Pierre Bonte

Ecological and Economic Factors in the Determination of Pastoral Specialisation

SPECIALISATION in a pastoral form of production has played and continues to play an important role in the development of human societies. The present article seeks to identify some of the general factors which have, throughout history, had a direct bearing on pastoral specialisation. Particular attention shall be given to the influence of ecological factors which, in my opinion, have all too frequently been interpreted as playing an exclusive role. By pastoral specialisation I refer to production where the labour invested in animal domestication is dominant, i.e., the labour involved in the transformation and reproduction of animals. This includes not only the immediate labour invested in animal production but also the labour accumulated in the herd. It is the domestic animal itself which, having been considerably changed, from the genetic point of view, in its behaviour and economic capacity (its output for human needs as processor of the vegetable ground-cover), represents this accumulation of human labour.

Marxist Theory and Anthropological Analysis: The Study of Nomadic Pastoralist Societies

In this chapter I shall attempt to summarize a number of studies on nomadic pastoralist societies which have been carried out either by myself or in collaboration with a team.1 The term nomadic pastoralist societies refers to a mode of subsistence that can be defined as the exploitation of a set of spatially dispersed vegetal resources, water, etc, by mobile herbivorous herds in search of their food (Bonte, 1973; Digard, 1973). These studies have a bearing upon a field of research that Marxist theory2 has almost completely ignored, despite the historical importance of such societies. They have represented an opportunity to subject this theory to a number of questions. For Marxist theory, in our opinion, cannot be considered a general theory directly applicable to the analysis of all human societies. We have refused to employ ready-made models, embodying an evolutionist ideology foreign to historical materialism, such as that found in the theory of the necessary succession of stages of human social organization, or those constructed by extrapolating from the specific analysis of the capitalist mode of production.3 In short, we admit that anthropology poses far more problems for historical materialist theory than the acquisition of this theory can resolve.