CHAPTER 1
WHAT IS NOMADIC PASTORALISM
Introduction
In recent years the economic plight of those who live in the desert and semi-arid areas of the earth has been well publicised by the modern media. In particular, those whose pastoral lifestyle has been most disrupted by drought, advancing desertification, population growth and political strife have caught the attention of news reporters, relief and development organizations and charitable fund raising bodies. The need for famine relief and some form of rehabilitation or development has been recognized as an international responsibility. This is a human problem far beyond the resources of their respective national governments to address, even if they are willing so to do.
The social disruption and alienation suffered by nomadic pastoralists over the last 20 years has provided ample subject matter for the attention of social anthropologists, third world economists and rural agronomists. In spite of all the expert opinion being offered and the investment plans of some of the major international funding organizations, there is a growing awareness that much of this effort has failed to provide long-term solutions to the problem.
The magnitude and complexity of the problem has been amplified and accentuated by the experience of long-term development agency workers over the last thirty years. Many of these practitioners are realising that their development programmes have not helped to restore the traditional resourcefulness and self- reliance of nomadic or semi-nomadic pastoralists; rather they have produced greater economic dependence on external aid. It is also recognised that within those societies traditional relationships and systems of mutual interdependence are breaking down.
There is a growing awareness that failure by project planners to understand the needs and values of pastoralists is the greatest reason for failure of their development projects to produce positive results. In particular any proposal which assumes the attitude common amongst "outsiders" that development for nomadic pastoralists entails them giving up their traditional lifestyle to become settled cultivators is least likely to win their acceptance or "ownership".
In order to avoid this deficiency a holistic view of development is used in this research which considers all significant aspects of the life of a representative group of semi-nomadic pastoralists listening to their evaluation of economic, social and spiritual dimensions of their world view.
If secular development efforts have produced little or negative results then this study also calls attention to the minimal impact which the world wide Christian Church has made on these nomadic or semi-nomadic peoples, in terms of effective physical or spiritual transformation inspite of great efforts made by Christian development workers. The Christian Church is highlighted because of the command of its founder to penetrate every ethnic group and the initiative taken by Christian missionaries to accomplish that aim.
The paucity of results in establishing a viable and effective Church amongst nomadic pastoralists requires serious re-evaluation of current approaches. In contrast to this the reasons will be examined why Islam has apparently been much more acceptable to nomads in general than Christianity as it has usually been presented.
In recent years the economic plight of those who live in the desert and semi-arid areas of the earth has been well publicised by the modern media. In particular, those whose pastoral lifestyle has been most disrupted by drought, advancing desertification, population growth and political strife have caught the attention of news reporters, relief and development organizations and charitable fund raising bodies. The need for famine relief and some form of rehabilitation or development has been recognized as an international responsibility. This is a human problem far beyond the resources of their respective national governments to address, even if they are willing so to do.
The social disruption and alienation suffered by nomadic pastoralists over the last 20 years has provided ample subject matter for the attention of social anthropologists, third world economists and rural agronomists. In spite of all the expert opinion being offered and the investment plans of some of the major international funding organizations, there is a growing awareness that much of this effort has failed to provide long-term solutions to the problem.
The magnitude and complexity of the problem has been amplified and accentuated by the experience of long-term development agency workers over the last thirty years. Many of these practitioners are realising that their development programmes have not helped to restore the traditional resourcefulness and self- reliance of nomadic or semi-nomadic pastoralists; rather they have produced greater economic dependence on external aid. It is also recognised that within those societies traditional relationships and systems of mutual interdependence are breaking down.
There is a growing awareness that failure by project planners to understand the needs and values of pastoralists is the greatest reason for failure of their development projects to produce positive results. In particular any proposal which assumes the attitude common amongst "outsiders" that development for nomadic pastoralists entails them giving up their traditional lifestyle to become settled cultivators is least likely to win their acceptance or "ownership".
In order to avoid this deficiency a holistic view of development is used in this research which considers all significant aspects of the life of a representative group of semi-nomadic pastoralists listening to their evaluation of economic, social and spiritual dimensions of their world view.
If secular development efforts have produced little or negative results then this study also calls attention to the minimal impact which the world wide Christian Church has made on these nomadic or semi-nomadic peoples, in terms of effective physical or spiritual transformation inspite of great efforts made by Christian development workers. The Christian Church is highlighted because of the command of its founder to penetrate every ethnic group and the initiative taken by Christian missionaries to accomplish that aim.
The paucity of results in establishing a viable and effective Church amongst nomadic pastoralists requires serious re-evaluation of current approaches. In contrast to this the reasons will be examined why Islam has apparently been much more acceptable to nomads in general than Christianity as it has usually been presented.
Aims
The aim of this study is to show the meaning of appropriate development for nomadic pastoralists and its value to them in helping to maintain their cultural strengths in the face of external and environmental pressures. It will seek to do this by critical analysis of the following issues:
This chapter begins with a review of the literature which has been influential in advancing the understanding of what is now known as nomadic pastoralism and to the acceptance of the terminology by scholars and practitioners. The origins and early evidences of nomadic pastoralism are then presented before examining the characteristics and advantages of various types of pastoralism. This is followed by a description of the coping mechanisms practiced by pastoralists concluding with a discussion of their cultural identity and the effects of urbanisation.
1.1. Evolution of the definition and understanding of nomadic pastoralism.
The present day understanding and definition of nomadic pastoralism has evolved over a period of more than 100 years with that ascription being used only since the 1970s. Before that it was usually referred to as "nomadism".
A study of the literature on this subject shows how the change in terminology came as a result of the growing awareness of the complexities of nomadic pastoralists and an understanding of their basic problems.
The aim of this study is to show the meaning of appropriate development for nomadic pastoralists and its value to them in helping to maintain their cultural strengths in the face of external and environmental pressures. It will seek to do this by critical analysis of the following issues:
- The nature and causes of nomadism; its importance to pastoralists in arid and semi arid lands. The role of nomadic pastoralists in modern African societies. What can we learn from them that will make better use of limited resources of land in a continent with an exploding population?
- The environmental and external constraints that affect nomadic pastoral societies; ecological, economic and political changes; the residual effect of colonial governments and post-independence policies.
- The need for and nature of development amongst pastoral nomads; The type of approach and aspects of community development resources which will prove to be most acceptable and appropriate to them.
- The prevalence of opportunistic survival strategies practiced by nomadic pastoralists and the importance of recognising their willingness to take risks.
- The significance of world view and cultural practices in nomadic societies and the importance of incorporating these into development planning and practice.
- The relative impact of different religious movements on pastoral nomads. Why have the traditional Christian approaches apparently failed to gain acceptance? What is the most effective way to integrate the Christian message without imposing alien Western values and practices?
This chapter begins with a review of the literature which has been influential in advancing the understanding of what is now known as nomadic pastoralism and to the acceptance of the terminology by scholars and practitioners. The origins and early evidences of nomadic pastoralism are then presented before examining the characteristics and advantages of various types of pastoralism. This is followed by a description of the coping mechanisms practiced by pastoralists concluding with a discussion of their cultural identity and the effects of urbanisation.
1.1. Evolution of the definition and understanding of nomadic pastoralism.
The present day understanding and definition of nomadic pastoralism has evolved over a period of more than 100 years with that ascription being used only since the 1970s. Before that it was usually referred to as "nomadism".
A study of the literature on this subject shows how the change in terminology came as a result of the growing awareness of the complexities of nomadic pastoralists and an understanding of their basic problems.
The contribution of the first observers.
The first writers on this subject were almost exclusively anthropologists and sociologists so their observations are primarily concerned with social structures, world view and religious beliefs of the pastoral nomads they were studying. There appears to have been relatively little concern for development issues until the 1960s when the devastating effects of drought and famine began to be seen and heard around the world. Since then the social factors, and even more so the religious issues have been given much less consideration. One of the purposes of this study is to attempt to redress this imbalance so as to give a more holistic view of development amongst people for whom God occupies a very important place in their world view. There appear to be no agnostics amongst pastoralists and atheism is as inconceivable to them as it is to probably every other society where it has not been introduced by sophisticated sceptics or taught as allegedly 'scientifically untenable'.
One of the earliest of these writers is Robertson Smith, drawing on his research in Arabia in the 1880s. He was one of the first to identify some of the features of nomadic societies which differentiate them from sedentary peoples. Neville Dyson Hudson acknowledges his work presented in, Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia, (1885) as most significant in the understanding of the subject. He hails Robertson Smith as the "first to recognise the characteristic of nomadic societies to form groups on a reduplicative principle and the essential instability of such groups. This seems to be an early expression of what anthropologists now call the `segmentary lineage system' - a normative feature of nomadism." (Dyson Hudson 1972 :8)
Another influential pioneer in the understanding of nomadism is Evans-Pritchard in his study of the Nuer (1940).in which he emphasises the dual role of social structure and pastoral economy.
The first writers on this subject were almost exclusively anthropologists and sociologists so their observations are primarily concerned with social structures, world view and religious beliefs of the pastoral nomads they were studying. There appears to have been relatively little concern for development issues until the 1960s when the devastating effects of drought and famine began to be seen and heard around the world. Since then the social factors, and even more so the religious issues have been given much less consideration. One of the purposes of this study is to attempt to redress this imbalance so as to give a more holistic view of development amongst people for whom God occupies a very important place in their world view. There appear to be no agnostics amongst pastoralists and atheism is as inconceivable to them as it is to probably every other society where it has not been introduced by sophisticated sceptics or taught as allegedly 'scientifically untenable'.
One of the earliest of these writers is Robertson Smith, drawing on his research in Arabia in the 1880s. He was one of the first to identify some of the features of nomadic societies which differentiate them from sedentary peoples. Neville Dyson Hudson acknowledges his work presented in, Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia, (1885) as most significant in the understanding of the subject. He hails Robertson Smith as the "first to recognise the characteristic of nomadic societies to form groups on a reduplicative principle and the essential instability of such groups. This seems to be an early expression of what anthropologists now call the `segmentary lineage system' - a normative feature of nomadism." (Dyson Hudson 1972 :8)
Another influential pioneer in the understanding of nomadism is Evans-Pritchard in his study of the Nuer (1940).in which he emphasises the dual role of social structure and pastoral economy.
The "nomadism", "pastoralism" debate.
Dyson Hudson was probably one of the most influential agents for change in scholarly thinking about nomadism. He challenged the concept of nomadism held until the 1970s as being "poor and obstructive to analysis." (1972:23) The reason for his objection is that in his understanding "nomadism includes two quite disparate phenomena, that is `spatial mobility' and `livestock rearing'. It is most fruitful to proceed by developing a `herding model' and a `spatial mobility model'"(1972:24).
Another reason suggested by Dyson Hudson for the confusion in understanding nomadism is:-
"the essentialist cast of so much thought about nomads. If movement is treated as an absolute quality of particular groups, rather than being relative and dependent on other factors, then our most profitable questions about spatial mobility are pre-empted. We settle too easily for categories which do not so much explain as explain away the realities of nomadic behaviour. (1972:9)
Towards the end of his definitive article (1972 : 73) Dyson Hudson declares:
"nomadism breaks down into two quite distinct sets of phenomena, viz.: livestock-rearing and spatial mobility. Each of these sets of phenomena embraces conditions quite beyond nomadism in its generally accepted sense. Indeed nomadism is simply the area of overlap between the two. Yoking the two sets of phenomena together is what has facilitated the erroneous assumption that nomadic movement is caused simply by environmental factors. Separating them out allows us to see that such movement may have social and political causes as well.
This argument was presented again in 1980 by Dahl and Hjort suggesting that the term "nomadism" should be avoided as being too concerned with the degree of mobility and that "pastoralism" should be used instead as it emphasises the "economic aspects of animal husbandry" (1980:11).
In response to this article another specialist, Philip Salzman, acknowledged that, "certainly there has been a shift in frequency of usage, with 'pastoralism' growing more popular and 'nomadism' somewhat less so. But there is more to this than a matter of usage, only the most superficial account would suggest that the shift is a semantic fad". (1980b:1)
Salzman agrees with the necessity of distinguishing movement from resource extraction and maintains that the only point of disagreement between them is on the use of the term "nomadism". He suggests that "the ideal-typical model having been set aside, the term 'nomadism' can be used as the label for the 'spatial movement model' just as 'pastoralism' can be used on the label for the 'herding model'". (1980b:2)
This debate was happily resolved by a general agreement to adopt the use of the term "nomadic pastoralism" in place of "nomadism" which was causing the confusion. This term is helpful as it allows for the qualification that not all nomads are pastoralists and not all pastoralists are nomads.
Dyson Hudson was probably one of the most influential agents for change in scholarly thinking about nomadism. He challenged the concept of nomadism held until the 1970s as being "poor and obstructive to analysis." (1972:23) The reason for his objection is that in his understanding "nomadism includes two quite disparate phenomena, that is `spatial mobility' and `livestock rearing'. It is most fruitful to proceed by developing a `herding model' and a `spatial mobility model'"(1972:24).
Another reason suggested by Dyson Hudson for the confusion in understanding nomadism is:-
"the essentialist cast of so much thought about nomads. If movement is treated as an absolute quality of particular groups, rather than being relative and dependent on other factors, then our most profitable questions about spatial mobility are pre-empted. We settle too easily for categories which do not so much explain as explain away the realities of nomadic behaviour. (1972:9)
Towards the end of his definitive article (1972 : 73) Dyson Hudson declares:
"nomadism breaks down into two quite distinct sets of phenomena, viz.: livestock-rearing and spatial mobility. Each of these sets of phenomena embraces conditions quite beyond nomadism in its generally accepted sense. Indeed nomadism is simply the area of overlap between the two. Yoking the two sets of phenomena together is what has facilitated the erroneous assumption that nomadic movement is caused simply by environmental factors. Separating them out allows us to see that such movement may have social and political causes as well.
This argument was presented again in 1980 by Dahl and Hjort suggesting that the term "nomadism" should be avoided as being too concerned with the degree of mobility and that "pastoralism" should be used instead as it emphasises the "economic aspects of animal husbandry" (1980:11).
In response to this article another specialist, Philip Salzman, acknowledged that, "certainly there has been a shift in frequency of usage, with 'pastoralism' growing more popular and 'nomadism' somewhat less so. But there is more to this than a matter of usage, only the most superficial account would suggest that the shift is a semantic fad". (1980b:1)
Salzman agrees with the necessity of distinguishing movement from resource extraction and maintains that the only point of disagreement between them is on the use of the term "nomadism". He suggests that "the ideal-typical model having been set aside, the term 'nomadism' can be used as the label for the 'spatial movement model' just as 'pastoralism' can be used on the label for the 'herding model'". (1980b:2)
This debate was happily resolved by a general agreement to adopt the use of the term "nomadic pastoralism" in place of "nomadism" which was causing the confusion. This term is helpful as it allows for the qualification that not all nomads are pastoralists and not all pastoralists are nomads.
Non pastoralist nomads - service nomads.
To clarify this distinction it is constructive to consider a definition of nomads made by David Nemeth in an article entitled "Service Nomads: Interim masters of Imperfect markets". He defines nomads as "people whose economies of resource exploitation require their spatial mobility". (1986:135) This definition clearly applies to pastoral nomads so Nemeth uses the ascription 'service nomads' to apply to all nomadic non-pastoral societies.[1]
To clarify this distinction it is constructive to consider a definition of nomads made by David Nemeth in an article entitled "Service Nomads: Interim masters of Imperfect markets". He defines nomads as "people whose economies of resource exploitation require their spatial mobility". (1986:135) This definition clearly applies to pastoral nomads so Nemeth uses the ascription 'service nomads' to apply to all nomadic non-pastoral societies.[1]
Douglas Johnson's emphasis - movement.
One of the strongest proponents of the mobility emphasis against which subsequent researchers protested was Douglas Johnson. He has some valuable points to make about movement in The Nature of Nomadism. (1969). These will be included here although it has to be admitted that much of his study appears to be largely a non-experiential analysis of nomadism. He could have helped his credibility if he had avoided some unnecessary pronouncements about field observations, such as the relative merits of different types of stock herded by pastoralists. When he states that camels are "relatively easy to herd" (1969:8), he discloses that he or his source writers had not spent much time with those who herd them. Camels are usually considered to need twice as much manpower as cattle.
Johnson focuses mostly on movement as the primary characteristic of nomadism and what he describes as the "ecological compulsion" which causes it. He is also very interested in the classification of nomads as revealed in his stated objective in the opening sentence of the preface: "to classify nomadic groups on the basis of the cartographic appearance of their migration patterns." (1969:v) At the outset of Chapter One, Johnson states his "conviction that existing classifications of pastoral nomadism fail to offer adequate insight into the ecological compulsions and regular migrations of pastoral nomads." (1969:1) He does make the valuable point that "movement is not one of random wandering. On the contrary, pastoral nomads participate in an orderly migratory regime that is intimately tied to the seasonal regime of the region they occupy." (Johnson 1969:4)
Another helpful contribution Johnson makes is his suggestion that:-
Nomadism can best be viewed as a continuum between purely sedentary society on the one hand and a hypothetical pure nomadism that has no point of contact with agriculture on the other. Along this continuum particular groups will assume one of an infinite variety of potential adjustments depending on how the individual group combines a variety of factors. The most important, but by no means the only factors affecting where a group will come to rest are: 1. the combination of the animals being herded, 2. the role that agriculture assumes in the group's economy, 3. the amplitude of the yearly displacements, 4. the seasonality of the natural regime, 5. the physiology of the tribal area, and 6. the quantity and quality, viewed both spatially and temporally, of grazing and water resources. (1969:12).
This is a useful start in understanding the reasons and motivation for nomadic pastoralism, but there are several other factors some of which are particularly prevalent in northern Kenya . These are competition and conflict over limited resources, and in some cases inter-tribal raiding as a means of rapidly rebuilding the herds or simply gaining status. Johnson appears to view each group as isolated and independent with no pressures coming from the 'world outside'. In reality, it appears that competition and fear of attack from neighbouring pastoralists is one of the most common causes as well as constraints upon movement. In some situations it appears to be one of the reasons why the group continues to practice nomadic pastoralism. This is the case in insecure areas where cultivation would be possible but is seldom practiced to any extent as it has been found that having a large crop field enables enemy raiders to find their victims too easily, usually women and children and old people who work in the field and a few animals nearby to supply them with milk.
One of the strongest proponents of the mobility emphasis against which subsequent researchers protested was Douglas Johnson. He has some valuable points to make about movement in The Nature of Nomadism. (1969). These will be included here although it has to be admitted that much of his study appears to be largely a non-experiential analysis of nomadism. He could have helped his credibility if he had avoided some unnecessary pronouncements about field observations, such as the relative merits of different types of stock herded by pastoralists. When he states that camels are "relatively easy to herd" (1969:8), he discloses that he or his source writers had not spent much time with those who herd them. Camels are usually considered to need twice as much manpower as cattle.
Johnson focuses mostly on movement as the primary characteristic of nomadism and what he describes as the "ecological compulsion" which causes it. He is also very interested in the classification of nomads as revealed in his stated objective in the opening sentence of the preface: "to classify nomadic groups on the basis of the cartographic appearance of their migration patterns." (1969:v) At the outset of Chapter One, Johnson states his "conviction that existing classifications of pastoral nomadism fail to offer adequate insight into the ecological compulsions and regular migrations of pastoral nomads." (1969:1) He does make the valuable point that "movement is not one of random wandering. On the contrary, pastoral nomads participate in an orderly migratory regime that is intimately tied to the seasonal regime of the region they occupy." (Johnson 1969:4)
Another helpful contribution Johnson makes is his suggestion that:-
Nomadism can best be viewed as a continuum between purely sedentary society on the one hand and a hypothetical pure nomadism that has no point of contact with agriculture on the other. Along this continuum particular groups will assume one of an infinite variety of potential adjustments depending on how the individual group combines a variety of factors. The most important, but by no means the only factors affecting where a group will come to rest are: 1. the combination of the animals being herded, 2. the role that agriculture assumes in the group's economy, 3. the amplitude of the yearly displacements, 4. the seasonality of the natural regime, 5. the physiology of the tribal area, and 6. the quantity and quality, viewed both spatially and temporally, of grazing and water resources. (1969:12).
This is a useful start in understanding the reasons and motivation for nomadic pastoralism, but there are several other factors some of which are particularly prevalent in northern Kenya . These are competition and conflict over limited resources, and in some cases inter-tribal raiding as a means of rapidly rebuilding the herds or simply gaining status. Johnson appears to view each group as isolated and independent with no pressures coming from the 'world outside'. In reality, it appears that competition and fear of attack from neighbouring pastoralists is one of the most common causes as well as constraints upon movement. In some situations it appears to be one of the reasons why the group continues to practice nomadic pastoralism. This is the case in insecure areas where cultivation would be possible but is seldom practiced to any extent as it has been found that having a large crop field enables enemy raiders to find their victims too easily, usually women and children and old people who work in the field and a few animals nearby to supply them with milk.
Transhumance.
Johnson refers to one other form of pastoralism which is usually classified as nomadic viz.: Transhumance. He points out that the original use of the term applied more strictly to a way of life in Europe where villagers living in mountainous regions moved in part or altogether to different altitudes or valleys to avail themselves of seasonal advantages. Johnson maintains that:-
..pastoral activities are one of the concerns of a transhumant community but agriculture is nearly always the dominant interest... Unfortunately, at some point in time transhumance began to be applied outside of Europe and to groups that were not properly transhumants. In time nearly every nomadic group that utilizes altitudinal variations in pasture availability has been called a practitioner of transhumance, when, in fact, the use of the tent and the major dependence on animals contradict the common connotations of the term." (1969:19).
Johnson quotes widely from many authorities on the etymology and the history of the term `Transhumance' in several European languages to substantiate his use of the word and his definition.
Joel Teitelbaum in his study of Western Sudan gives his view that "the etymology of transhumance, from the Latin, means to move across soil types". (1984.61) In this study Teitelbaum relates
..that the Hawazma people are transhumants as the households go in search of sandy soils and markets in the north and to avoid mud, flies and diseases in the southern cracking clays. They cultivate food crops along their migration route during the rainy season, returning south after the rains to harvest them.
In a footnote to his paper, Teitelbaum confirms that in his study "a transhumant nomadic society is one in which complete households move with livestock by season from one ecological zone to another along a regular route or orbit." (1984:62) Teitelbaum accepts the contemporary use of the term "transhumance" as not related primarily to the changes in altitudes which pastoralists sometimes practice but his statement that it involves the movement of complete households could be challenged as this is not always the case among pastoralists.
Variations within the stereo typical roles.
Dyson-Hudson's wife, Rada, (1972) seems to take a more practical and pragmatic approach in pointing out the misconceptions that arise due to thinking in absolute and contrasting terms of nomadic vs. sedentary and pastoral vs. agricultural. She appeals for a method of categorisation which will allow for a range of variation within the categories rather than thinking in terms of stereotypical roles.
Talal Assad emphasises this same theme when he proposes that:
"anthropologists should devote less attention to the differences between cultivators and pastoralists as such and concentrate more on the critical relationship between direct producers and those who attempt to appropriate their surplus labour." (1978:425)
Johnson refers to one other form of pastoralism which is usually classified as nomadic viz.: Transhumance. He points out that the original use of the term applied more strictly to a way of life in Europe where villagers living in mountainous regions moved in part or altogether to different altitudes or valleys to avail themselves of seasonal advantages. Johnson maintains that:-
..pastoral activities are one of the concerns of a transhumant community but agriculture is nearly always the dominant interest... Unfortunately, at some point in time transhumance began to be applied outside of Europe and to groups that were not properly transhumants. In time nearly every nomadic group that utilizes altitudinal variations in pasture availability has been called a practitioner of transhumance, when, in fact, the use of the tent and the major dependence on animals contradict the common connotations of the term." (1969:19).
Johnson quotes widely from many authorities on the etymology and the history of the term `Transhumance' in several European languages to substantiate his use of the word and his definition.
Joel Teitelbaum in his study of Western Sudan gives his view that "the etymology of transhumance, from the Latin, means to move across soil types". (1984.61) In this study Teitelbaum relates
..that the Hawazma people are transhumants as the households go in search of sandy soils and markets in the north and to avoid mud, flies and diseases in the southern cracking clays. They cultivate food crops along their migration route during the rainy season, returning south after the rains to harvest them.
In a footnote to his paper, Teitelbaum confirms that in his study "a transhumant nomadic society is one in which complete households move with livestock by season from one ecological zone to another along a regular route or orbit." (1984:62) Teitelbaum accepts the contemporary use of the term "transhumance" as not related primarily to the changes in altitudes which pastoralists sometimes practice but his statement that it involves the movement of complete households could be challenged as this is not always the case among pastoralists.
Variations within the stereo typical roles.
Dyson-Hudson's wife, Rada, (1972) seems to take a more practical and pragmatic approach in pointing out the misconceptions that arise due to thinking in absolute and contrasting terms of nomadic vs. sedentary and pastoral vs. agricultural. She appeals for a method of categorisation which will allow for a range of variation within the categories rather than thinking in terms of stereotypical roles.
Talal Assad emphasises this same theme when he proposes that:
"anthropologists should devote less attention to the differences between cultivators and pastoralists as such and concentrate more on the critical relationship between direct producers and those who attempt to appropriate their surplus labour." (1978:425)
Precedent research amongst the Borana.
The work of Gudrun Dahl and Andres Hjort is particularly relevant to this study as it is based on field research done amongst the same Borana ethnic group as feature in this study. Their writings reflect the type of pastoralism practiced by that ethnic group which is certainly more sedentary then many other pastoral nomads. They are a good example of a semi-nomadic , agro-pastoral society.
Writing together in Having Herds (1976) they renew the theme that ecology is not the only factor to be considered in understanding pastoralism as a self-contained system. This is also the thesis of Dahl writing in Suffering Grass (1979):
Ecology can provide only partial answers to the problems of understanding pastoralism. There is already considerable evidence that it is not so much ecological change in itself that causes crises in pastoral systems, but that political and economic changes frequently express themselves in ecological effects. (1979:12)
In the conclusion of her detailed study of life among the Borana of northern Kenya, Dahl emphasises this point of political forces at work on a nomadic pastoral people in transition by noting that such societies are:-
very frequently politically and economically peripheral to an economic and social system which nevertheless dominates them. They occupy areas which to a large extent have been ignored for no other reason than their scarcity of natural resources, and they have very little means of bringing pressure to bear on the powers that be in the dominant centre. Groups which have for decades maintained local political independence through mobility and knowledge of an inaccessible terrain may today have to surrender to domination by groups in control of modern means of transport and military technology. (1979:262)
1.2. The genesis of nomadic pastoralism.
There is ample historical evidence that pastoralism has been one of the most ancient socio-economic systems practiced by man. Pastoralism in general began as soon as men found that certain animals could be domesticated for meat, milk and transport. In some places this may have preceded crop cultivation but eventually men found that they could use some of their larger animals to do their digging for them using various primitive forms of a plough.
The work of Gudrun Dahl and Andres Hjort is particularly relevant to this study as it is based on field research done amongst the same Borana ethnic group as feature in this study. Their writings reflect the type of pastoralism practiced by that ethnic group which is certainly more sedentary then many other pastoral nomads. They are a good example of a semi-nomadic , agro-pastoral society.
Writing together in Having Herds (1976) they renew the theme that ecology is not the only factor to be considered in understanding pastoralism as a self-contained system. This is also the thesis of Dahl writing in Suffering Grass (1979):
Ecology can provide only partial answers to the problems of understanding pastoralism. There is already considerable evidence that it is not so much ecological change in itself that causes crises in pastoral systems, but that political and economic changes frequently express themselves in ecological effects. (1979:12)
In the conclusion of her detailed study of life among the Borana of northern Kenya, Dahl emphasises this point of political forces at work on a nomadic pastoral people in transition by noting that such societies are:-
very frequently politically and economically peripheral to an economic and social system which nevertheless dominates them. They occupy areas which to a large extent have been ignored for no other reason than their scarcity of natural resources, and they have very little means of bringing pressure to bear on the powers that be in the dominant centre. Groups which have for decades maintained local political independence through mobility and knowledge of an inaccessible terrain may today have to surrender to domination by groups in control of modern means of transport and military technology. (1979:262)
1.2. The genesis of nomadic pastoralism.
There is ample historical evidence that pastoralism has been one of the most ancient socio-economic systems practiced by man. Pastoralism in general began as soon as men found that certain animals could be domesticated for meat, milk and transport. In some places this may have preceded crop cultivation but eventually men found that they could use some of their larger animals to do their digging for them using various primitive forms of a plough.
Earliest evidences of pastoralism.
Pastoralism features prominently in the early written records, such as the book of Genesis in the Old Testament but also appears in very early pre-literate records in rock and cave drawings. It is not possible to tell from these drawings how nomadic was the form of pastoralism but the biblical account records that the very first men to support themselves outside the garden of Eden, Cain and Abel, were living by means of animal husbandry and agriculture. "Now Abel kept flocks and Cain worked the soil....... Abel brought fat portions from some of the first of his flock" (Genesis 4:2,4.)[2]
Pastoralism features prominently in the early written records, such as the book of Genesis in the Old Testament but also appears in very early pre-literate records in rock and cave drawings. It is not possible to tell from these drawings how nomadic was the form of pastoralism but the biblical account records that the very first men to support themselves outside the garden of Eden, Cain and Abel, were living by means of animal husbandry and agriculture. "Now Abel kept flocks and Cain worked the soil....... Abel brought fat portions from some of the first of his flock" (Genesis 4:2,4.)[2]
The Abraham example.
The second written reference to pastoralism comes several generations later when Abraham was called out by God from the City of Ur to go to a far away land called Caanan. It is interesting that Abraham and those who travelled with him did not go directly to Canaan but settled at an intermediate place called Haran for an unspecified number of years. It is quite normal practice for nomadic and semi-nomadic people, to settle for a while in a particular place if it proves to be suitable and agreeable. Again it is typical of nomadic life that Abraham decided to move on again after his father Terah died. There is no special attachment to any particular piece of land so a major event in the family such as the death of the patriarch or respected elder is likely to prompt another move to fresh pastures. The narrative succinctly records:- "Abraham was 75 years old when he set out from Haran. He took his wife Sarai, his nephew Lot, all the possessions they had accumulated in Haran and they set out for the land of Canaan, and they arrived there." (Genesis 12:5) Thereafter the biblical record shows that Abraham and his sons followed the lifestyle of a typical pastoral nomad. Contemporary nomadic pastoralists readily identify with many of the Old Testament stories - especially those in the book of Genesis.
The second written reference to pastoralism comes several generations later when Abraham was called out by God from the City of Ur to go to a far away land called Caanan. It is interesting that Abraham and those who travelled with him did not go directly to Canaan but settled at an intermediate place called Haran for an unspecified number of years. It is quite normal practice for nomadic and semi-nomadic people, to settle for a while in a particular place if it proves to be suitable and agreeable. Again it is typical of nomadic life that Abraham decided to move on again after his father Terah died. There is no special attachment to any particular piece of land so a major event in the family such as the death of the patriarch or respected elder is likely to prompt another move to fresh pastures. The narrative succinctly records:- "Abraham was 75 years old when he set out from Haran. He took his wife Sarai, his nephew Lot, all the possessions they had accumulated in Haran and they set out for the land of Canaan, and they arrived there." (Genesis 12:5) Thereafter the biblical record shows that Abraham and his sons followed the lifestyle of a typical pastoral nomad. Contemporary nomadic pastoralists readily identify with many of the Old Testament stories - especially those in the book of Genesis.
Men become servants of their stock.
It is not possible to say when and where man first began to herd animals rather than living by chasing and killing them in the wild. The early rock and cave drawings indicate that hunting was the first major source of food and clothing, but it seems likely that at different periods around the world there came a time when men began to domesticate certain species. This must have been one of the major changes in the progress of the human race because from this time man lost his full freedom and became more of a servant than a master of his animals. Without fences to keep his animals together he was obliged to keep constant watch over them, not only to prevent them from escaping, but protecting them from other predator animals and taking them to grazing and water.
1.3. Descriptions of different forms of pastoralism.
Pastoralists are people whose major source of food, or income is dependent on animals. Because many of them occupy land that is usually arid or semi arid, with rainfall which is unreliable in amount and location, they have to be able to take their animals to the places where grazing and water can be found. These pastoralists are described as nomadic or semi-nomadic, depending largely on how much they move in search of grazing. One recent study defined pastoralism as 'any production system that relies for a substantial amount of its output on livestock. Although it is difficult to tell how much is substantial, a definite prerequisite for such a system to qualify as pastoral is that it must involve some degree of mobility' (Talingar, 1994:1).
In practice it has proved helpful to accept that pastoralists who spend more than half their time herding animals away from fixed sites or cultivated settlements are generally described as semi-nomadic. They may engage in other farming activities or seek seasonal or temporary work in settled agricultural areas, or in cities as casual labourers, but their traditional and preferred lifestyle is centred on animal husbandry. The animals are often essential for transporting goods and people to new locations as well as for hauling water. Farmers with animals who spend less than half their time in herding them and more time in cultivation are usually known as agro-pastoralists.
Talingar provides a useful summary of the main categories of pastoralism thus:-
Nomadic pastoralism essentially revolves around the husbandry of livestock and the utilization of natural vegetation as fodder. Such an economy requires the availability of suitable domestic animals. Because their livelihoods are totally dependent on the utilization of marginal resources, nomadic pastoralists are forced to constantly migrate by the need to maintain their source of subsistence, namely livestock.........
Transhumance involves regular seasonal migrations between, say dry season and wet season pasture, upland and lowland pastures, or pastures and salt licks. Probably a major difference between transhumance and nomadic pastoralism is that in transhumance the patterns of migration are more or less predetermined under normal circumstances........
Agropastoralism is another important type of pastoralism accounting, in many cases, for the bulk of total livestock populations. It is perhaps the most highly diverse form of pastoralism, with agriculture as the main subsistence activity, but where animal husbandry is an integral part of the economy. The variability in agropastoral systems is essentially due to the recurrent drought and markets for crops and livestock, which are characterized by huge fluctuations in price and volume. These risks are reduced through the diversification of activities, mutual aid and cooperation, at least at the level of the extended family. By choosing to engage in both animal husbandry and crop production, agropastoralists minimize the risk of falling below a certain threshold of disaster, and thus, maximize the probabilities of survival (Upton 1978) (Talingar 1994.3)
It is not possible to say when and where man first began to herd animals rather than living by chasing and killing them in the wild. The early rock and cave drawings indicate that hunting was the first major source of food and clothing, but it seems likely that at different periods around the world there came a time when men began to domesticate certain species. This must have been one of the major changes in the progress of the human race because from this time man lost his full freedom and became more of a servant than a master of his animals. Without fences to keep his animals together he was obliged to keep constant watch over them, not only to prevent them from escaping, but protecting them from other predator animals and taking them to grazing and water.
1.3. Descriptions of different forms of pastoralism.
Pastoralists are people whose major source of food, or income is dependent on animals. Because many of them occupy land that is usually arid or semi arid, with rainfall which is unreliable in amount and location, they have to be able to take their animals to the places where grazing and water can be found. These pastoralists are described as nomadic or semi-nomadic, depending largely on how much they move in search of grazing. One recent study defined pastoralism as 'any production system that relies for a substantial amount of its output on livestock. Although it is difficult to tell how much is substantial, a definite prerequisite for such a system to qualify as pastoral is that it must involve some degree of mobility' (Talingar, 1994:1).
In practice it has proved helpful to accept that pastoralists who spend more than half their time herding animals away from fixed sites or cultivated settlements are generally described as semi-nomadic. They may engage in other farming activities or seek seasonal or temporary work in settled agricultural areas, or in cities as casual labourers, but their traditional and preferred lifestyle is centred on animal husbandry. The animals are often essential for transporting goods and people to new locations as well as for hauling water. Farmers with animals who spend less than half their time in herding them and more time in cultivation are usually known as agro-pastoralists.
Talingar provides a useful summary of the main categories of pastoralism thus:-
Nomadic pastoralism essentially revolves around the husbandry of livestock and the utilization of natural vegetation as fodder. Such an economy requires the availability of suitable domestic animals. Because their livelihoods are totally dependent on the utilization of marginal resources, nomadic pastoralists are forced to constantly migrate by the need to maintain their source of subsistence, namely livestock.........
Transhumance involves regular seasonal migrations between, say dry season and wet season pasture, upland and lowland pastures, or pastures and salt licks. Probably a major difference between transhumance and nomadic pastoralism is that in transhumance the patterns of migration are more or less predetermined under normal circumstances........
Agropastoralism is another important type of pastoralism accounting, in many cases, for the bulk of total livestock populations. It is perhaps the most highly diverse form of pastoralism, with agriculture as the main subsistence activity, but where animal husbandry is an integral part of the economy. The variability in agropastoral systems is essentially due to the recurrent drought and markets for crops and livestock, which are characterized by huge fluctuations in price and volume. These risks are reduced through the diversification of activities, mutual aid and cooperation, at least at the level of the extended family. By choosing to engage in both animal husbandry and crop production, agropastoralists minimize the risk of falling below a certain threshold of disaster, and thus, maximize the probabilities of survival (Upton 1978) (Talingar 1994.3)
Opportunistic survival strategies.
In all the movements and activities engaged in by pastoralists, ranging from fully nomadic to agro-pastoralist the primary characteristic is seen to be opportunism and a willingness to take risks. Decisions are made to move the animals or to divide the herds on the basis of finding the best grazing for the needs of those animals at the different stages of their development. This requires highly specialised knowledge of the grazing lands, the minerals in the soils, the qualities of the vegetation, the distance and dependability of associated water sources, as well as the particular needs of the different livestock they are managing. If they have mixed herds of small and large stock, some dry and some milking, then the management decisions become increasingly complex. As available grazing lands diminish or greater concentrations of livestock occur due to insecurity or ill planned development interventions the need to 'keep ahead of the competition' becomes ever more critical. When drought occurs or raiding parties threaten, the necessity for taking bold and often risky decisions become more and more imperative. The herdsmen who is not prepared to take those risks and himself endure the hardship of possibly spending weeks or even months far from his family searching for that vital precarious balance of grazing and water, will lose his struggle for the survival of his animals. Some herdsmen (and married women whose husbands have died) can spend 6 months at a time away from their families when conditions are severe. They will drive their cattle through the night to cover as many as 70 kilometres between one water source and the next. They know that they will probably lose some of the weakest animals in the process but if that is the only hope of finding grazing for the survivors they will make those sort of strategic decisions.
In all the movements and activities engaged in by pastoralists, ranging from fully nomadic to agro-pastoralist the primary characteristic is seen to be opportunism and a willingness to take risks. Decisions are made to move the animals or to divide the herds on the basis of finding the best grazing for the needs of those animals at the different stages of their development. This requires highly specialised knowledge of the grazing lands, the minerals in the soils, the qualities of the vegetation, the distance and dependability of associated water sources, as well as the particular needs of the different livestock they are managing. If they have mixed herds of small and large stock, some dry and some milking, then the management decisions become increasingly complex. As available grazing lands diminish or greater concentrations of livestock occur due to insecurity or ill planned development interventions the need to 'keep ahead of the competition' becomes ever more critical. When drought occurs or raiding parties threaten, the necessity for taking bold and often risky decisions become more and more imperative. The herdsmen who is not prepared to take those risks and himself endure the hardship of possibly spending weeks or even months far from his family searching for that vital precarious balance of grazing and water, will lose his struggle for the survival of his animals. Some herdsmen (and married women whose husbands have died) can spend 6 months at a time away from their families when conditions are severe. They will drive their cattle through the night to cover as many as 70 kilometres between one water source and the next. They know that they will probably lose some of the weakest animals in the process but if that is the only hope of finding grazing for the survivors they will make those sort of strategic decisions.
Herding tactics, risk-taking and ranching.
Another opportunistic tactic practiced by most nomadic pastoralists is herd splitting, meaning dividing their animals into groups which will be taken by different herdsmen and women to meet their particular needs. The dry cows are usually taken further away from the camp than the cows in milk which is needed for human consumption. It is this management of herds and the wise use of grazing which make a successful nomadic pastoralist. He will also need to be prepared to take considerable risks in deciding when and where to take the animals when the grazing is depleted. It is this risk-taking and strategic decision making which makes nomadic pastoralism so much more productive than ranching on similar semi-arid land. Apart from the high cost of fencing needed for enclosure, the main disadvantage of ranching is that domesticated animals do not know when to move from a certain water source if the grazing around it is exhausted, or if the water source dries up they do not know where the next is to be found. Most wild animals have this ability to find distant water sources but domesticated animals seem to have lost that, presumably because man has been making those decisions for them for generations. Nomadic pastoralists from the same ethnic group usually send out scouts and will share information as to the location of alternative water or grazing. It is then the responsibility of the individual herd owner to decide whether to move all or part of his herd or whether to shift his whole camp. This decision is usually taken in consultation with other herd owners or heads of families who will probably want to move with them to give better security.
Even the decisions when to sell his stock or when to diversify into other kinds of livestock - goats to cattle, cattle to camels can all be recognised as opportunistic - to maximise the chances of long term survival by rational and often risky decisions in the present.
Another opportunistic tactic practiced by most nomadic pastoralists is herd splitting, meaning dividing their animals into groups which will be taken by different herdsmen and women to meet their particular needs. The dry cows are usually taken further away from the camp than the cows in milk which is needed for human consumption. It is this management of herds and the wise use of grazing which make a successful nomadic pastoralist. He will also need to be prepared to take considerable risks in deciding when and where to take the animals when the grazing is depleted. It is this risk-taking and strategic decision making which makes nomadic pastoralism so much more productive than ranching on similar semi-arid land. Apart from the high cost of fencing needed for enclosure, the main disadvantage of ranching is that domesticated animals do not know when to move from a certain water source if the grazing around it is exhausted, or if the water source dries up they do not know where the next is to be found. Most wild animals have this ability to find distant water sources but domesticated animals seem to have lost that, presumably because man has been making those decisions for them for generations. Nomadic pastoralists from the same ethnic group usually send out scouts and will share information as to the location of alternative water or grazing. It is then the responsibility of the individual herd owner to decide whether to move all or part of his herd or whether to shift his whole camp. This decision is usually taken in consultation with other herd owners or heads of families who will probably want to move with them to give better security.
Even the decisions when to sell his stock or when to diversify into other kinds of livestock - goats to cattle, cattle to camels can all be recognised as opportunistic - to maximise the chances of long term survival by rational and often risky decisions in the present.
Differences between pastoralists and sedentary farmers
In sedentary agriculture, a farmer decides what crops to plant, where and when to do so and after that he can only wait for the rain. This is a much more passive way of life than the pastoralists', without the need for constant decisions about where to take the animals, decisions which in drought times become critical, not just for the survival of the animals but for the future of their families. If the farmer looses his crop he can plant again on the next rains. If the pastoralist looses his animals his livelihood is finished and usually with it his esteem and place in the community. This difference in the frequency and critical importance of decisions needing to be made is probably one of the major difference between the thinking and values of these two main sectors of rural society and the reason why pastoralists are usually much more opportunistic.
In sedentary agriculture, a farmer decides what crops to plant, where and when to do so and after that he can only wait for the rain. This is a much more passive way of life than the pastoralists', without the need for constant decisions about where to take the animals, decisions which in drought times become critical, not just for the survival of the animals but for the future of their families. If the farmer looses his crop he can plant again on the next rains. If the pastoralist looses his animals his livelihood is finished and usually with it his esteem and place in the community. This difference in the frequency and critical importance of decisions needing to be made is probably one of the major difference between the thinking and values of these two main sectors of rural society and the reason why pastoralists are usually much more opportunistic.
Alternative survival strategies
This same opportunistic mind set required by successful pastoralists with their animals on the grazing land can be seen operating when they have to make decisions for alternative survival strategies. One of these is that some, or even all of the family members may have to leave the grazing areas to find temporary alternative sources of food or employment, leaving more to eat for those who remain with the animals. The intention is also that those going away to look for food and wages will find enough to send back to the family on the rangelands to allow them to survive without having to sell or eat their animals.
This same opportunistic mind set required by successful pastoralists with their animals on the grazing land can be seen operating when they have to make decisions for alternative survival strategies. One of these is that some, or even all of the family members may have to leave the grazing areas to find temporary alternative sources of food or employment, leaving more to eat for those who remain with the animals. The intention is also that those going away to look for food and wages will find enough to send back to the family on the rangelands to allow them to survive without having to sell or eat their animals.
The effects of remittances from wage earning "pastoralists".
In some cases remittances enable animals to be bought when the prices are lowest in drought times. This acts against the normally accepted constraints of stock limitation as a result of drought and lack of grazing by allowing the herds to be more quickly enlarged. Numerous examples can be seen of a family with several members who went either voluntarily or of necessity to find gainful employment when their herds were heavily depleted. They can then afford to buy up large numbers of animals when the price is at rock bottom from families who have no other means of survival but to sell. If the family with outside funds time their purchasing wisely, they will come out of the drought and into the rains with a herd of sufficient size which allows some of the displaced family members to return and meet the increased labour needs.
Other families who become impoverished in drought times may have to seek employment herding the animals of others who have outside resources to pay wages and buy food. In this way traditional wealth sharing and redistribution processes are being disrupted by outside labour remittances.
1.4. Stocking strategies.
Adrian Cullis gives a useful description of nomadic pastoralists in a recent study which is reproduced here as it provides a helpful introduction to another aspect of pastoral adaptation to their environment, diversification:
"Some 20 million[3] African pastoralists commit the majority of their time to and derive most of their income from domestic livestock keeping. In response to the arid environments they inhabit, pastoral communities have adopted a mobile system of livestock keeping, based on mixed herds of sheep, goats, cattle, camels and donkeys. Of necessity they move when pasture in an area becomes depleted or soiled. Only in this way can animal production be maintained and pastoral households sustain themselves. Extensive livestock production systems of this type are frequently the best way much of this land can be fully utilised.
Such is the vagary of rainfall throughout Africa's rangeland that almost all pastoral communities face cycles of good and hardship years. During good years herders increase and diversify their herds, whilst consecutive hardship years or 'pastoral drought,' human and livestock disease or livestock theft may result in large livestock losses and the consequent temporary collapse of household food production. Seldom, however, do environmental factors alone conspire to overwhelm the pastoral production of entire ethnic groups, since pastoralists have 'drought responses,' including mobile and adaptive grazing strategies, livestock and cereal exchanges, the establishment of diverse herds, herd splitting, and non-pastoral activities agriculture, wage labour etc. (1992:1).
The salient points which this description elucidates are:-
In some cases remittances enable animals to be bought when the prices are lowest in drought times. This acts against the normally accepted constraints of stock limitation as a result of drought and lack of grazing by allowing the herds to be more quickly enlarged. Numerous examples can be seen of a family with several members who went either voluntarily or of necessity to find gainful employment when their herds were heavily depleted. They can then afford to buy up large numbers of animals when the price is at rock bottom from families who have no other means of survival but to sell. If the family with outside funds time their purchasing wisely, they will come out of the drought and into the rains with a herd of sufficient size which allows some of the displaced family members to return and meet the increased labour needs.
Other families who become impoverished in drought times may have to seek employment herding the animals of others who have outside resources to pay wages and buy food. In this way traditional wealth sharing and redistribution processes are being disrupted by outside labour remittances.
1.4. Stocking strategies.
Adrian Cullis gives a useful description of nomadic pastoralists in a recent study which is reproduced here as it provides a helpful introduction to another aspect of pastoral adaptation to their environment, diversification:
"Some 20 million[3] African pastoralists commit the majority of their time to and derive most of their income from domestic livestock keeping. In response to the arid environments they inhabit, pastoral communities have adopted a mobile system of livestock keeping, based on mixed herds of sheep, goats, cattle, camels and donkeys. Of necessity they move when pasture in an area becomes depleted or soiled. Only in this way can animal production be maintained and pastoral households sustain themselves. Extensive livestock production systems of this type are frequently the best way much of this land can be fully utilised.
Such is the vagary of rainfall throughout Africa's rangeland that almost all pastoral communities face cycles of good and hardship years. During good years herders increase and diversify their herds, whilst consecutive hardship years or 'pastoral drought,' human and livestock disease or livestock theft may result in large livestock losses and the consequent temporary collapse of household food production. Seldom, however, do environmental factors alone conspire to overwhelm the pastoral production of entire ethnic groups, since pastoralists have 'drought responses,' including mobile and adaptive grazing strategies, livestock and cereal exchanges, the establishment of diverse herds, herd splitting, and non-pastoral activities agriculture, wage labour etc. (1992:1).
The salient points which this description elucidates are:-
- That pastoralists in Africa who are classified as nomadic devote most of their time to, and derive most of their income from their animals. This implies that there are other activities and sources of income which many, if not most pastoralists engage in and depend on for their livelihood.
- Cullis also states that this sort of pastoralism in Africa is based on mixed herds of sheep, goats, cattle, camels and donkeys. Again this applies to most nomadic pastoralists with one of the key factors in their survival and success being the most appropriate mix and balance of animals.
Specialisation, a luxury for the elite
There are still a significant but diminishing number of pastoralists who continue to indulge in their practice of specialising in one particular type of livestock, such as the Fulani, Dinka and Maasai who will only keep cattle, and certain Somali clans and Bedouin who only herd camels. There are a few specialists who can afford the luxury of keeping only a particular colour or size of cow in their herds, i.e. the Fulani who have crossed to Central Africa and Sudan selecting only grey coloured cattle.
Even more exotic are some of the pastoralists around Lake Chad who over the centuries have bred cattle with huge "swollen" horns that serve as flotation chambers. They maintain this allows their cattle to keep their heads above water whilst they swim between the islands on the lake where the best grass can be found. The fact that the Lake is currently greatly diminished in size does not deter them from such breeding as they have long memories of the Lake shore receding and then returning periodically. Less functionally useful, but just as highly prized, are the horns of the Dinka cattle which the herdsmen go to great lengths to form into certain shapes which are beautiful in their eyes. Some of these Dinka and Fulani cattle with exceptionally large or impressively curved horns become the lead animals in the herd. The herdsmen allege this is because the animals are aware of the beauty of their horns. There is no denying that the animals carry their heads with great dignity but that may be due to the sheer weight of the horns. Their dominance in the herd is more likely to derive from the superior size and shape of the horns and their effectiveness in fighting other contenders for leadership.
There are still a significant but diminishing number of pastoralists who continue to indulge in their practice of specialising in one particular type of livestock, such as the Fulani, Dinka and Maasai who will only keep cattle, and certain Somali clans and Bedouin who only herd camels. There are a few specialists who can afford the luxury of keeping only a particular colour or size of cow in their herds, i.e. the Fulani who have crossed to Central Africa and Sudan selecting only grey coloured cattle.
Even more exotic are some of the pastoralists around Lake Chad who over the centuries have bred cattle with huge "swollen" horns that serve as flotation chambers. They maintain this allows their cattle to keep their heads above water whilst they swim between the islands on the lake where the best grass can be found. The fact that the Lake is currently greatly diminished in size does not deter them from such breeding as they have long memories of the Lake shore receding and then returning periodically. Less functionally useful, but just as highly prized, are the horns of the Dinka cattle which the herdsmen go to great lengths to form into certain shapes which are beautiful in their eyes. Some of these Dinka and Fulani cattle with exceptionally large or impressively curved horns become the lead animals in the herd. The herdsmen allege this is because the animals are aware of the beauty of their horns. There is no denying that the animals carry their heads with great dignity but that may be due to the sheer weight of the horns. Their dominance in the herd is more likely to derive from the superior size and shape of the horns and their effectiveness in fighting other contenders for leadership.
Mixed stocking strategies and their labour requirements.
Where pastoralists are not specialising in one particular type of animal or cannot do so because of inadequate grazing, the question of the best mix of animals is usually very important in determining the success or even the survival of the pastoralists.
Where grazing is good, cattle are usually the preferred stock as they give the most milk and cause the least trouble in herding. They are unfortunately the most vulnerable to drought and diseases. Alternative stocking strategies employed are to use camels if drought or lack of grass is prolonged. Small stock, usually referred to as `shoats' are the cheapest and quickest way to rebuild an adequate livelihood base. It is also true that they give the least milk and usually the most trouble in keeping safe from wild animals. Talingar makes the point that 'Mixtures of animal species take advantage of the availability of different plant species in terms of livestock feeding habits. Camels and goats are mainly browsers, but feed at different levels due to height differences, whereas cattle and sheep are mostly grazers'.(1994.20) Because these mixed herds require different grazing patterns they therefore demand greater resources of labour from the pastoralists. In some communities every man, woman and child over six is needed for 10 or 12 hours a day, every day during the dry season until the grass returns and allows the animals to graze near to the camp and the wells. This way of life is exceedingly demanding, often lived in dangerous and difficult conditions. It is sometimes assumed by outside observers that this socio-economic system is so precarious and uncongenial that it will sooner or later be abandoned by all those currently trying to maintain this way of life. This assumption ignores two important points. First, that most pastoralists value that life style and the freedom it gives - particularly during the good times after rain. Secondly, that many of them have never seen any other life style. If they have been to a town or city they probably saw it from the worst possible perspective - over-crowded, impoverished, and as outsiders.
Where pastoralists are not specialising in one particular type of animal or cannot do so because of inadequate grazing, the question of the best mix of animals is usually very important in determining the success or even the survival of the pastoralists.
Where grazing is good, cattle are usually the preferred stock as they give the most milk and cause the least trouble in herding. They are unfortunately the most vulnerable to drought and diseases. Alternative stocking strategies employed are to use camels if drought or lack of grass is prolonged. Small stock, usually referred to as `shoats' are the cheapest and quickest way to rebuild an adequate livelihood base. It is also true that they give the least milk and usually the most trouble in keeping safe from wild animals. Talingar makes the point that 'Mixtures of animal species take advantage of the availability of different plant species in terms of livestock feeding habits. Camels and goats are mainly browsers, but feed at different levels due to height differences, whereas cattle and sheep are mostly grazers'.(1994.20) Because these mixed herds require different grazing patterns they therefore demand greater resources of labour from the pastoralists. In some communities every man, woman and child over six is needed for 10 or 12 hours a day, every day during the dry season until the grass returns and allows the animals to graze near to the camp and the wells. This way of life is exceedingly demanding, often lived in dangerous and difficult conditions. It is sometimes assumed by outside observers that this socio-economic system is so precarious and uncongenial that it will sooner or later be abandoned by all those currently trying to maintain this way of life. This assumption ignores two important points. First, that most pastoralists value that life style and the freedom it gives - particularly during the good times after rain. Secondly, that many of them have never seen any other life style. If they have been to a town or city they probably saw it from the worst possible perspective - over-crowded, impoverished, and as outsiders.
Herd size, the pastoralists point of view
Another valid point made by Cullis in his introductory description is that, "during good years herders increase and diversify their herds, while consecutive hardship years or 'pastoral drought', human and livestock disease, or livestock theft may result in large stock losses and the consequent temporary collapse of household food production". (1992:1) As the history and geography of the Borana in Kenya are studied it will be seen that drought, famine and devastating outbreaks of human and animal diseases are not a recent phenomena. The most effective survival tactic the pastoralist knows to prepare for such major losses is to acquire the largest number of animals possible in the belief that this will allow the greatest number to survive the disaster and offer the best chance to rebuild his herd.
This study will show that some of these constraints have probably always been experienced by those living in arid or semi-arid lands where nomadic pastoralism has been the only viable socio-economic system. Just before the arrival of the British in northern Kenya there had been outbreaks of human and cattle diseases such as rinderpest that reportedly wiped out more than 90 percent of the animals. Colonial veterinarians and administrators were able to help prevent the spread of such epidemics but the guns that made their entry on the pastoral scene at the same time have led to far more lethal consequences when used by raiding parties.
Another valid point made by Cullis in his introductory description is that, "during good years herders increase and diversify their herds, while consecutive hardship years or 'pastoral drought', human and livestock disease, or livestock theft may result in large stock losses and the consequent temporary collapse of household food production". (1992:1) As the history and geography of the Borana in Kenya are studied it will be seen that drought, famine and devastating outbreaks of human and animal diseases are not a recent phenomena. The most effective survival tactic the pastoralist knows to prepare for such major losses is to acquire the largest number of animals possible in the belief that this will allow the greatest number to survive the disaster and offer the best chance to rebuild his herd.
This study will show that some of these constraints have probably always been experienced by those living in arid or semi-arid lands where nomadic pastoralism has been the only viable socio-economic system. Just before the arrival of the British in northern Kenya there had been outbreaks of human and cattle diseases such as rinderpest that reportedly wiped out more than 90 percent of the animals. Colonial veterinarians and administrators were able to help prevent the spread of such epidemics but the guns that made their entry on the pastoral scene at the same time have led to far more lethal consequences when used by raiding parties.
Stock redistribution and sharing.
Another positive feature of pastoralists societies which Cullis mentions in his introductory statement is the fact that, "underpinning these systems is often a network of affinal and 'stock-friendships' in which each herding family is involved in the reciprocal giving and receiving of livestock. In these ways, pastoral households are able to minimise the impact of crisis years, rebuild and maintain viable herds." (1992;1) It is sometimes thought that these traditional stock redistribution or mutual assistance patterns have collapsed under the stress of the droughts and disasters of the last 20 or 30 years. It is true that some of the most prolific examples of stock sharing may have been lost, as evidenced in the paucity of examples found amongst the present day Borana of the venerable and respected herd owners of former years who gave all their animals away and "lived happily ever after" on the good will, respect and gratitude of the recipients.
Another more common system of stock redistribution continues in nearly all pastoralist societies - the practice of giving animals by one family to procure a bride from another. These animals serve not just as a purchase price given in direct exchange for a wife, but as a means of establishing inter-family alliances. The arrangements often begin long before the wedding day and may continue for many years thereafter to cement the relationships between the families. This custom often serves to hold some marriages together that might otherwise have broken up. If the new wife does not care for the harsh life in her husband's house and wants to return to her family home she will usually be firmly resisted by her father, as to annul the marriage would require her family to repay the bride price.
1.5. Causes and problems of nomadic pastoralism.
Another positive feature of pastoralists societies which Cullis mentions in his introductory statement is the fact that, "underpinning these systems is often a network of affinal and 'stock-friendships' in which each herding family is involved in the reciprocal giving and receiving of livestock. In these ways, pastoral households are able to minimise the impact of crisis years, rebuild and maintain viable herds." (1992;1) It is sometimes thought that these traditional stock redistribution or mutual assistance patterns have collapsed under the stress of the droughts and disasters of the last 20 or 30 years. It is true that some of the most prolific examples of stock sharing may have been lost, as evidenced in the paucity of examples found amongst the present day Borana of the venerable and respected herd owners of former years who gave all their animals away and "lived happily ever after" on the good will, respect and gratitude of the recipients.
Another more common system of stock redistribution continues in nearly all pastoralist societies - the practice of giving animals by one family to procure a bride from another. These animals serve not just as a purchase price given in direct exchange for a wife, but as a means of establishing inter-family alliances. The arrangements often begin long before the wedding day and may continue for many years thereafter to cement the relationships between the families. This custom often serves to hold some marriages together that might otherwise have broken up. If the new wife does not care for the harsh life in her husband's house and wants to return to her family home she will usually be firmly resisted by her father, as to annul the marriage would require her family to repay the bride price.
1.5. Causes and problems of nomadic pastoralism.
Unreliable rainfall.
There are many reasons why some pastoralists adopt a nomadic mode but paucity and unreliability of rainfall is probably the primary one. The quantity of rain which falls each year is not so important in determining favourable grazing as the consistency, or pattern of the rain which does fall. 400 mm. per year scattered over two rainy seasons may well provide better grazing than 600 mm which falls in a single brief period. The value of grazing is also determined by the reliability of rainfall year by year within the traditional area. Great seasonal variation between years makes pastoralism vulnerable.
In most situations considered suitable by nomadic pastoralists the rain will not usually fall over the whole area, but it will rain each year in some part of it, usually on the more elevated land. This is the situation where nomadic pastoralism is most appropriate. The animals can be taken to the area where the rain falls, whereas the farmer who planted a crop on the land where no rain fell will get little or nothing. This is why nomadic pastoralism can be described as raising 'a harvest on the hoof'. Camels can of course travel for many days without drinking, depending on how much moisture they can get from their browse. Cattle can walk 50 -70 kilometres between water sources if they need to get to fresh grazing where the rain has fallen. They can survive by drinking every third day, if that is necessary to walk between water and grazing, although this is not desirable as the animals will probably be declining in health and strength. Small stock such as sheep and goats - commonly referred to collectively as shoats, - are usually watered every day but can survive on every other day if grazing is distant.
In other areas where transhumance is practiced it is the type of soil which is the main cause of movement. When it is likely to become too soft when saturated, the pastoralists have learned to follow the large game which usually move away to firmer ground when the rains come. Much of southern Sudan consists of black cotton soil which quickly becomes impassable when the rains arrive and can stay that way for half the year. In such places some of the pastoralists have learned to do a little cultivation on the rich soil before they leave it to head for the drier, sandier areas. They hope to be able to harvest a crop when they return.
Adrian Cullis (1992) suggests that 'soiled pasture' is another reason why pastoralists need to move. This can mean damage by concentrations of animal dung and urine but more often is caused by excessive trampling, particularly on certain types of vegetation which becomes brittle when dry.
There are many reasons why some pastoralists adopt a nomadic mode but paucity and unreliability of rainfall is probably the primary one. The quantity of rain which falls each year is not so important in determining favourable grazing as the consistency, or pattern of the rain which does fall. 400 mm. per year scattered over two rainy seasons may well provide better grazing than 600 mm which falls in a single brief period. The value of grazing is also determined by the reliability of rainfall year by year within the traditional area. Great seasonal variation between years makes pastoralism vulnerable.
In most situations considered suitable by nomadic pastoralists the rain will not usually fall over the whole area, but it will rain each year in some part of it, usually on the more elevated land. This is the situation where nomadic pastoralism is most appropriate. The animals can be taken to the area where the rain falls, whereas the farmer who planted a crop on the land where no rain fell will get little or nothing. This is why nomadic pastoralism can be described as raising 'a harvest on the hoof'. Camels can of course travel for many days without drinking, depending on how much moisture they can get from their browse. Cattle can walk 50 -70 kilometres between water sources if they need to get to fresh grazing where the rain has fallen. They can survive by drinking every third day, if that is necessary to walk between water and grazing, although this is not desirable as the animals will probably be declining in health and strength. Small stock such as sheep and goats - commonly referred to collectively as shoats, - are usually watered every day but can survive on every other day if grazing is distant.
In other areas where transhumance is practiced it is the type of soil which is the main cause of movement. When it is likely to become too soft when saturated, the pastoralists have learned to follow the large game which usually move away to firmer ground when the rains come. Much of southern Sudan consists of black cotton soil which quickly becomes impassable when the rains arrive and can stay that way for half the year. In such places some of the pastoralists have learned to do a little cultivation on the rich soil before they leave it to head for the drier, sandier areas. They hope to be able to harvest a crop when they return.
Adrian Cullis (1992) suggests that 'soiled pasture' is another reason why pastoralists need to move. This can mean damage by concentrations of animal dung and urine but more often is caused by excessive trampling, particularly on certain types of vegetation which becomes brittle when dry.
Loss of grazing.
The inevitable effects of drought deprive nomadic pastoralists of their essential primary source of grazing, but this is seriously compounded by loss of reserve grazing to small scale farmers, large scale agriculture, government controlled settlement schemes and game parks. Nomadic pastoralists seldom have land rights, no title deeds, few if any legal means of defending their traditional territory, and little hope of appeal against mis-appropriation. If they try to resist encroachment from farmers they are liable to be dealt with severely by unsympathetic officials. In some situations such as that of the Maasai in Kenya, where they try to compete with the invading farmers by claiming and fencing part of their traditional grazing land, the problem is compounded. They lose their prime resource of grazing mobility and often prove that they do not know how to cultivate effectively.
The inevitable effects of drought deprive nomadic pastoralists of their essential primary source of grazing, but this is seriously compounded by loss of reserve grazing to small scale farmers, large scale agriculture, government controlled settlement schemes and game parks. Nomadic pastoralists seldom have land rights, no title deeds, few if any legal means of defending their traditional territory, and little hope of appeal against mis-appropriation. If they try to resist encroachment from farmers they are liable to be dealt with severely by unsympathetic officials. In some situations such as that of the Maasai in Kenya, where they try to compete with the invading farmers by claiming and fencing part of their traditional grazing land, the problem is compounded. They lose their prime resource of grazing mobility and often prove that they do not know how to cultivate effectively.
The importance of reserve grazing.
One of the defining features of nomadic pastoralists is that they cannot own any particular piece of land as they must be able to move their "harvest on the hoof" to the grazing areas where the rain will fall. Even though nomadic pastoralists seldom, if ever, own land privately, certain groups may collectively claim rights to a particular area which they consider suitable grazing land, including some areas less frequently used, known as reserve grazing. They may not use this reserve grazing for several years but if the rains fail on the primary grazing land these secondary areas of reserve grazing may be essential for survival. It is understandable that government officials who usually come from the same socio-economic system as the sedentary cultivators, see this reserve grazing as empty land with a potential for agriculture that needs to be exploited, so it is frequently taken from the pastoralists who have no title deeds and given to cultivators. Large areas of East Africa reserve grazing have now been taken, not only by small landless farmers but also by large private and public ranching or agricultural schemes. These areas of marginal cultivation potential often have higher levels of rainfall, making them more likely to be infested with disease carrying insects such as ticks and tsetse fly in years of average rainfall. At such time reserve grazing areas may well yield a crop, but unfortunately in the dry years, when the pastoralists need that reserve grazing, there will be little or no crop for the farmers and usually no grass for the animals as the fragile root systems have been destroyed. Most of these areas of marginal cultivation will quickly be depleted of their natural fertility and will become increasingly useless for farmer or pastoralist. They will also frequently become vulnerable to wind and water erosion, due to the destruction of the former ground cover of vegetation. This is the cause of much desertification in the world today, as evidenced in large areas of the Sahel. It was once suitable only for grazing but now is largely useless for pastoralism or cultivation.
One of the defining features of nomadic pastoralists is that they cannot own any particular piece of land as they must be able to move their "harvest on the hoof" to the grazing areas where the rain will fall. Even though nomadic pastoralists seldom, if ever, own land privately, certain groups may collectively claim rights to a particular area which they consider suitable grazing land, including some areas less frequently used, known as reserve grazing. They may not use this reserve grazing for several years but if the rains fail on the primary grazing land these secondary areas of reserve grazing may be essential for survival. It is understandable that government officials who usually come from the same socio-economic system as the sedentary cultivators, see this reserve grazing as empty land with a potential for agriculture that needs to be exploited, so it is frequently taken from the pastoralists who have no title deeds and given to cultivators. Large areas of East Africa reserve grazing have now been taken, not only by small landless farmers but also by large private and public ranching or agricultural schemes. These areas of marginal cultivation potential often have higher levels of rainfall, making them more likely to be infested with disease carrying insects such as ticks and tsetse fly in years of average rainfall. At such time reserve grazing areas may well yield a crop, but unfortunately in the dry years, when the pastoralists need that reserve grazing, there will be little or no crop for the farmers and usually no grass for the animals as the fragile root systems have been destroyed. Most of these areas of marginal cultivation will quickly be depleted of their natural fertility and will become increasingly useless for farmer or pastoralist. They will also frequently become vulnerable to wind and water erosion, due to the destruction of the former ground cover of vegetation. This is the cause of much desertification in the world today, as evidenced in large areas of the Sahel. It was once suitable only for grazing but now is largely useless for pastoralism or cultivation.
The effects of insecurity.
Lack of what the pastoralists of northern Kenya call 'security', meaning danger of attack from other ethnic groups or bandits, is for them a very common and serious cause both of movement to escape the threat or of reluctance to move where they would normally go for grazing if their was no danger of attack. This problem of insecurity will feature prominently in this study as it was repeatedly referred to by the Waso Borana as the greatest constraint they face in being able to rebuild their herds.
Lack of what the pastoralists of northern Kenya call 'security', meaning danger of attack from other ethnic groups or bandits, is for them a very common and serious cause both of movement to escape the threat or of reluctance to move where they would normally go for grazing if their was no danger of attack. This problem of insecurity will feature prominently in this study as it was repeatedly referred to by the Waso Borana as the greatest constraint they face in being able to rebuild their herds.
Traditional conflict and modern weapons.
Inter-tribal raiding and conflicts over water and grazing have probably always been common between pastoralists especially when competing for the same resources in times of drought . Before this century the damage caused in these conflicts were not too serious - perhaps 5 or 10 killed in any one raid using spears or bows and arrows.
At the beginning of the twentieth century when the first white explorers began to advance beyond the more accessible and well populated parts of Africa they frequently had to resort to the use of their guns as they penetrated the more remote areas where the pastoralists lived, Guns were introduced initially to these people as highly prized gifts to honoured chiefs or guides, giving them great status and power. When the colonial powers entered Africa in force they usually found that the best guides and armed escorts could be obtained from the warrior clans of the pastoralist tribes such as the Somali, Maasai, or Dinka. Both the French in West Africa and the British in East Africa began to train and arm the tall, lean, desert warriors as the best fighters in embryonic armies. As the colonial powers clashed in both East and West, and especially with the defeat of the Italian armies in Ethiopia, large quantities of rifles and even machine guns began to spread across the land. For many years, a first world war rifle could command a price of 20 or more cows in southern Ethiopia, making gun-running to the pastoralists a very profitable if risky enterprise. Risky, because once the young warriors possessed some guns and learned how to use them, they did not always think it necessary to pay more cows to the traders when they brought more guns. The escalation of the super power conflict on the continent led to more and more weapons becoming available to any tyrant or military leader who wanted to use them. So countries like Uganda, Sudan, Liberia , Ethiopia and Somalia became inundated with relatively modern weaponry. When the dictator or his armies were over thrown their vast arsenals were often released on to the open market and found their way to anyone who saw the need for them. As the pastoralists have always had a marked tendency to fight - especially in East Africa, the inter-ethnic raiding has resulted in much more devastating loss of life as modern weapons proliferate.
Even in very small pastoral tribes like the Mursi in Ethiopia, David Turton has observed the escalating effect of fighting and the growing demand for the most powerful automatic weapons to enable them to respond to the attacks of neighbouring pastoralists groups. Unfortunately these modern weapons of mass destruction are readily available from all sides, Ethiopia, Sudan and Uganda.
1.6. The cultural identity of nomadic pastoralists.
Not all nomads are pastoralists and not all pastoralists are nomads. It can also be said that not all nomadic pastoralists have animals. The numbers of people who still consider themselves as nomadic pastoralists but have no animals left to herd must number many millions, possibly several times more in some countries than are able to remain in the bush with their animals. This has recently been described by one of the veteran researchers of the Borana thus
A pastoral way of life may has become so incorporated into an ethnic identity that even the stockless perceive themselves to be pastoralists. When I was in the field in the nineteen-fifties if I asked the question `What/Who are the Boran?' The answer was often just simply 'People who love cattle'; and it did not matter if the respondent was stockless or the owner of large herds. To own stock, or to live in the hope of doing so, was then one of the principal attributes that to Boran made a Boran a Boran; (Baxter 1984:4)
In situations, when some or even all of the family have to leave the grazing land, this does not mean that they should cease to be considered as pastoralists as their primary orientation is still towards pastoralism. They may still have some animals left with a relative or another herdsman who is known for his ability to make the right decisions to survive the drought and who is willing and able to face the hardship. By combining small herds there is usually a better chance for the animals and a reduced number of proven herdsmen to stay alive until the grass returns.
There are many displaced pastoralists living in cities, working as casual labourers or guards, or in famine relief camps, whose main goal in life is to gather a few animals to enable them to return to nomadic or semi nomadic pastoralism. They are nomadic pastoralists by nature and by choice.
Political authorities and development organizations tend to treat them as settled people expecting them to enter sedentary employment without giving consideration to how these people think of themselves - nomads and pastoralists.
Inter-tribal raiding and conflicts over water and grazing have probably always been common between pastoralists especially when competing for the same resources in times of drought . Before this century the damage caused in these conflicts were not too serious - perhaps 5 or 10 killed in any one raid using spears or bows and arrows.
At the beginning of the twentieth century when the first white explorers began to advance beyond the more accessible and well populated parts of Africa they frequently had to resort to the use of their guns as they penetrated the more remote areas where the pastoralists lived, Guns were introduced initially to these people as highly prized gifts to honoured chiefs or guides, giving them great status and power. When the colonial powers entered Africa in force they usually found that the best guides and armed escorts could be obtained from the warrior clans of the pastoralist tribes such as the Somali, Maasai, or Dinka. Both the French in West Africa and the British in East Africa began to train and arm the tall, lean, desert warriors as the best fighters in embryonic armies. As the colonial powers clashed in both East and West, and especially with the defeat of the Italian armies in Ethiopia, large quantities of rifles and even machine guns began to spread across the land. For many years, a first world war rifle could command a price of 20 or more cows in southern Ethiopia, making gun-running to the pastoralists a very profitable if risky enterprise. Risky, because once the young warriors possessed some guns and learned how to use them, they did not always think it necessary to pay more cows to the traders when they brought more guns. The escalation of the super power conflict on the continent led to more and more weapons becoming available to any tyrant or military leader who wanted to use them. So countries like Uganda, Sudan, Liberia , Ethiopia and Somalia became inundated with relatively modern weaponry. When the dictator or his armies were over thrown their vast arsenals were often released on to the open market and found their way to anyone who saw the need for them. As the pastoralists have always had a marked tendency to fight - especially in East Africa, the inter-ethnic raiding has resulted in much more devastating loss of life as modern weapons proliferate.
Even in very small pastoral tribes like the Mursi in Ethiopia, David Turton has observed the escalating effect of fighting and the growing demand for the most powerful automatic weapons to enable them to respond to the attacks of neighbouring pastoralists groups. Unfortunately these modern weapons of mass destruction are readily available from all sides, Ethiopia, Sudan and Uganda.
1.6. The cultural identity of nomadic pastoralists.
Not all nomads are pastoralists and not all pastoralists are nomads. It can also be said that not all nomadic pastoralists have animals. The numbers of people who still consider themselves as nomadic pastoralists but have no animals left to herd must number many millions, possibly several times more in some countries than are able to remain in the bush with their animals. This has recently been described by one of the veteran researchers of the Borana thus
A pastoral way of life may has become so incorporated into an ethnic identity that even the stockless perceive themselves to be pastoralists. When I was in the field in the nineteen-fifties if I asked the question `What/Who are the Boran?' The answer was often just simply 'People who love cattle'; and it did not matter if the respondent was stockless or the owner of large herds. To own stock, or to live in the hope of doing so, was then one of the principal attributes that to Boran made a Boran a Boran; (Baxter 1984:4)
In situations, when some or even all of the family have to leave the grazing land, this does not mean that they should cease to be considered as pastoralists as their primary orientation is still towards pastoralism. They may still have some animals left with a relative or another herdsman who is known for his ability to make the right decisions to survive the drought and who is willing and able to face the hardship. By combining small herds there is usually a better chance for the animals and a reduced number of proven herdsmen to stay alive until the grass returns.
There are many displaced pastoralists living in cities, working as casual labourers or guards, or in famine relief camps, whose main goal in life is to gather a few animals to enable them to return to nomadic or semi nomadic pastoralism. They are nomadic pastoralists by nature and by choice.
Political authorities and development organizations tend to treat them as settled people expecting them to enter sedentary employment without giving consideration to how these people think of themselves - nomads and pastoralists.
Urbanisation.
In previous generations there were many who could live and prosper on their animals alone, but it is becoming much more common for nomadic pastoralists to engage in other activities. Physiologically it seems that nomadic pastoralists are not suited for manual work which requires strength in the upper body, their physical strength lies much more in their legs which they need for the amount of walking that pastoralism demands. The most common and agreeable work sought by displaced nomadic pastoralists seems to be as guards or night watchmen, presumably because this requires the least sustained physical effort, only the ability to watch with 'one eye open' and be ready for sudden and fearless action. As such work is most likely to be found in the larger urban communities it is to the cities and large towns best known to the pastoralists that they usually move. As the number of job opportunities always seems to be considerably less than the number of displaced pastoralists, many of them will end up living as dependents of relatives or clansmen who have work and the means to buy food.
In previous generations there were many who could live and prosper on their animals alone, but it is becoming much more common for nomadic pastoralists to engage in other activities. Physiologically it seems that nomadic pastoralists are not suited for manual work which requires strength in the upper body, their physical strength lies much more in their legs which they need for the amount of walking that pastoralism demands. The most common and agreeable work sought by displaced nomadic pastoralists seems to be as guards or night watchmen, presumably because this requires the least sustained physical effort, only the ability to watch with 'one eye open' and be ready for sudden and fearless action. As such work is most likely to be found in the larger urban communities it is to the cities and large towns best known to the pastoralists that they usually move. As the number of job opportunities always seems to be considerably less than the number of displaced pastoralists, many of them will end up living as dependents of relatives or clansmen who have work and the means to buy food.
Legitimacy of begging
Some of the migrant workers from the pastoralist communities will frequently have to resort to outright begging on the streets. If necessity demands this, there is usually no great cultural objection to be overcome in the minds of most nomadic pastoralists, as their traditional way of life allows them to move from place to place expecting that those who have food will share it with those who have none. For pastoralists who are familiar with Islamic belief and practices, begging usually arouses no strong objection; in fact it is an honourable means of making a living as well as giving the more affluent faithful the opportunity of fulfilling one of the essential requirements of the Muslim religion.
Some of the migrant workers from the pastoralist communities will frequently have to resort to outright begging on the streets. If necessity demands this, there is usually no great cultural objection to be overcome in the minds of most nomadic pastoralists, as their traditional way of life allows them to move from place to place expecting that those who have food will share it with those who have none. For pastoralists who are familiar with Islamic belief and practices, begging usually arouses no strong objection; in fact it is an honourable means of making a living as well as giving the more affluent faithful the opportunity of fulfilling one of the essential requirements of the Muslim religion.
Resourcefulness and adaptability.
Whatever the alternate livelihood options available to or chosen by the displaced nomadic pastoralist, it rarely changes his long term motivation to return to pastoralism. That is why it is common in the towns and cities in and around the traditional territories of nomadic pastoralists to find the fortunate few who are employed starting to collect a few small animals using whatever remuneration they receive to acquire them. Small flocks of goats and sheep can be seen wandering through the sandy back streets of most Sahelian cities grazing whatever vegetation may be found, but probably obtaining most of their food from the rubbish tips and garden refuse thrown over the compound walls of the wealthy urban elite. It is one of the evidences of the adaptability of nomadic pastoralists and their animals that the goats and sheep (of Niamey) seem to survive largely on household scraps and garden refuse and that the cows (of Khartoum) survive on old rags, waste paper and even broken plastic bowls and buckets. There will be one or more members of the pastoralist's family watching the animals - usually a group of young children who are learning to be nomadic pastoralists in an urban setting. They should still be classified as such as they fulfill the most common attributes of a nomadic pastoralist, possessing animals but no title deeds to any particular property and taking their animals wherever grazing is available rather than bringing the food to the animal as most urban dwellers do who keep a cow in their compound.
This practice by urbanised nomadic pastoralists of keeping animals is not just an attempt to reaffirm their identity, but also usually an expression of their intention to return to their rural grazing lands as soon as they have collected sufficient animals for survival.
Whatever the alternate livelihood options available to or chosen by the displaced nomadic pastoralist, it rarely changes his long term motivation to return to pastoralism. That is why it is common in the towns and cities in and around the traditional territories of nomadic pastoralists to find the fortunate few who are employed starting to collect a few small animals using whatever remuneration they receive to acquire them. Small flocks of goats and sheep can be seen wandering through the sandy back streets of most Sahelian cities grazing whatever vegetation may be found, but probably obtaining most of their food from the rubbish tips and garden refuse thrown over the compound walls of the wealthy urban elite. It is one of the evidences of the adaptability of nomadic pastoralists and their animals that the goats and sheep (of Niamey) seem to survive largely on household scraps and garden refuse and that the cows (of Khartoum) survive on old rags, waste paper and even broken plastic bowls and buckets. There will be one or more members of the pastoralist's family watching the animals - usually a group of young children who are learning to be nomadic pastoralists in an urban setting. They should still be classified as such as they fulfill the most common attributes of a nomadic pastoralist, possessing animals but no title deeds to any particular property and taking their animals wherever grazing is available rather than bringing the food to the animal as most urban dwellers do who keep a cow in their compound.
This practice by urbanised nomadic pastoralists of keeping animals is not just an attempt to reaffirm their identity, but also usually an expression of their intention to return to their rural grazing lands as soon as they have collected sufficient animals for survival.
Long term urbanisation.
There will be a small proportion of former nomadic pastoralists who find secure employment in urban centres, possibly as traders, policemen, or if given the opportunity of education, as clerks, technicians, teachers or any other profession, up to and including members of parliament and senior administrators. For these, the responsibility of providing food and shelter for other distant relatives or clansmen from the bush will be correspondingly greater, for their well established homes will be seen as the first resort for those coming to the big city to look for work or to escape starvation in times of drought. There are numerous examples, particularly in West Africa, of those from societies traditionally considered to be nomadic pastoralists who have become well established in urban life for several generations. They may never have lived themselves "in the bush" but most of them will still retain definite links with those still living there and may even have animals themselves being tended by relatives who know how to look after the herds and enjoy the products thereof. The attitude of those urbanised former nomads appears to be significantly different from urbanised farmers who have always been more concerned with owning property than animals. It was well summarised by one educated Fulani from northern Nigeria whose family had not herded animals for three generations. "My father and grandfather were rich men who chose to live in towns like Kano and Zaria so I never had to herd animals, but we all believe that we still belong to the nomadic cattle herding Fulani who are quite different from the other farming peoples". When asked how long it might be before he ceased to think like a Fulani nomad he replied, "I am sure that I and my children will never feel like a settled farmer but possibly after three of four generations they may stop thinking like a Fulani." (Umaru Garba, 1991 discussions in Jos, Nigeria)
This seems to be one of the most important aspects of understanding the nature and definition of nomadic pastoralists. They think of themselves as different from settled farming people. Many of them, possibly a majority, have lost so many animals in the last 20 years that they have had to drop out of traditional nomadic life, at least for certain periods and seasons of the year.
There will be a small proportion of former nomadic pastoralists who find secure employment in urban centres, possibly as traders, policemen, or if given the opportunity of education, as clerks, technicians, teachers or any other profession, up to and including members of parliament and senior administrators. For these, the responsibility of providing food and shelter for other distant relatives or clansmen from the bush will be correspondingly greater, for their well established homes will be seen as the first resort for those coming to the big city to look for work or to escape starvation in times of drought. There are numerous examples, particularly in West Africa, of those from societies traditionally considered to be nomadic pastoralists who have become well established in urban life for several generations. They may never have lived themselves "in the bush" but most of them will still retain definite links with those still living there and may even have animals themselves being tended by relatives who know how to look after the herds and enjoy the products thereof. The attitude of those urbanised former nomads appears to be significantly different from urbanised farmers who have always been more concerned with owning property than animals. It was well summarised by one educated Fulani from northern Nigeria whose family had not herded animals for three generations. "My father and grandfather were rich men who chose to live in towns like Kano and Zaria so I never had to herd animals, but we all believe that we still belong to the nomadic cattle herding Fulani who are quite different from the other farming peoples". When asked how long it might be before he ceased to think like a Fulani nomad he replied, "I am sure that I and my children will never feel like a settled farmer but possibly after three of four generations they may stop thinking like a Fulani." (Umaru Garba, 1991 discussions in Jos, Nigeria)
This seems to be one of the most important aspects of understanding the nature and definition of nomadic pastoralists. They think of themselves as different from settled farming people. Many of them, possibly a majority, have lost so many animals in the last 20 years that they have had to drop out of traditional nomadic life, at least for certain periods and seasons of the year.
Urban "Ebb and Flow".
This can be described as "Urban Ebb and Flow" rather than urban drift. When the rains fail, perhaps 50 percent or more of the pastoralists population may have to move elsewhere to look for food and work for survival. In the worst case scenarios as seen in the 1980s in the Sahel famines, up to 90 percent of the Tuareg and Fulani of northern Niger and Mali moved into the cities along the southern edge of the Sahara, or they died. Huge famine relief camps were set up on the outskirts of all the major towns where they could receive food and the world outside could see their distress. The western media could report their plight with a minimum of inconvenience and discomfort and the Aid agencies could make their appeal to many genuinely troubled potential donors.
The impression was acquired, if not consciously stated, that the entire nomadic pastoral population was giving up and moving into the refugee camps and towns of the Sahel. That this is not the case was well demonstrated by the absence of the huge famine relief camps only 12 months later. Some of the refugees will undoubtedly find a niche for themselves in the urban cities and towns, but the great majority will return to their traditional grazing lands - hence the apt description of "urban ebb and flow". It is these sorts of temporary movements and survival tactics that make the precise definition of who is a nomadic pastoralist difficult.
A final word on the future of nomadic pastoralists is given by Baxter, a veteran anthropologist. He sees the historicity and tenacity of pastoralist through the ages as a positive sign of hope for their future:-
"Many pastoralists have suffered to the point of total destitution from a run of natural and man-made calamities: the consequences of drought: the confiscation of their traditional resources: the destruction of their herds: massive deprivation of grazing by war and the violence of brigands: misguided macro top-down development and the arbitrary closing or expropriation of grazing lands. But pastoralists have probably been herding their flocks and herds for four or five thousand years, during which they have survived great climatic changes and cultural and political upheavals, It is reasonable I hope and think, to maintain a subdued belief that pastoralists may yet survive the rigors of colonialism, post colonialism and the economic depredations of the industrial and post-industrial worlds. They certainly merit our best efforts to support them". (Baxter 1994: 8)
This can be described as "Urban Ebb and Flow" rather than urban drift. When the rains fail, perhaps 50 percent or more of the pastoralists population may have to move elsewhere to look for food and work for survival. In the worst case scenarios as seen in the 1980s in the Sahel famines, up to 90 percent of the Tuareg and Fulani of northern Niger and Mali moved into the cities along the southern edge of the Sahara, or they died. Huge famine relief camps were set up on the outskirts of all the major towns where they could receive food and the world outside could see their distress. The western media could report their plight with a minimum of inconvenience and discomfort and the Aid agencies could make their appeal to many genuinely troubled potential donors.
The impression was acquired, if not consciously stated, that the entire nomadic pastoral population was giving up and moving into the refugee camps and towns of the Sahel. That this is not the case was well demonstrated by the absence of the huge famine relief camps only 12 months later. Some of the refugees will undoubtedly find a niche for themselves in the urban cities and towns, but the great majority will return to their traditional grazing lands - hence the apt description of "urban ebb and flow". It is these sorts of temporary movements and survival tactics that make the precise definition of who is a nomadic pastoralist difficult.
A final word on the future of nomadic pastoralists is given by Baxter, a veteran anthropologist. He sees the historicity and tenacity of pastoralist through the ages as a positive sign of hope for their future:-
"Many pastoralists have suffered to the point of total destitution from a run of natural and man-made calamities: the consequences of drought: the confiscation of their traditional resources: the destruction of their herds: massive deprivation of grazing by war and the violence of brigands: misguided macro top-down development and the arbitrary closing or expropriation of grazing lands. But pastoralists have probably been herding their flocks and herds for four or five thousand years, during which they have survived great climatic changes and cultural and political upheavals, It is reasonable I hope and think, to maintain a subdued belief that pastoralists may yet survive the rigors of colonialism, post colonialism and the economic depredations of the industrial and post-industrial worlds. They certainly merit our best efforts to support them". (Baxter 1994: 8)
[1] Nemeth illustrates this distinction by summarising the descriptions and ascription's used by other writers.
"Service Nomads" refer to those spatially-mobile peoples who are observed to primarily exploit resources in the social environment" (Salo 1982:276). Peoples described in the literature as "Service Nomads" sometimes have also been identified as "economic nomads" (Acton 1974:257), "commercial nomads" (Acton 1981:2), "craftsmen nomads" (Hubschmannova 1972:58) "non-food producing nomads" (Rao 1982:115) "floating industrial populations" (Nemeth 1970:43), "peripatetic tribes" (Varady 1982: 54) and simply as "peripatetics" (Berland 1982:51).
[2] It is not insignificant that these first two proto-professions soon came into conflict, with the result that the farmer killed the pastoralist. This pattern can be traced down through history even to many of the contemporary third world conflicts, being partly responsible for the conflicts in Rwanda 1994
[3] This number of pastoralists given by Cullis is highly questionable due to the ambiguity in defining who they are. It is a question of interest primarily to outside development agencies so it will be addressed in the following chapter on appropriate development.
"Service Nomads" refer to those spatially-mobile peoples who are observed to primarily exploit resources in the social environment" (Salo 1982:276). Peoples described in the literature as "Service Nomads" sometimes have also been identified as "economic nomads" (Acton 1974:257), "commercial nomads" (Acton 1981:2), "craftsmen nomads" (Hubschmannova 1972:58) "non-food producing nomads" (Rao 1982:115) "floating industrial populations" (Nemeth 1970:43), "peripatetic tribes" (Varady 1982: 54) and simply as "peripatetics" (Berland 1982:51).
[2] It is not insignificant that these first two proto-professions soon came into conflict, with the result that the farmer killed the pastoralist. This pattern can be traced down through history even to many of the contemporary third world conflicts, being partly responsible for the conflicts in Rwanda 1994
[3] This number of pastoralists given by Cullis is highly questionable due to the ambiguity in defining who they are. It is a question of interest primarily to outside development agencies so it will be addressed in the following chapter on appropriate development.