproductive success.

Pastoralism requires a great deal of land as a pasture base. It is generally more productive (calories per acre) than most hunting and gathering but less productivethan farming. However, pastoralism can be very efficient in areas unsuitable for farming. Pastoralists utilize their animals to convert unusable biomass fromone trophic level to usable products in another trophic level: grasses that humans cannot digest are converted into milk and meat that they can eat. Even though using the animals involves an additional trophic step, it is highly efficient in suchcircumstances because people cannot use the grasses anyway. However, the use of supplemental feed, such as corn, that humans could directly consume, is a veryinefficient use of resources, and few pastoralists do that.

Domesticated animals also serve as efficient storage facilities, food resources “stored” on the hoof (making them mobile as well). In many cases, they could also be considered examples of social storage, wealth “stored” in animals owned by individuals.

2. General Socio-political Organization

There really is not a typical pastoral sociopolitical organization, varying from loosely organized tribes to almost state-level societies. The Mongols of central Asia were loosely organized groups of families and lineages until Chenghis Khan united them into an imperial state. After his time, they reverted to their former organization within a few generations. However, many pastoral groups maintain a loose tribe-level socio-political organization, one that preserves the independence of individual herding groups but ensures some overall control of the system of pastures.

The household, consisting of either a nuclear or extended family, is the usual primary unit of social organization, and most are patrilineal. Social units have to be flexible in size and membership to be able to adjust to the shifting size and composition of herds. People tend to marry someone from a nearby family, both to maintain animal ownership and to cement alliances.Most groups maintain atleast two major settlement types, villages where most people live and stock campswhere the herders are tending the animals.

The population of pastoral groups can vary greatly, from a few thousand to hundreds of thousands, but pastoralists usually have a lower population densitythan plant cultivators, because pastoralism is often less productive per acre than farming. However, in some areas such as the central Andes, and in Iran and central Asia, pastoralists, supplemented by some agriculture, have maintained fairly large and stable populations for long periods of time (Yamamoto, 1985).

In a pastoral society, most, if not all, of the population is engaged in animal husbandry. Most groups have a fairly strict sexual division of labor, with the men generally tending the animals, often at stock camps. The women are often left inthe village to maintain the household and tend the lower-status animals.

3. Types of Pastoralism

Here, we define three basic types of pastoralism (table 1) in which animals form the basis of the economy (Khazanov, 1984).These types form a continuum from what many consider to be “real” pastoralists, those who are highly mobile and completely reliant on their animals,to sedentary or “village” pastoralists, those who are settled and where agriculture forms an important aspect of the economy. Individual groups will alter their adaptations depending on conditions, and so the categories must remain flexible.

Table 1. The Basic Types of Pastoralism

3. Nomadic pastoralism The first type is nomadic pastoralism, where animals and their products form virtually the only resource. Some gathering of wild plant resources would be conducted, but no agriculture would be practiced. Such societies would consist of small, highly mobile groups that follow their livestock across the landscape. Nomadic pastoralists are uncommon, but the Saami (or Lapps) reindeer herders of far northern Scandinavia are a good example (Spencer 1978; Beach 1988).

3.1 Seminomadic pastoralism: Seminomadic pastoralism is the second major type of pastoralism. Seminomadic groups have a seasonal round, and animals are moved from pasture to pasture, a pattern called seasonal transhumance. In some groups, the entire population, human and animal, will move to new pastures, meaning that the new pasture must be of sufficient size and quality to support all of the people and animals. In other groups, just the men will move the animals while the women stay in a permanent village tending gardens. In this system, animals are by far the most important resource, but some horticulture may be practiced to supplement the animal products. Trade of animal products to other groups would also be common. This is the most common form of pastoralism.

3.1 Semisedentary pastoralism: The third major type is semisedentary pastoralism, sometimes called agro pastoralism. In this type, the animals are still the main resource, but horticulture forms a major aspect of the economy. Many of the people in such a group would live in a permanent village and grow crops. The animals would have to be moved around from pasture to pasture, but a relatively small number of specialized herdsmen would do that work. An example of this type of pastoralism is the Navajo of the American Southwest.

Two other types of pastoralism have been defined (Khazanov, 1984), but these are really pastoral components of agricultural systems.

3.2 Herdsman husbandry: In herdsman husbandry, animals are important but agriculture is the predominant economic activity, and the majority of the populations are sedentary farmers. The animal herds are tended by herdsmen in pastures distant from the main community. Examples of this type of pastoralism are the Basque in France and Spain (Ott, 1993).

3.3 Sedentary animal husbandry: Sedentary animal husbandry is also a pastoral technique that forms a component of an agricultural system. This form is more accurately described as agriculture with some stock raising, because it consists of full-time farmers who also raise some animals. A small-scale example is the Dani,. The dairy industry in the United States is a good example of a large-scale practice.

4 The Geography of Pastoralism

Until recently, pastoralists occupied a large portion of the Old World, extending from East Africa east to China and north to Siberia. Spooner (1973) defined five broad ecological zones occupied by pastoralists in the Old World, characterized by the primary types of animals raised.

Pastoralists relying primarily on single species of animals occupy four broad regions of the Old World (figure 1):

Figure 1: A general geographical distribution of pastoralists in the Old World by broad ecological zones (Sutton and Anderson, 2010).

(1) northern Eurasia, where reindeer are the primary stock;

(2) the eastern Mediterranean region, where sheep are the major animal;

(3) portions of North Africa and the Arabian peninsula, where camels are the primary stock; and

(4)sub-Saharan Africa where cattle are the main stock.

The fifth general region, where pastoralists work multiple stock, including horses, occupies the broad aridregion extending from North Africa east across southwest Asia and to Mongolia.

There are only a few native pastoral groups in the New World. The Navajo herd sheep and some cattle in the American Southwest. Anumber of groups herd llamas and alpacas in the mountains of South America.

Other local pastoral economies in South America include the gaucho economy of Argentina and neighboring countries and the Goajira of the Goajira Peninsulaon the Venezuela-Colombia border. The gaucho way of life developed as cattle ranchers moved out onto the pampas, the vast, dry plains of Argentina. Gauchos were, originally, cowboys of mixed Spanish/Native American ancestry who developed a unique way of life following the herds of cattle across the unfenced ranges.

The Goajira are a Native South American people who adopted herding soonafter contact. They raise cattle, horses, and small stock in their arid and isolated peninsula. Until recently, they maintained a strikingly distinctive way of life, but,as elsewhere, the old ways are now changing fast.

The areas occupied by pastoralists are shrinking all over the world due to constantand increasing pressure for them to adopt more sedentary lifestyles. This is partly due to a loss of pasture to expanding agriculturalists and to a desire by governments to exercise control of the pastoral populations within their borders. National governments now seek to regulate and “help” pastoralists by forcingthem to settle in villages and adopt agriculture. A discussion of pastoral sedentarization processes is presented in Salzman (1980).

Figure 1: A general geographical distribution of pastoralists in the Old World by broad ecological zones.

5 The Origin of Pastoralism

It is generally believed that pastoralism evolved from an agricultural base (Lees and Bates, 1974; Smith, 1992). Perhaps some early farmers decided to specialize in animals, either by choice or because there were too many people for too small a grain harvest. Perhaps the first pastoralists were outcasts from agricultural communities, forced for some reason to live with the animals on the fringesof the town. Whatever the specific reason, it seems that early pastoralists were probably people who left farming and began moving their animals around the landscape to take advantage of areas not used by the farmers. It is probable that pastoralism emerged as a standard way of life soon after the domestication of sheep and goats.

6 Some Parameters of Pastoralism

Pastoralism is a complex endeavor that requires a great deal of knowledge about both animals and the environment, including the availability of water and pasture and the presence of competing groups (Bates and Lees, 1996). The important considerations include pastures, types of animals, herd composition andsize, movement of herds, and products.

6.1 Pastures:

The primary land resource for pastoralists is the pasture, a general area where animals can find the foods they need. Thus, like farmers, pastoralists are usually tied to specific plots of land. Many people equate a pasture with a grass-coveredarea where animals such as cattle or horses graze. However, a pasture is just a place where food for a particular animal is present.

Pastoral animals occupy twogeneral dietary niches: grazing and browsing (Sutton and Anderson, 2010).

Grazers primarily eat grasses and low-growing plants while browsers primarily eat the foliage from bushes and trees. If the animals are browsers, a good pasture would consist of bushes and trees, not grasses. Nevertheless, the term grazing is commonly used to refer to the feeding behaviors of both grazing and browsing domesticated animals.

In all cases, pastures must be properly managed to prevent overgrazing. The primary issue is the carrying capacity of the pasture. The determination of carrying capacity is based on water availability, pasture type and quality, and the type (s) of animals to be herded, all of which can vary by season. One must be careful not to put too many animals or the wrong animals on a pasture or keep them there too long. As many pastoral groups move their entire livestock populations to new pastures, they must ensure that the pasture is capable of supporting all of the animals. In essence, then, the herders must monitor the nature and condition of pastures and note the succession stages of the various plant species in them to know when to have animals on them and how long the animals can be there. Another consideration is the slope of the pasture, as the herders do not want to excessively tire their animals on steep-sloped pastures (Sutton and Anderson, 2010).

If pastures are owned or controlled by individuals, the decision-making process would rest with that person. If, however, pastures are communally owned, some sort of centralized control would be needed. Among the pastoralists of Persia (now Iran), Barth (1964) showed that while individual households owned and controlled their own herds, the tribal chiefs generally regulated the assignment of those herds to pastures. This served to prevent over exploitation ofthe pastures by any one segment, as overgrazing could endanger the pasture system of the entire group. In addition to the regulation of grazing, pasture assignments also functioned to control animal population, which in turn helped to control human population by limiting the food supply.

However, pastures are sometimes poorly managed. If an individual limits herd size for the good of the community so as to not over exploit a pasture, he depends on the owners of other herds to do the same. If everyone does not cooperate,there is little incentive for individuals to limit their herds, and short-term gain isput ahead of long-term stability (not a good situation). In such cases, the total population of livestock may crash in response to overgrazing, drought, disease,or other conditions that change the carrying capacity of the available pastures (Sutton and Anderson, 2010).

The animal population will fall below the carrying capacity of the pastures, and the human population will follow suit. As the pasture recovers, both the animal and human population will grow until the next crash, and a boom-and-bust cycle will result. The recent drought in eastern Africa that so severely affected the Maasai is a good example of this phenomenon.

6.2 Types of Animals:

Ecological conditions influence the types of animals that can be raised in certain areas. The availability of proper pasture, water, and accessibility to land limit and tether both animals and their herders. The choice of which animal(s) to herd is also greatly influenced by tradition. Some domesticated animals, such as pigs, chickens, and dogs, are not herded in a pastoral manner and are not considered as pastoral species.

6.2.2Grazers:

Cattle (Bossp.) are primarily grazers and require fairly good pasture and a great deal of water to do well. Cattle eat the blades of the grass and leave the roots in the ground, allowing the grass to rapidly regrow and be eaten again. However,cattle will also do some browsing and eat the leaves of trees and bushes. Domestic cattle require considerable human labor, particularly in areas with snow, because cows will not dig through even shallow snow to the grass below and haveto be fed. Well-fed cattle will produce milk, a major product, in quantity. Yaks (Poephagusgrunniens) are related to cattle (both are bovids) and behave in a similar manner, except that yaks live at very high altitudes in central Asia and will paw through snow (Sutton and Anderson, 2010).

Horses (Equuscaballus) have the same basic habits and needs as cattle but generally require less human labor than cattle. Horses do less browsing than cattle and so have a greater impact on grasses. Cattle and horses can share pastureas long as the total number of animals does not exceed the overall carrying capacity of the pasture. Like cattle, horses can be used for meat, skin, and milk, but are more highly valued for transportation.

However, horses and cattle cannot always be in the same pasture. In the Yucatan Peninsula, the Spanish had a very difficult time grazing their horses, as there was little suitable grass. However, they eventually found that horses would eat the leaves of the ramón plant (Brosimumalicastrum), ramón being Spanish for “horsefodder”. Cattle in the same region would eat the waxim plant, but horses could not, as waxim contains a chemical that makes the hair of the horses fall out. The cattle can eat it as their four-chambered stomachs can detoxify the chemical.

Sheep (Ovisaries) are also grazers and will eat many types of vegetation. However, when sheep eat grass, they will often pull up and eat the roots, killing the plant and leaving the land bare. Thus, rather than just quickly regrowing, the entire grass plant is removed and new plants must colonize the pasture. This process takes time, and so pasture recovery is more difficult. Thus, sheep are more likely to overgraze and do not share pasture with other grazing animals well (having an overlapping niche and habitat). This is one of the problems that led to the enmity between cattle herders and sheep herders in the Old West and remains a problem in the United States today.

Llamas (Lama glamaglama) and alpacas (L. g. pacos) are the two species of domesticated camelids herded in the mountains of South America (Flannery et al., 1989). Both animals are grazers, but the llama is more tolerant of differing habitats (e.g., elevation) and is widely used as a pack animal and for meat. Alpacas need to remain above three thousand feet of elevation and are valued more for their fine wool than their meat.

6.2.2 Browsers:

Goats (Capra spp.) can both graze and browse, making that species very versatile and adaptable to most pasture types and able to take advantage of ecotone pastures.In that sense, goats are excellent secondary animals that can complement any herd. Goats produce milk that can be made into cheese. Goats, eating almost all vegetation, tend to seriously overgraze pastures and must be carefully managed (Sutton and Anderson, 2010).

Camels (Camelus spp.) are browsers. The one-humped camel (C. dromedarius) is native to the Middle East and Africa, while the two-humped camel (C. bactrianus) is native to central Asia. Camels can get along well on poor pasture andwith relatively little water. Both water and fat are stored in the hump (s), and camels can survive in severe conditions for long periods of time. Camels are used for meat, skins, and milk, but the milk has too little fat to be churned into butter. Like horses, camels are most valued for transportation.

Reindeer (Rangifertarandus) browse on the short vegetation of the tundra, primarily lichens. A number of groups in the far north of the Old World herd reindeer. While the herders own the animals and view them as being domesticated,at least in the broad sense of the term (Ingold, 1980), most reindeerare not controlled genetically but are essentially tamed wild animals that are still more or less hunted by people. Small herds of tame animals are kept for milk,meat, and used as decoys when hunting other reindeer. Pasture for reindeer is available all year, and the animals move around the landscape on their own to take advantage of better areas. Some groups of reindeer herders, such as the Chukchi of eastern Siberia, basically track and intercept wild reindeer as they migrate to new pastures, rather than purposefully move them to new pastures (Sutton and Anderson, 2010).

The distinction between hunter-gatherers and pastoralists is very fuzzy with reindeer herders. Reindeer are actually wild animals and are really hunted. However,the economic focus of the herders is so specific to the reindeer that they function much like pastoralists do.

6.3 Herd Composition and Size:

A herd is “not simply an aggregation of available animals” (Spooner, 1973) and a number of things must be considered in deciding on its composition and size.The type(s) of animals herded is dependent on several factors. Initially, the natural environment has to be considered because not all animals can successfully inhabit all ecozones. Even if a species is suited to the ecozone, “the economic expediency and effectiveness of herding them in specific ecological conditions” (Khazanov, 1984) has to be considered. Once the choice is made, tradition and cultural preference play a major role in continuing the use of the animals (Sutton and Anderson, 2010).

However, as conditions change, groups must be able to adapt by changing herd composition.The size of the herd is also dependent on a number of factors, with the carrying capacity of the pasture being a primary issue. As different species of animals vary in their ease of control, susceptibility to disease or predators, or attractiveness to raiders/rustlers, the size of the herd may be dependent on the available labor to control and/or defend them. These factors are important considerations because disease and/or theft can instantly decrease the number of animals one has, reducing “a rich household to poverty overnight” (Bates and Lees, 1996). In addition, each pasture will have a natural limiting factor that will restrict herd size, and the number of animals cannot exceed that limit (following Liebig’s Law of the Minimum).

It may also be desirable to maintain certain sex and age ratios in the herd. In some cases, herds are culled, with most young males being killed for their meat and hides and only a few being kept for breeding purposes. Most of the females are kept to reproduce and to provide milk. In addition, animals will form attachments and relationships with one another. Due to species differences in lifespan, each species requires a different herd size to allow for individual animals tolive together long enough to form these relationships (Spooner, 1973).

Finally, there are social factors in determining the size of a herd. The requirements of the family owning the herd will greatly influence its minimum size. A herd might be developed to be as large as possible, even if overtaxing the pasture in the short-term, so that it can be split into two herds. Such a split of herds may also be done to allow the human social unit to also split.

The number and types of animals are also status markers. A person might choose to maintain a herd of cattle for status reasons, even if those animals were ill suited to the pasture type. For example, in Mongolia, wealthy families kept larger stock and tended toward sheep, while poorer families had smaller animals and tended toward goats. All families tried to keep as many horses as possible,even if unneeded or uneconomic (Khazanov, 1984).

6.4 Movement of Herds:

No natural pasture can support herd animals all year (Spooner, 1973), and pastoralists must generally move their animals to different pastures depending on the season. The movement of animals from pasture to pasture may be based on a number of factors. If a pasture is exhausted, the animals will have to bemoved to a new one. In many cases, pastures in the mountains are used in the summer and the animals moved to pastures at lower elevations in the summer (Sutton and Anderson, 2010).

Movement might also be based on rainfall, with animals being moved from dryer to wetter pastures. A seasonal migration might also be undertaken to maintain political autonomy, to avoid disease or pests, or to exploit other resources (Khazanov, 1984). Most pastoral groups are mobile and practice a seasonal round (figures 2 and 3) within a well-defined territory, called tethered nomadism.

Figure 2: A very simple seasonal round. Arrows indicate the direction of movement

(Source: Sutton and Anderson, 2010)

Figure 3: A fairly complex seasonal round. Arrows indicate the direction of movement. Note seasonal and yearly changes

(Source: Sutton and Anderson, 2010)

However, all movements are flexible to some extent as conditions change, and people must be able to adapt to them. In some cases, only a segment of the population,such as the herders, move with their animals in a seasonal transhumance system.

The movement of people and animals to different pastures requires careful planning that incorporates information on pasture condition (resource monitoring). Such trips range from as few as ten miles to as many as one thousand miles (Spooner, 1973). Among the most important decisions made are where to move, when to move, and how long to stay, a decision string similar to that made in patch choice models. In some cases, such as in central Asia, the winters are such that there is nowhere to move the animals. In those cases, fodder is gathered and stored to feed the animals during the winter.

Pastoralists must be able to judge the quality of water and pasture before the animals are moved because one does not want to invest the time and energy to move a herd to a place that cannot support them. Thus, like hunter-gatherers, it is important to monitor pasture areas so that sufficient information can be available when decisions on when and where to move the animals are made.

6.5 Pastoral Products:

The primary resources derived directly from animals are meat, blood, milk, hides, hair, wool, and dung. The major secondary uses of animals are for transportation of humans and goods and for labor, such as pulling plows.

Animals provide a number of foods used by people. Meat is a major animal product, but obtaining it results in the death of the animal, a “one-time” use. If meat were the major goal, it would be most efficient to butcher most of the males for their meat and hides, keeping a few for breeding purposes, and retaining the females for reproduction and milk production. As the females died naturally, their meat and hide would then be utilized. This is the approach taken by the cattle industry in Western countries (Sutton and Anderson, 2010).

A more efficient use of the animals and their products is to utilize them without killing them, ultimately getting more food value from each animal. One example of this approach is the production of milk as the major product, called milch pastoralism. Milk is obtained from females and is consumed or made intobutter, cream, or cheese. If the product goal is just milk, females and only a fewmales are needed, as in the contemporary dairy industry.

Blood is another major product that can be obtained without killing the animal. About a quart of blood can be taken from a cow of either sex about once amonth without damaging its health. If females are being milked, the blood extraction might be primarily from males. The blood can be consumed alone orcan be mixed with milk for consumption. Thus, some pastoral groups will not butcher healthy animals but milk and bleed them, using those products, alongwith meat from aged animals, as their main foods. In East African pastoral groups, the primary component in the human diet is milk, with meat second and blood third (Khazanov, 1984: Galvin et al., 1994).

Like meat, the procurement of skins or hides requires that the animal be killed. Hides can be used for a large number of products, including covers forshelter, clothing, shoes, and a variety of other leather products. Hair and wool can also be made into many products, but unlike hides, hair and wool can be removed from live animals and so are renewable resources.

Dung can be a major animal product. Dung can be used as fuel, in the construction of houses, walls, or other structures, or for a number of other purposes. Dung also serves as a fertilizer and helps to maintain the productivity of the pasture. In addition, dung can be traded to farmers for use in their fields. In some cases, farmers will arrange for pastoralist’s animals to be grazed in their fallow fields so that they can be fertilized (Sutton and Anderson, 2010).

7 Environmental Manipulation and Resource Management

Large-scale environmental manipulation is very common in pastoral groups, primarily through the actions of burning to create pasture and of grazing to maintain it. Without active grazing, much of the pasture would revert to woodlands or forests. Most pastoral groups, particularly the more mobile groups, generally invest their labor in their animals (Bates and Lees, 1996), rather than invest time and effort into capital improvements. However, water and pasture a real so critical resources, and both are managed and manipulated to some degree.

A frequent project is the construction and maintenance of water sources, some of which can be quite elaborate. A less common manipulation is pasture modification and improvement. However, the investment of time and material in pastures tends to tie groups to a piece of land and decrease mobility. For more sedentary groups, such capital improvements are more common, with water sources, pastures, agricultural fields, and settlements receiving more investment (Sutton and Anderson, 2010).

Intense resource management, specifically of animals, is a hallmark of pastoralists. Most groups will utilize natural landscapes for pastures and so will invest relatively little time in environmental manipulation, preferring instead to invest their labor in increasing the number of animals and/or their products (Bates and Lees, 1996). Controlling animals, their movement, the kinds and amounts of food eaten, and timing and circumstances of death, are important management goals.

Exercising control of breeding is also a major management goal. One can prevent certain animals from reproducing by killing them before they can breed, castrating the males, or keeping the various animals isolated from potential mates. The purpose of controlled breeding is to maximize desired traits and to minimize or eliminate undesired characteristics. Desired traits might include increased production of products, such as milk or hair, or an ability to flourish in poor-quality pasture (Sutton and Anderson, 2010).

8 Relations with other groups

Pastoralists often occupy and/or utilize at least two ecozones, one where they live for most of the time, and another where they pasture their animals. Usually, pastures are located at some distance from the main habitation area, andthe regions between the pastures are occupied by other people, whether hunter-gatherers, other pastoralists, or agriculturalists, the latter being the most common.

To move their animals, pastoralists must often traverse the territory of these other groups (Khazanov, 1984) and so must maintain good relationships with them. During those occasions, products will likely be traded between the two groups. If the second group are farmers, the pastoralists may graze their animals in the fallow fields so that the dung can be used as a source of fertilizer (Sutton and Anderson, 2010).

Pastoralists may also share some ecozones with other groups, particularly farmers, rather than just traverse them. This sharing is sometimes done on a seasonal basis, with each group being in the area at different times with no conflict.

In some cases, the pastoralists will live intermingled with the farmers, grazing their animals in fallow fields, along roads, or wherever they can until it is time tomove to new pastures. One could argue that the two groups occupy different niches within the same habitat (Khazanov, 1984). However, Bates (1971) argued that the patterns of shared land use should be viewed as a function of thebalance of power rather than of ecology.

9 Summary

Pastoralism is the form of agriculture in which domestic animals are emphasized, sometimes to the exclusion of other resources.
In pastoralism, humans and animals have formed a long-term mutualistic relationship where animals are guaranteed reproduction and protection and humans get food and other products.
Many pastoral groups maintain a loose tribal organization, but the household is generally the primary organization.
Three major types of pastoralism can be defined.
These are (1) nomadic,where groups are very mobile and depend almost entirely on their animals; (2)seminomadic, where groups are less mobile and animal products are supplementedby horticulture; and (3) semisedentary, where groups are not very mobileand horticulture forms a major component of the economy.
Two other forms, herdsman husbandry and sedentary animal husbandry, are pastoral components of larger agricultural systems.
Pastoralists specializing in one species occupy four broad regions of the Old World, including northern Eurasia (reindeer), the eastern Mediterranean (sheep), the Arabian peninsula (camels), and sub-Saharan Africa (cattle).
Pastoralists working multiple stock occupy the broad arid region extending from North Africa, east across southwest Asia and to Mongolia.
All of these groups areunder pressure to abandon pastoralism and take up farming.
The primary components of any pastoral system include use and maintenance of pastures, the types of animals (grazers or browsers) herded, composition and size of herds, and the movement of herds.
To be successful, pastoralism must make good long-term decisions in all of these areas. Pastoral products include meat, blood, milk, hides, hair, wool, and dung.
In addition, most groups supplement these materials with other domesticated products, either grown or obtained by trade.
Wild resources are also widely used.
Grazing, properly managed, does little damage to ecosystems and some, such as the plains of North America, developed concurrently with grazing animals.
However, poor planning, bad decisions, or other factors can result in overgrazing that can alter ecosystems until they are virtually destroyed.
The modern practice of turning diverse forest ecosystems into pasture is causing considerable damage.

you can view video on Pastoralism

Glossary

Pastoralism:

Pastoralism is that form of agriculture in which its practitioners specialize in, and obtain their primary subsistence from, the husbandry of one or a few domesticated animal species. These species are invariably herbivores such as cattle, horses, sheep, llamas, alpacas, goats, camels, reindeer, and similar animals. Plant cultivation often forms one component of pastoralism but is not generally dominant. In some cases, however, such as reindeer, the species of focus is not domesticated.

Nomadic pastoralism:

The first type is nomadic pastoralism, where animals and their products formvirtually the only resource. Some gathering of wild plant resources would be conducted,but no agriculture would be practiced. Such societies would consistof small, highly mobile groups that follow their livestock across the landscape.Nomadic pastoralists are uncommon, but the Saami (or Lapps) reindeer herders of far northern Scandinavia are a good example (Spencer 1978; Beach 1988)

Seminomadic pastoralism:

Seminomadic pastoralism is the second major type of pastoralism. Seminomadic groups have a seasonal round, and animals are moved from pasture to pasture, a pattern called seasonal transhumance. In some groups, the entire population, human and animal, will move to new pastures, meaning that the new pasture must be of sufficient size and quality to support all of the people and animals. In other groups, just the men will move the animals while the women stay in a permanent village tending gardens. In this system, animals are by far the most important resource, but some horticulture may be practiced to supplement the animal products. Trade of animal products to other groups would also be common. This is the most common form of pastoralism.

Semisedentary pastoralism:

The third major type is semisedentary pastoralism, sometimes called agropastoralism. In this type, the animals are still the main resource, but horticulture forms a major aspect of the economy. Many of the people in such a group would live in a permanent village and grow crops. The animals would have to be moved around from pasture to pasture, but a relatively small number of specialized herdsmen would do that work. An example of this type of pastoralism is the Navajo of the American Southwest.

Herdsman husbandry:

In herdsman husbandry, animals are important but agriculture is the predominant economic activity, and the majority of the populations are sedentary farmers. The animal herds are tended by herdsmen in pastures distant from the main community. Examples of this type of pastoralism are the Basque in France and Spain (Ott, 1993).

Sedentary animal husbandry:

Sedentary animal husbandry is also a pastoral technique that forms a component of an agricultural system. This form is more accurately described as agriculture with some stock raising, because it consists of full-time farmers who also raise some animals. A small-scale example is the Dani,. The dairy industry in the United States is a good example of a large-scale practice.

Pastures:

The primary land resource for pastoralists is the pasture, a general area whereanimals can find the foods they need. Thus, like farmers, pastoralists are usuallytied to specific plots of land. Many people equate a pasture with a grass-coveredarea where animals such as cattle or horses graze. However, a pasture is just aplace where food for a particular animal is present. Pastoral animals occupy twogeneral dietary niches: grazing and browsing (Sutton and Anderson, 2010).

References

Abrams, Elliot M., and David J. Rue1988 The Causes and Consequences of Deforestation Among the Prehistoric Maya.Human Ecology 16(4):377–395.
Adams, Charles C.1935 The Relation of General Ecology to Human Ecology. Ecology 16(3):316–335.
Adams, Robert McC.1966 The Evolution of Urban Society. Chicago: Aldine.2001 Complexity in Archaic States. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology20(3):345–360.
Agrawal, Arun2005 Environmentality: Technologies of Government and the Making of Subjects.Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Alberta Society of Professional Biologists 1988 Native People and Renewable Resource Management (symposium volume).Edmonton: Author.
Alcorn, Janis B.1984 Huastec Mayan Ethnobotany. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Alcorn, Janis B., and Augusta Molnar1996 Deforestation and Human-Forest Relationships:What Can We Learn from India?In: Tropical Deforestation: The Human Dimension. Leslie E. Sponsel, Thomas N.Headland, and Robert C. Bailey, eds., pp. 99–121. New York: Columbia UniversityPress.
Anderson, Anthony B. (ed.)1990 Alternatives to Deforestation. New York: Columbia University Press.
Anderson, E. N.1972 The Life and Culture of Ecotopia. In: Reinventing Anthropology. Dell Hymes, ed.,pp. 264–283. New York: Pantheon Press,.
Anderson, E. N.1988 The Food of China. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Anderson, E. N.1996 Ecologies of the Heart. New York: Oxford University Press.331
Bates, Daniel G., and Susan H. Lees (eds.) 1996a Case Studies in Human Ecology. New York: Plenum Press. 1996b Pastoralism. In: Case Studies in Human Ecology. Daniel G. Bates and Susan H. Lees, eds., pp. 153–157. New York: Plenum Press
Barth, Fredrik 1956 Ecological Relationships of Ethnic Groups in Swat, Northern Pakistan. American Anthropologist 58(6):1079–1099.
Barth, Fredrik 1964 Nomads of South Persia: The Basseri Tribe of the Khamseh Confederacy. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Beach, Hugh 1988 The Saami of Lapland. London: The Minority Rights Group, Report No. 55.
Cribb, Roger1991 Nomads in Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dyson-Hudson, Neville 1972 The Study of Nomads. In: Perspectives on Nomadism.William Irons and Neville Dyson-Hudson, eds., pp. 2–29. International Studies in Sociology and Social Anthropology, vol. 13.
Galvin, Kathleen A., D. Layne Coppock, and Paul W. Leslie 1994 Diet, Nutrition, and the Pastoral Strategy. In: African Pastoralist Systems: An Integrated Approach. Elliot Fratkin, Kathleen A. Galvin, and Eric Abella Roth, eds., pp. 113–131. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Goldschmidt,Walter, 1979 A General Model for Pastoral Social Systems. In: Pastoral Production and Society: Proceedings of the International Meeting on Nomadic Pastoralism. C. Lefebure, ed., pp. 15–27. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ingold, Tim 1980 Hunters, Pastoralists, and Ranchers. Cambridge Studies in Social Anthropology No. 28.
Ingold, Tim 1987 The Appropriation of Nature: Essays on Human Ecology and Social Relations. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press.
Krader, Lawrence, 1959 The Ecology of Nomadic Pastoralism. International Social Science JournalXI(4):499–510.
Khazanov, A. M.1984 Nomads and the Outside World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lees, Susan H., and Daniel G. Bates 1974 The Origins of Specialized Nomadic Pastoralism: A Systematic Model. American Antiquity 39(2):187–193.
Ott, Sandra 1993 The Circle of Mountains: A Basque Sheepherding Community. Reno: University of Nevada Press.
Salzman, Philip Carl (ed.) 1980 When Nomads Settle: Processes of Sedentarization as Adaptation and Response. New York: Praeger.
Smith, Andrew B. 1992 Origins and Spread of Pastoralism in Africa. Annual Review of Anthropology 21:125–141.
Spencer, Arthur 1978 The Lapps. New York: Crane, Russak & Company.
Spooner, Brian1973 The Cultural Ecology of Pastoral Nomads. In: Current Topics in Anthropology,vol. 8: Theory,Methods, and Content. Addison-Wesley Module in AnthropologyNo. 45. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Sutton M.Q and Anderson E.N., 2010, Introduction to cultural ecology, AltaMira Press A division of Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc
Waller, Richard, and Neal W. Sobania 1994 Pastoralism in Historical Perspective. In: African Pastoralist Systems: An Integrated Approach. Elliot Fratkin, Kathleen A. Galvin, and Eric Abella Roth, eds., pp. 45–68. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Yamamoto, Norio 1985 The Ecological Complementarity of Agro-Pastoralism: Some Comments. In: Andean Ecology and Civilization: An Interdisciplinary Perspective on Andean Ecological Complementarity. Shozo Masuda, Izumi Shimada, and Craig Morris, eds., pp. 85– 99. Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press.

Suggested Readings

Balée, William. 1996. Personal communication (lectures for “Ecological Anthropology”).
Barfield, Thomas. 1997. The Dictionary of Anthropology. Oxford: Blackwell.
Bates, Marston. 1955. The Prevalence of People. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.
Bennett, John W. 2005. The Ecological Transition: Cultural Anthropology and Human Adaptation. Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers.
Bettinger, Robert. 1996. “Neofunctionalism.” In Encyclopedia of Cultural Anthropology. Four volumes. David Levinson and Melvin Ember, eds. Pp. 851-853. New York: Henry Holt.
Descola, Philippe and Gísli Pálsson eds. 1996. Nature and Society: Anthropological Perspective. New York: Routledge.
Dove, Michael R. and Carol Carpenter. 2008. Environmental Anthropology: A Historical Reader. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Ellen, Roy eds. 2007. Modern Crises and Traditional Strategies: Local Ecological Knowledge in Island Southeast Asia. New York: Berghahn Books.
Ellen, Roy. 1982. Environment, Subsistence and System: The Ecology of Small-Scale Social Formations. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Geertz, Clifford. 1963. Agricultural Involution: The Process of Ecological Change in Indonesia. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Haenn, Nora and Richard Wilk eds. 2006. The Environment in Anthropology: A Reader in Ecology, Culture, and Sustainable Living. New York: New York University Press
Harris, Marvin. 1966. The Cultural Ecology of India’s Sacred Cattle. In Current Anthropology 7:51-66.
Harris, Marvin. 1968. The Rise of Anthropological Theory: A History of Theories of Culture. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Headland, Thomas N. 1997. Revisionism in Ecological Anthropology. In Current Anthropology 38:605-630.
Kottak, Conrad P. 1999. The New Ecological Anthropology. In American Anthropologist 101:23-35.
Mc Elroy, Ann and Patricia K. Townsend. 2008. Medical Anthropology in Ecological Perspective. 5th ed. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.
Milton, Kay. 1997. Ecologies: Anthropology, Culture and the Environment. In International Social Sciences Journal 49:477-495.
Moran, Emilio F. 1979. Human Adaptability: An Introduction to Ecological Anthropology. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.
Moran, Emilio F. 1983. The Dilemma of Amazonian Development. 2nd eds. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.
Moran, Emilio F. 1984. The Ecosystem Concept in Anthropology. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.
Moran, Emilio F. 1990. The Ecosystem Approach in Anthropology. 2nd ed. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Moran, Emilio F. 2006. People and Nature: An Introduction to Human Ecological Relations. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing.
Moran, Emilio F. 2007. Human Adaptability: An Introduction to Ecological Anthropology. 3rd ed. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.
Moran, Emilio F. 2000. Human Adaptability: An Introduction to Ecological Anthropology. 2nd ed. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.
Netting, Robert McC. 1977. Cultural Ecology. Reading, Massachusetts: Cummings Publishing Company.
Netting, Robert McC. 1986. Cultural Ecology. 2nd ed. Long Grove, Illinois: Waveland Press, Inc.
Netting, Robert McC. 1996. Cultural Ecology. In Encyclopedia of Cultural Anthropology. Four Volumes. David Levinson and Melvin Ember, eds. Pp. 267-271. New York: Henry Holt.
Orlove, Benjamin S. 1980. Ecological Anthropology. In Annual Review of Anthropology 9:235-273.
Rappaport, Roy A. 1968. Pigs for the Ancestors: Ritual in the Ecology of a New Guinea People. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale Universty Press.
Salzman, Phillip Carl and Donald W. Attwood. 1996. “Ecological Anthropology.” In Encyclopedia of Social and Cultural Anthropology. Alan Barnard and Jonathan Spencer, eds. Pp. 169-172. London: Routledge.
Seymour-Smith, Charlotte. 1986. Dictionary of Anthropology. Boston: G. K. Hall and Company.
Steward, Julian. 1955. Theory of Culture Change: The Methodology of Multilinear Evolution. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Steward, Julian. 1977. Evolution and Ecology: Essays on Social Transformations. Jane C. Steward and Robert F. Murphy, eds. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Townsend, Patricia. 2008. Environmental Anthropology: From Pigs to Politics. 2nd ed. Long Grove, Illinois: Waveland Press, Inc.
Vayda Andrew P. and Bonnie J. McCay. 1975. New Directions in Ecology and Ecological Anthropology. In Annual Review of Anthropology 4:293-306.
Vayda, Andrew P. 2009. Explaining Human Actions and Environmental Changes. Lanham, Maryland: AltaMira Press.
Vayda, Andrew P., ed. 1969 Environment and Cultural Behavior. Garden City, New York: The Natural History Press.
Walters, Bradley B., Bonnie J. McCay, Paige West, and Susan Lees. 2008. Against the Grain: The Vayda Tradition in Human Ecology and Ecological Anthropology. Lanham, Maryland: AltaMira Press.
White, Leslie A. 1959. Energy and Tools. In Readings for a History of Anthropological Theory 3rd. Paul A. Erickson and Liam D. Murphy, eds. Pp. 293-310. Toronto, Ontario: University of Toronto Press, Inc.
Winthrop, Robert H. 1991. Dictionary of Concepts in Cultural Anthropology. New York: Greenwood Press