Comments on: On Pastoralism http://anthropik.com/2006/03/pastoralism-agriculture/ se wo were fi na wosan kofa a yenki Fri, 09 Jan 2009 22:33:40 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: Arthur Noll http://anthropik.com/2006/03/pastoralism-agriculture/#comment-181763 Arthur Noll Sat, 03 Jan 2009 11:41:29 +0000 http://anthropik.com/2006/03/pastoralism-agriculture/#comment-181763 This was certainly an interesting exchange. For some reason this sort of question often seems to produce some harsh polarization. I've been defending pastoralism for a long time. Shades of Cain and Abel... Since the last post was back in 2006, I wonder if anyone is paying attention anymore... Well, I'll put in my two calories worth anyway. I defend pastoralism, but I don't see that horticulture and pastoralism can't both be practiced. Horticulture doesn't generally work on grasslands where herding works best, herding doesn't work so well in forests where horticulture works better. Though I have herded a few goats in the woods and had no problems. I think there is a place for some domestic animals in forests, too. As Matt says, goats will learn to follow you, I like goats the same way he does. Generally I like herding better than lifestyles heavier in plant foods- I haven't eaten any grains or any starchy foods for several years. They don't agree with me. Wheat really didn't agree with me, celiac disease. But that is purely a personal matter, it doesn't say anything generally. I wouldn't mind having some raisins, though, I eat a lot of raisins. I'm not sure why trade with other societies is seen as such a deal breaker. The real problem as I see it is whether the culture you trade with is sustainable, and how much you depend on that trade. Intensive agriculture is not sustainable, forcing land to grow annual crops where perennials would naturally grow runs into serious problems if done continually. Since horticulture generally does a lot of field shifting and letting trees grow back and annuals are a small part of the food mix, I don't see why it shouldn't be sustainable, if population is controlled. Forests naturally cycle from annuals to grasses to brush to small trees to large trees, as the result of fires, storms, beavers, elephants (in Asia-Africa, or at least that used to be the case). For humans to take the place of elephants where elephants don't exist, doesn't seem like a terrible thing. Too many people doing that would be bad- too many people doing horticulture is quite possibly what pushed people into intensive agriculture. And too many pastoralists probably pushed them to become raiders. I don't think that it is inherent to the lifestyle, that there can't be enough for a limited population to eat with this lifestyle. But people- and other animals- can easily overpopulate any kind of lifestyle. There has to be severe controls on population, if we don't do it ourselves in the most painless ways we can think of, then other forces will do it and they may be a lot more painful. In any case, if horticulturists trade with pastoralists, and both lifestyles are sustainable, what is the problem? Neither side may absolutely need what the other has, but if it makes life easier, if it improves food-labor EROEI for both sides, why not? And even if pastoralism was in fact dependent on trade with other areas, why would that be such an awful thing, as long as that other lifestyle was sustainable? The worst problem I've become aware of for pastoralists, is the need for iodine. Sometimes salt is a need as well. Lack of iodine is felt to cause a population to lose some IQ points, in addition to more obvious problems like thyroid problems, goiter. Inland forest areas can be low on idodine, too, though. Only seashore populations really have no potential problems. It is something you don't want to be without for too long. But trade for food with iodine in it, and for salt, doesn't seem like an impossible thing. Salt has been traded for a very long time. Even foragers often traded over long distances for good knapping stone. They didn't absolutely need to do that, you can cut meat with bone, ivory, or even wooden (especially bamboo) knives, but flint, obsidian, chert, were definitely superior and they traded for these if they weren't locally available. I've lived in several different places in my life and there has been no good knapping stone in any of them. A pastoralist does not need much in the way of tools, I used to go out with a pack basket that I wove, with a one legged stool, a drop spindle, sometimes knitting, sometimes some plaiting project for tack and harness. And I found a crook helpful at times, mostly as a walking stick on rough ground, but I could also grab a goat with it if needed. But certainly a few metal artifacts are helpful, I also brought a knife with me. Could have been stone but metal is definitely better. Metal objects were just as eagerly wanted by foragers. The animal hides and wool, fur, etc, from animals that are semi wild and very healthy from the exercise, choice of food, and lack of parasites from such wide movement, can be superior to animals kept in closer confinement. That has been a traditional trade, animal hides, fiber, for iron tools, (because you need wood for enough fuel to make and work iron, some different foods found in wetter lands, some wooden objects. Pastoralists being more mobile can also bring news, can move supplies around. That is worth something. I think these lifestyles could complement each other. As for the question of what might survive better for collapse of the present situation, there is little question in my mind. Herding a few animals suited to the climate, and that climate being harsh, land unwanted by hardly anyone, perhaps abandoned by agriculture, is the path I'd take. The goats I herded, I herded on land abandoned by farmers, was growing up to woods. Too many goats would be bad for that, but so would too many deer. People often have odd ideas about how destructive goats are. Just about any animal that you have too many of, is trouble. In any case, the fact that few people want to live on milk, meat, and some foraged wild plants, and deal with a harsh climate, is positive in my view. Millions of people want to live in richer lands, want the farm foods, the abundant water, nicer weather, etc. Too many. Horticulture takes time to get established, trees take a lot of time to grow, and if you did get something going, a sucessful place would be a target. All the nice places on this planet are crammed to the gills with people. I would guess there will be a lot of fighting over what is left in these places, a lot of disease passed around by hungry people in the overcrowded places that most people want. A serious die off. A good situation to avoid, in my mind, regardless of what sort of lifestyle you ultimately want. But suit yourself. I'm not in the business of trying to force a lifestyle on anyone. I just try to observe what looks to me like it might work or not, and say why. As for foraging around populated areas, that isn't likely to work at all. All wildlife is likely to be quickly killed and eaten, all edible wild plants eaten. This has happened, it was reported to have have happened during the thirties, and the population is bigger now. Of course a lot of that population is also more ignorant, but there are still plenty of people who can read a book of edible plants, still plenty who can sight down a gun barrel. Lots of people out kicking the brush don't have to be skilled hunters, they move the game around, force it to break cover just by their numbers. Certainly people have lived by hunting and gathering in harsh lands, but a herder can easily be seen as just a hunter who has gotten really close to some animals and stayed close. Having a few animals that can turn sparse grass and leaves into milk and meat, fiber and all the rest of it, is a very useful thing. I've come home from hunting empty handed many a time and there were the animals waiting to be milked, meat on the hoof waiting. You don't have to do that very many times to really appreciate the idea. People didn't take up watching animals eat because it didn't work, because it didn't offer any advantages. It works and it has some very nice advantages. That is my personal experience and is the experience of generations of people. No culture of people has lived completely isolated, lonely lives, I wouldn't recommend that people try to go herding alone. Some are watching the animals, others might be hunting, others gathering, people have to do something with the milk, the meat, cooking, making cheese, preserving for the future, and people have to make and mend clothes and other equipment. Of course there is lots to do. Anyone who thinks there isn't the same sort of load of work for horticulturists, or foragers, is naive. Foragers have often regarded banishment from the group as a death sentence. Nobody lives alone for long, producing all food, all clothes, all shelter, mates with randomly wandering lone members of the opposite sex in brief encounters like tigers do, not for any sort of lifestyle. We have been social creatures without a break since we were like chimpanzees. Physically, mentally, we need other people. Try it if you think otherwise. Money is what confuses people about this. Money attempts to make people into independent agents, in the money game, independence from other people is prized. Independence from other people before we started playing monopoly in real life, was never highly prized. The fact that people needed each other was just that, a simple fact of life, never questioned, never thought much about. But today, people who have grown up in the money game, who have been indoctrinated all their lives that independence (monetary) from others was what you had to be to be a good citizen, have this mindset that this independence needs to continue, and very often people's brains are engraved with this myth that our ancestors lived independently. Jason talks about people trying pastoralism as trying something fatally flawed, though he can't put his finger on why. It isn't pastoralism that is fatally flawed, the fatal flaw I'm seeing in his analysis, is he is thinking of people doing things completely alone, that some one person is going to watch animals and hunt and forage and make and fix equipment and deal with the meat and milk and other foods and yes, he is right, that won't work at all. But if he thinks a single person can make it as a forager, especially in harsh country, he has a lot to learn. Even in rich hunting grounds foragers were very often highly dependent on group hunting, drives, surrounds, and even when people did individual hunts, it was often vital that a kill be shared around. Hunters could notice vegetable foods to be gathered while hunting, gatherers might notice signs of game for hunters. Groups can put out many eyes in many directions, this can be a matter of life and death. I think it would be a serious mistake to turn one's back on the advantages of herding some animals, even if only a few. But a far more serious mistake would be to go alone, or as a single couple. That isn't anything like the way people of any lifestyle have ever lived, and I very much doubt that the abilities of people to do it has been increased by their stint with civilization. Our need for the power of teamwork will be even greater, not lesser. Well, I could write more, but this seems a good place to stop. Funny thing, ending up writing about the vital need for teamwork, and not even knowing if anyone is paying attention here... Arthur Noll This was certainly an interesting exchange. For some reason this sort of question often seems to produce some harsh polarization. I’ve been defending pastoralism for a long time. Shades of Cain and Abel… Since the last post was back in 2006, I wonder if anyone is paying attention anymore… Well, I’ll put in my two calories worth anyway.
I defend pastoralism, but I don’t see that horticulture and pastoralism can’t both be practiced. Horticulture doesn’t generally work on grasslands where herding works best, herding doesn’t work so well in forests where horticulture works better. Though I have herded a few goats in the woods and had no problems. I think there is a place for some domestic animals in forests, too. As Matt says, goats will learn to follow you, I like goats the same way he does. Generally I like herding better than lifestyles heavier in plant foods- I haven’t eaten any grains or any starchy foods for several years. They don’t agree with me. Wheat really didn’t agree with me, celiac disease. But that is purely a personal matter, it doesn’t say anything generally.

I wouldn’t mind having some raisins, though, I eat a lot of raisins. I’m not sure why trade with other societies is seen as such a deal breaker. The real problem as I see it is whether the culture you trade with is sustainable, and how much you depend on that trade. Intensive agriculture is not sustainable, forcing land to grow annual crops where perennials would naturally grow runs into serious problems if done continually. Since horticulture generally does a lot of field shifting and letting trees grow back and annuals are a small part of the food mix, I don’t see why it shouldn’t be sustainable, if population is controlled. Forests naturally cycle from annuals to grasses to brush to small trees to large trees, as the result of fires, storms, beavers, elephants (in Asia-Africa, or at least that used to be the case). For humans to take the place of elephants where elephants don’t exist, doesn’t seem like a terrible thing. Too many people doing that would be bad- too many people doing horticulture is quite possibly what pushed people into intensive agriculture. And too many pastoralists probably pushed them to become raiders. I don’t think that it is inherent to the lifestyle, that there can’t be enough for a limited population to eat with this lifestyle. But people- and other animals- can easily overpopulate any kind of lifestyle. There has to be severe controls on population, if we don’t do it ourselves in the most painless ways we can think of, then other forces will do it and they may be a lot more painful.

In any case, if horticulturists trade with pastoralists, and both lifestyles are sustainable, what is the problem? Neither side may absolutely need what the other has, but if it makes life easier, if it improves food-labor EROEI for both sides, why not? And even if pastoralism was in fact dependent on trade with other areas, why would that be such an awful thing, as long as that other lifestyle was sustainable? The worst problem I’ve become aware of for pastoralists, is the need for iodine. Sometimes salt is a need as well. Lack of iodine is felt to cause a population to lose some IQ points, in addition to more obvious problems like thyroid problems, goiter. Inland forest areas can be low on idodine, too, though. Only seashore populations really have no potential problems. It is something you don’t want to be without for too long. But trade for food with iodine in it, and for salt, doesn’t seem like an impossible thing. Salt has been traded for a very long time.

Even foragers often traded over long distances for good knapping stone. They didn’t absolutely need to do that, you can cut meat with bone, ivory, or even wooden (especially bamboo) knives, but flint, obsidian, chert, were definitely superior and they traded for these if they weren’t locally available. I’ve lived in several different places in my life and there has been no good knapping stone in any of them.

A pastoralist does not need much in the way of tools, I used to go out with a pack basket that I wove, with a one legged stool, a drop spindle, sometimes knitting, sometimes some plaiting project for tack and harness. And I found a crook helpful at times, mostly as a walking stick on rough ground, but I could also grab a goat with it if needed. But certainly a few metal artifacts are helpful, I also brought a knife with me. Could have been stone but metal is definitely better. Metal objects were just as eagerly wanted by foragers.

The animal hides and wool, fur, etc, from animals that are semi wild and very healthy from the exercise, choice of food, and lack of parasites from such wide movement, can be superior to animals kept in closer confinement. That has been a traditional trade, animal hides, fiber, for iron tools, (because you need wood for enough fuel to make and work iron, some different foods found in wetter lands, some wooden objects. Pastoralists being more mobile can also bring news, can move supplies around. That is worth something. I think these lifestyles could complement each other.

As for the question of what might survive better for collapse of the present situation, there is little question in my mind. Herding a few animals suited to the climate, and that climate being harsh, land unwanted by hardly anyone, perhaps abandoned by agriculture, is the path I’d take. The goats I herded, I herded on land abandoned by farmers, was growing up to woods. Too many goats would be bad for that, but so would too many deer. People often have odd ideas about how destructive goats are. Just about any animal that you have too many of, is trouble. In any case, the fact that few people want to live on milk, meat, and some foraged wild plants, and deal with a harsh climate, is positive in my view. Millions of people want to live in richer lands, want the farm foods, the abundant water, nicer weather, etc. Too many. Horticulture takes time to get established, trees take a lot of time to grow, and if you did get something going, a sucessful place would be a target. All the nice places on this planet are crammed to the gills with people. I would guess there will be a lot of fighting over what is left in these places, a lot of disease passed around by hungry people in the overcrowded places that most people want. A serious die off. A good situation to avoid, in my mind, regardless of what sort of lifestyle you ultimately want. But suit yourself. I’m not in the business of trying to force a lifestyle on anyone. I just try to observe what looks to me like it might work or not, and say why.

As for foraging around populated areas, that isn’t likely to work at all. All wildlife is likely to be quickly killed and eaten, all edible wild plants eaten. This has happened, it was reported to have have happened during the thirties, and the population is bigger now. Of course a lot of that population is also more ignorant, but there are still plenty of people who can read a book of edible plants, still plenty who can sight down a gun barrel. Lots of people out kicking the brush don’t have to be skilled hunters, they move the game around, force it to break cover just by their numbers.

Certainly people have lived by hunting and gathering in harsh lands, but a herder can easily be seen as just a hunter who has gotten really close to some animals and stayed close. Having a few animals that can turn sparse grass and leaves into milk and meat, fiber and all the rest of it, is a very useful thing. I’ve come home from hunting empty handed many a time and there were the animals waiting to be milked, meat on the hoof waiting. You don’t have to do that very many times to really appreciate the idea. People didn’t take up watching animals eat because it didn’t work, because it didn’t offer any advantages. It works and it has some very nice advantages. That is my personal experience and is the experience of generations of people.

No culture of people has lived completely isolated, lonely lives, I wouldn’t recommend that people try to go herding alone. Some are watching the animals, others might be hunting, others gathering, people have to do something with the milk, the meat, cooking, making cheese, preserving for the future, and people have to make and mend clothes and other equipment. Of course there is lots to do. Anyone who thinks there isn’t the same sort of load of work for horticulturists, or foragers, is naive. Foragers have often regarded banishment from the group as a death sentence. Nobody lives alone for long, producing all food, all clothes, all shelter, mates with randomly wandering lone members of the opposite sex in brief encounters like tigers do, not for any sort of lifestyle. We have been social creatures without a break since we were like chimpanzees. Physically, mentally, we need other people. Try it if you think otherwise.

Money is what confuses people about this. Money attempts to make people into independent agents, in the money game, independence from other people is prized. Independence from other people before we started playing monopoly in real life, was never highly prized. The fact that people needed each other was just that, a simple fact of life, never questioned, never thought much about. But today, people who have grown up in the money game, who have been indoctrinated all their lives that independence (monetary) from others was what you had to be to be a good citizen, have this mindset that this independence needs to continue, and very often people’s brains are engraved with this myth that our ancestors lived independently.

Jason talks about people trying pastoralism as trying something fatally flawed, though he can’t put his finger on why. It isn’t pastoralism that is fatally flawed, the fatal flaw I’m seeing in his analysis, is he is thinking of people doing things completely alone, that some one person is going to watch animals and hunt and forage and make and fix equipment and deal with the meat and milk and other foods and yes, he is right, that won’t work at all. But if he thinks a single person can make it as a forager, especially in harsh country, he has a lot to learn. Even in rich hunting grounds foragers were very often highly dependent on group hunting, drives, surrounds, and even when people did individual hunts, it was often vital that a kill be shared around. Hunters could notice vegetable foods to be gathered while hunting, gatherers might notice signs of game for hunters. Groups can put out many eyes in many directions, this can be a matter of life and death.

I think it would be a serious mistake to turn one’s back on the advantages of herding some animals, even if only a few. But a far more serious mistake would be to go alone, or as a single couple. That isn’t anything like the way people of any lifestyle have ever lived, and I very much doubt that the abilities of people to do it has been increased by their stint with civilization. Our need for the power of teamwork will be even greater, not lesser.

Well, I could write more, but this seems a good place to stop. Funny thing, ending up writing about the vital need for teamwork, and not even knowing if anyone is paying attention here…

Arthur Noll

]]> By: The Shape of Collapse, #3: Middle East (The Anthropik Network) http://anthropik.com/2006/03/pastoralism-agriculture/#comment-134927 The Shape of Collapse, #3: Middle East (The Anthropik Network) Tue, 12 Jun 2007 14:31:10 +0000 http://anthropik.com/2006/03/pastoralism-agriculture/#comment-134927 [...] While this may well help in the short-term, the longer-term prospects for such a lifestyle are more dubious. Pastoral cultures have historically made up a systemic resource shortfall by trading with (and often raiding) neighboring agricultural societies.10 While permaculture may well be part of the Middle East's future, the prospects for continuing agriculture post-Green Revolution in the Middle East are even more dismal than they are across most of the rest of the globe. On the other hand, the pattern of pastoralism is so thoroughly engrained in local cultures that it may well be able to morph into a more sustainable form, like that of the Saami, whose reindeer herds are only semi-domesticated. [...] […] While this may well help in the short-term, the longer-term prospects for such a lifestyle are more dubious. Pastoral cultures have historically made up a systemic resource shortfall by trading with (and often raiding) neighboring agricultural societies.10 While permaculture may well be part of the Middle East’s future, the prospects for continuing agriculture post-Green Revolution in the Middle East are even more dismal than they are across most of the rest of the globe. On the other hand, the pattern of pastoralism is so thoroughly engrained in local cultures that it may well be able to morph into a more sustainable form, like that of the Saami, whose reindeer herds are only semi-domesticated. […]

]]> By: Jason Godesky http://anthropik.com/2006/03/pastoralism-agriculture/#comment-19379 Jason Godesky Wed, 09 Aug 2006 21:30:36 +0000 http://anthropik.com/2006/03/pastoralism-agriculture/#comment-19379 Hunting is pretty easy; herding is hard work. Hunting requires a single expenditure of a little energy; herding requires a constant expenditure of a great deal of energy. Herders need to learn far more, and produce far more tools, than foragers. Foragers don't need to support their shamans, since foraging shamans support themselves just like anyone else in the tribe (a common misconception); herders still have the basic human need for religion, but typically develop a more rigorous priestly caste that usually <em>is</em> supported by others. So, there are no savings involved with herding over hunting, only more intense expenditures. Hunting is pretty easy; herding is hard work. Hunting requires a single expenditure of a little energy; herding requires a constant expenditure of a great deal of energy. Herders need to learn far more, and produce far more tools, than foragers. Foragers don’t need to support their shamans, since foraging shamans support themselves just like anyone else in the tribe (a common misconception); herders still have the basic human need for religion, but typically develop a more rigorous priestly caste that usually is supported by others. So, there are no savings involved with herding over hunting, only more intense expenditures.

]]> By: _Gi http://anthropik.com/2006/03/pastoralism-agriculture/#comment-19377 _Gi Wed, 09 Aug 2006 21:20:56 +0000 http://anthropik.com/2006/03/pastoralism-agriculture/#comment-19377 Doesn't hunting involve more effort than slaughtering an animal? If the herders save energy by not being forced to learn tracking, not being forced to learn how to make good hunting weapons and not being forced to support a tribal shaman, couldn't they apply their savings toward herding and be more competitive this way? How does a forager tribe outcompete a herder tribe? Do they steal the herded animals, make stonger armies? Doesn’t hunting involve more effort than slaughtering an animal? If the herders save energy by not being forced to learn tracking, not being forced to learn how to make good hunting weapons and not being forced to support a tribal shaman, couldn’t they apply their savings toward herding and be more competitive this way?
How does a forager tribe outcompete a herder tribe? Do they steal the herded animals, make stonger armies?

]]> By: janene http://anthropik.com/2006/03/pastoralism-agriculture/#comment-19195 janene Tue, 08 Aug 2006 20:43:42 +0000 http://anthropik.com/2006/03/pastoralism-agriculture/#comment-19195 Hey -- Chalk this up as another one that we simply are not communicating well on... I'm sure it'll come up again ;-) Still no internet at home? Ouch. Don'cha love the cable companies... Janene Hey –

Chalk this up as another one that we simply are not communicating well on… I’m sure it’ll come up again ;-)

Still no internet at home? Ouch. Don’cha love the cable companies…

Janene

]]> By: Jason Godesky http://anthropik.com/2006/03/pastoralism-agriculture/#comment-19191 Jason Godesky Tue, 08 Aug 2006 20:07:27 +0000 http://anthropik.com/2006/03/pastoralism-agriculture/#comment-19191 You're still talking about more energy than a forager spends, you're just talking about a little more energy than a forager spends. Like I said, no pastoralist society has ever succeeded at living apart from agricultural neighbors, but most have tried. They try to get as far away as they can, until they realize they need those agricultural neighbors. Pastoralists and agriculturalists tend not to get along, even though pastoralists <em>need</em> agriculturalists. Anyway, anyone's welcome to make a go at it, and I'm willing to be surprised, but I don't see any way this could possibly work. Pictures are all ready, I just need an internet connection at home so I don't hog the whole library's bandwidth! So, early next week, like Monday or Tuesday. You’re still talking about more energy than a forager spends, you’re just talking about a little more energy than a forager spends. Like I said, no pastoralist society has ever succeeded at living apart from agricultural neighbors, but most have tried. They try to get as far away as they can, until they realize they need those agricultural neighbors. Pastoralists and agriculturalists tend not to get along, even though pastoralists need agriculturalists.

Anyway, anyone’s welcome to make a go at it, and I’m willing to be surprised, but I don’t see any way this could possibly work.

Pictures are all ready, I just need an internet connection at home so I don’t hog the whole library’s bandwidth! So, early next week, like Monday or Tuesday.

]]> By: janene http://anthropik.com/2006/03/pastoralism-agriculture/#comment-19190 janene Tue, 08 Aug 2006 19:59:52 +0000 http://anthropik.com/2006/03/pastoralism-agriculture/#comment-19190 Hey -- Go back a couple posts, J... I 'wondered aloud' what some behaviors might be in a group that developed a symbiotic relationship with thier herd. Things exactly like providing shelter on the coldest of days... but how much energy does it cost to bring a few goats inside with you ten days out of the year. I can't imagine it would be very much. Same thing with birthing. Not massive energy expenditure... just providing minimal assistance when it is useful. (ie, perhaps assisting with a breach, but accepting you cannot help if it is more complicated) How, exactly, has pastoralism 'tried to exist independant of agriculture'? When, exactly, has pastoralism existed without agriculture? Never. we are talking about the unprecedented, not more of the same. I really think that you need to step back a little from your analysis of energy usage and recognize that you cannot make those judgements. You can make guesses -- even educated guesses -- about what may or may not be more cost-effective. But at the end of the day, it has to be a question of what works and what doesn't <i>in actual practice</i>. Its another one of those non-linear equations and you are treating it like a no-brainer. So how 'bout them pictures??? :-) Janene Hey –

Go back a couple posts, J… I ‘wondered aloud’ what some behaviors might be in a group that developed a symbiotic relationship with thier herd. Things exactly like providing shelter on the coldest of days… but how much energy does it cost to bring a few goats inside with you ten days out of the year. I can’t imagine it would be very much. Same thing with birthing. Not massive energy expenditure… just providing minimal assistance when it is useful. (ie, perhaps assisting with a breach, but accepting you cannot help if it is more complicated)

How, exactly, has pastoralism ‘tried to exist independant of agriculture’? When, exactly, has pastoralism existed without agriculture? Never. we are talking about the unprecedented, not more of the same.

I really think that you need to step back a little from your analysis of energy usage and recognize that you cannot make those judgements. You can make guesses — even educated guesses — about what may or may not be more cost-effective. But at the end of the day, it has to be a question of what works and what doesn’t in actual practice. Its another one of those non-linear equations and you are treating it like a no-brainer.

So how ’bout them pictures??? :-)

Janene

]]> By: Jason Godesky http://anthropik.com/2006/03/pastoralism-agriculture/#comment-19184 Jason Godesky Tue, 08 Aug 2006 19:17:52 +0000 http://anthropik.com/2006/03/pastoralism-agriculture/#comment-19184 No, they don't, but now I think you're going back and forth on me. Do they assist in birthing, shelter the animals, defend them from predators, or not? If they do, then they're investing far more energy per animal than a forager would, for the same return, so they'll be quickly outcompeted by any neighboring foragers. If they're not, then by what criteria are they still pastoralists? I don't think anything that isn't foraging is invalid, but we're talking about a way of life that has consistently tried, and consistently failed, to exist independent of an agricultural context, and we have real, material reasons why that would be: it's the periphery of a complex society that makes the system tenable. Despite Matt's statements otherwise, we have no examples of pastoralists who have managed to exist apart from a sedentary, complex neighbor, only some that produce that illusion. So, how could you have a system that still ranks as pastoral, apart from an agricultural society, and yet would not be a waste of energy? No, they don’t, but now I think you’re going back and forth on me. Do they assist in birthing, shelter the animals, defend them from predators, or not? If they do, then they’re investing far more energy per animal than a forager would, for the same return, so they’ll be quickly outcompeted by any neighboring foragers. If they’re not, then by what criteria are they still pastoralists?

I don’t think anything that isn’t foraging is invalid, but we’re talking about a way of life that has consistently tried, and consistently failed, to exist independent of an agricultural context, and we have real, material reasons why that would be: it’s the periphery of a complex society that makes the system tenable. Despite Matt’s statements otherwise, we have no examples of pastoralists who have managed to exist apart from a sedentary, complex neighbor, only some that produce that illusion.

So, how could you have a system that still ranks as pastoral, apart from an agricultural society, and yet would not be a waste of energy?

]]> By: janene http://anthropik.com/2006/03/pastoralism-agriculture/#comment-19177 janene Tue, 08 Aug 2006 18:48:31 +0000 http://anthropik.com/2006/03/pastoralism-agriculture/#comment-19177 Hey -- Lots of Foragers invite caraboo, reindeer, moose, etc into thier domicile's, eh? And I'm sure they are quite concerned about birthing success... C'mon Jason... I'm talking about taking currently domesticated animals and ideas about pastoralism and adapting that backdrop to functional, agriculture-free societies. I know you like to say that foraging emncompasses a huge variety of lifeways... but that doesn't mean it includes EVERYTHING. Nor does it mean that everything else is invalid by default. Janene Hey –

Lots of Foragers invite caraboo, reindeer, moose, etc into thier domicile’s, eh? And I’m sure they are quite concerned about birthing success…

C’mon Jason… I’m talking about taking currently domesticated animals and ideas about pastoralism and adapting that backdrop to functional, agriculture-free societies.

I know you like to say that foraging emncompasses a huge variety of lifeways… but that doesn’t mean it includes EVERYTHING. Nor does it mean that everything else is invalid by default.

Janene

]]> By: Jason Godesky http://anthropik.com/2006/03/pastoralism-agriculture/#comment-19172 Jason Godesky Tue, 08 Aug 2006 18:13:19 +0000 http://anthropik.com/2006/03/pastoralism-agriculture/#comment-19172 Remember the South Park episode with the hippies? "Can't you imagine a place where, like, people trade their goods and services for other peoples' goods and services. Like, like one guy could bake bread--and another guy, he, he could like look out for security." "You mean like a baker and a cop?" "No, man, you'll understand when you get to college." You're describing a kind of foraging, I think, and not even a unique kind of foraging. No need to invent a third handle when you're just describing handle #2. I think this falls less under "third handle," and more under "reinvented wheel." Remember the South Park episode with the hippies? “Can’t you imagine a place where, like, people trade their goods and services for other peoples’ goods and services. Like, like one guy could bake bread–and another guy, he, he could like look out for security.”

“You mean like a baker and a cop?”

“No, man, you’ll understand when you get to college.”

You’re describing a kind of foraging, I think, and not even a unique kind of foraging. No need to invent a third handle when you’re just describing handle #2. I think this falls less under “third handle,” and more under “reinvented wheel.”

]]>