Animal traction and household economies in Neolithic Europe.

Animal traction and household economies in Neolithic Europe. Most archaeological interest in the story of European socialevolution has looked to the grand picture, as the bands combine andclimb at last to achieve states and empires. What about the structure ofEuropean Neolithic as it was experienced at home, when the ox, the pig, the sheep and the goat came to live in the domestic unit ofthe single household? The goal of this essay is to explore some interrelationships amongdomestic animals and Neolithic households and to propose some hypothesesabout the role of domestic livestock, especially cattle, in Neolithicsocial and economic organization. Neolithic sites in Europe typicallyyield samples of animal bones ranging from enormous to minuscule intheir numbers of identifiable specimens. Faunal remains are assemblagesof dead animals, and as a result there is a long-standing bias towardsviewing livestock as subsistence resources, with far less considerationgiven to their economic roles while living. This bias is understandable,for faunal remains are archaeological data and prehistoric livinganimals are abstract concepts. While the concept of 'secondaryproducts' has addressed this issue to some degree, there is still atendency to think in terms of 'products' rather than viewinganimals as 'assets' in the Neolithic economy. This essayattempts to recast the discussion to take the role of living animals,particularly domestic cattle, into account. In particular, it exploresthe implications of a neglected aspect of the Secondary ProductsRevolution (SPR spr SpringSPR Strategic Petroleum ReserveSPR Surface Plasmon ResonanceSPR Suomen Punainen RistiSpR Specialist Registrar (UK doctor who supports a consultant)SPR Society for Psychical ResearchSPR Stop Prisoner Rape ), cattle husbandry and animal traction Animal traction refers to the use of draft animals (also draught animals) to provide motive power for vehicles or machinery. It is believed to be the first significant non-human source of power. , for otheraspects of prehistoric society in temperate Europe. Revisiting the Secondary Products Revolution It has been more than a decade since Andrew Sherratt Professor Andrew Sherratt was born in 1946 and died suddenly of a heart attack on 24 February 2006, in Witney, near Oxford, England. Sherratt was one of the most influential archaeologists of his generation. (1981; 1983)coined the term 'Secondary Products Revolution' for theemergence of a pattern of animal exploitation in the LateNeolithic/Copper Age of southeastern Europe and the Middle Neolithic ofcentral Europe Central Europe is the region lying between the variously and vaguely defined areas of Eastern and Western Europe. In addition, Northern, Southern and Southeastern Europe may variously delimit or overlap into Central Europe. about 3000 BC. In its broadest outlines, the SPRrepresented a shift in the use of domestic animals from their servingmainly as providers of 'primary products' requiring the deathof the animal, such as meat and hides, to their exploitation for'secondary products', renewable resources taken from livinganimals, such as milk, wool and animal traction. Although some (e.g.Chapman 1982; Bogucki 1984) have taken issue with the'revolutionary' character of this concept by pointing toevidence for some elements, such as dairying, in earlier prehistoricperiods, nonetheless it is clear that approaches to animal husbandry animal husbandry,aspect of agriculture concerned with the care and breeding of domestic animals such as cattle, goats, sheep, hogs, and horses. Domestication of wild animal species was a crucial achievement in the prehistoric transition of human civilization from became progressively more complex during the Neolithic. Evidence for the SPR in temperate Europe comes from sourcessummarized by Sherratt (1981; 1983) and Greenfield (1988; 1989): ceramicsieves and vessels presumed to have been used in milk handling; animalfigurines; remains of wagons, wagon parts and ploughs in burials andwaterlogged deposits; wagon models and representations on pottery;rockcarvings of wagons; and plough-marks on fossil soils under barrows.Faunal evidence has been presented by Greenfield (1988; 1989). Evidencefor the initial use of secondary products is diffuse and scatteredgeographically, although it is temporally rather sharply defined. Rarelydoes a single site provide a corpus of data which, taken alone, providesconvincing evidence for secondary products. Perhaps it is simply amatter of time and recognition of relevant data until local developmentscan be documented better. Recently, for example, Milisauskas & Kruk(1991) have presented evidence from Bronocice in southeastern Poland,dating to c. 3500--3000 BC. Here, cattle form the major component of thefaunal assemblage Faunal Assemblage is the archaeological or paleontological term for a group of associated animal fossils found together in a given stratum.The principle of faunal succession is used in biostratigraphy to determine each biostratigraphic unit, or biozone. , with cows comprising just over half of the specimensthat could be sexed and oxen oxenadult castrated male of any breed of Bos spp. -- castrated males -- accounting for about20%. In addition, Bronocice has yielded a vessel with representations ofwhat are almost certainly wagons, and a horn core has furrows worn init, possibly the results of yoking with a rope across the horns. Thus,for at least one major settlement complex in central Europe, a good casecan be made for the use of animal traction between 3500 and 3000 BC. The very name 'Secondary Products Revolution' reflectsthe emphasis on products and their consumption in transforming Neolithicsociety. Archaeologists have tended to see animal husbandry primarily interms of consumption, focusing on the direct return from the livestockin products -- for subsistence, for clothing and for tool manufacture.Animal traction for ploughing and cartage cart��age?n.1. The act or process of carting.2. The cost of carting.cartagea fee charged for carting of goods.See also: Dues and PaymentNoun 1. is treated as yet anotherproduct -- which it is, in the sense that it reflects the consumption ofthe energy provided by an animal. What is missing, however, is the roleof animals apart from consumption in Neolithic economic structure. The conflation (database) conflation - Combining or blending of two or more versions of a text; confusion or mixing up. Conflation algorithms are used in databases. of 'economy' with 'subsistence'has led, in my view, to a limited view of Neolithic animal husbandry.Recognizing the importance of secondary products, an advance over theearlier 'animals=meat' equation, still entails aconsumption-focused approach. Yet animals as livestock had a role in theNeolithic economy, a role more difficult to investigate or even to inferfrom proxy evidence. The changes in animal exploitation during the LateNeolithic in temperate Europe are concurrent with changes in settlementsand burials which have been interpreted as evidence for emergent socialdifferentiation. Recent discussions have characterized the socialstructures as 'low-level hierarchies' (Milisauskas & Kruk1984; 1991) or as 'chiefdoms' (Kristiansen 1982), conveyingthe notion of social strata and a distinction between elite andnon-elite. No one has suggested a causal relationship between the use ofsecondary products from animals and the emergence of differences inaccess to status, power and wealth, but hints have been made at aconnection. For example, Milisauskas & Kruk (1991) suggest thatwagons may have been a perquisite per��qui��site?n.1. A payment or profit received in addition to a regular wage or salary, especially a benefit expected as one's due. See Synonyms at right.2. A tip; a gratuity.3. of elite individuals. A goal of thisessay is to explore this connection in greater detail and from adifferent angle: that of the varying abilities of individual householdsto accumulate resources. Household economics Taking a household perspective on the use of animals in NeolithicEurope Neolithic Europe is the time between the Mesolithic and Bronze Age periods in Europe, roughly from 7000 BC (the approximate time of the first farming societies in Greece) to ca. 1700 BC (the beginning of the Bronze Age in northwest Europe). means making the assumption that the household, howeverconstituted, was the significant unit of economic decision-making. Thisposition has considerable support from economists and anthropologists,studying small-scale agrarian societies, who view the household as thesocial context of decisions about procurement, allocation, andconsumption of resources (e.g. Netting 1974; Barlett 1982; Huijsman1986; Singh 1988; Ellis 1988, among others). Household members sharecultural values and expectations, and by definition live in similarphysical and social environments. Economically, the household is aco-operating group that jointly makes production decisions (Barlett1982). Socially, it is the unit of reproduction and the focus of socialinteractions and obligations. In short, the household is an appropriateanalytical unit for studies of both subsistence farming subsistence farmingForm of farming in which nearly all the crops or livestock raised are used to maintain the farmer and his family, leaving little surplus for sale or trade. Preindustrial agricultural peoples throughout the world practiced subsistence farming. and peasantsocieties today. Some may take exception to this position, particularly withreference to Neolithic Europe. Polanyi (1957: 254) wrote: Only under a comparatively advanced form of agricultural society ishouseholding practicable, and then, fairly general. Before that thewidely spread 'small family' is not economically instituted,except for some cooking of food; the use of pasture, land or cattle isstill dominated by redistributive or reciprocative re��cip��ro��cate?v. re��cip��ro��cat��ed, re��cip��ro��cat��ing, re��cip��ro��catesv.tr.1. To give or take mutually; interchange.2. To show, feel, or give in response or return.v. methods on a widerthan family scale. Those who see the economies of small-scale societies as aninstituted process generally cannot reconcile this with the formalistnotion of individual household decisions as shaping economic change(Johnson & Earle 1987: 11). Yet many researchers, unconstrained bythis theoretical debate, routinely use the household as the fundamentalanalytical unit in studying the economic behaviour of small-scaleagrarian, pastoral and agro-pastoral societies. For example, Sutter(1987: 197) in studying the Fulani, a pastoral society in Senegal,writes: The sampling unit selected in this research was the galle, orhousehold, for it is at the household level that animals are owned,budgets are managed, and key economic decisions concerning the herd aremade. Archaeologically, there is increased interest in household units asbasic units of analysis (e.g. Ashmore & Wilk 1988). Yet it is verydifficult, if not almost impossible, to identify actual households, andarchaeologists must be content with proxy evidence for domestic groups.Distinct, yet essentially similar, modules consisting of houses andassociated features within larger settlements or dispersed individuallyare generally taken as reflecting some sort of household structure. AtBrzesc Kujawski in Poland, the author and his collaborator have searchedfor household units (Bogucki & Grygiel 1981; Grygiel 1986), withsome success. Tringham and her colleagues have also looked for evidenceof households on Balkan Neolithic sites (Tringham 1991). Perhaps withtime we will document the existence of households and their role as'organizational denominators' (Bawden 1982) of society acrossNeolithic Europe. In the meantime Adv. 1. in the meantime - during the intervening time; "meanwhile I will not think about the problem"; "meantime he was attentive to his other interests"; "in the meantime the police were notified"meantime, meanwhile , is it possible to assume that householdsconstituted the primary unit of economic decision-making in NeolithicEurope? Although some of us in taking this position (e.g. Bogucki 1988)have been criticized (e.g. Chapman 1991), Tringham & Krstic (1990:603) argue: It is not essential to be able to identify 'households'in the historical and anthropological sense of the term. It issufficient to be able to investigate changes in co-residence andcooperative activities of domestic groups on an archaeological site. In their view, the 'household' concept, a concise way ofsaying 'kin-based co-resident domestic group', can be thetheoretical basis for making further inferences about resourceallocation resource allocationManaged care The constellation of activities and decisions which form the basis for prioritizing health care needs and consumption. Accordingly, Tringham & Krstic (1990)have suggested, for the Later Neolithic and Early Eneolithic insoutheastern Europe, a shift from larger corporate groups to smallerco-resident groups. Competition among such units and the inequalitiesinherent in their developmental cycle over time would have formed thebasis for the emergence of social differentiation. Viewing Neolithic society through the decision-making of individualhouseholds provides a new way of looking at the economic role ofdomestic livestock. For this discussion, the actual size andconstitution of these 'minimal residential groupings' is ofless importance than the idea that economic decisions were made by agroup smaller than a village or a lineage. This implies that controlover productive resources, 'ownership' in a real sense, wasvested in these smaller groups. In some societies, 'ownership'and resource management occur at a sub-household level as well (e.g.Sutter 1987: 198), which could also have been the case in NeolithicEurope. Without worrying about the minutiae mi��nu��ti��a?n. pl. mi��nu��ti��aeA small or trivial detail: "the minutiae of experimental and mathematical procedure"Frederick Turner. , let us move to theinterplay between household structure and access to status, power, andwealth. Limitations on household access to status, power and wealth Each household, as a self-interested economic unit, can be said topursue a strategy of accumulation. This should not be equated with somesort of 'primitive capitalism'; rather, each household looksfor opportunities to acquire resources, property, favours andobligations that can provide economic and social security and possiblyadvancement. There may be socially-instituted avenues for'decumulation', so the accumulative LEGACY, ACCUMULATIVE. An accumulative legacy is a second bequest given by the same testator to the same legatee, whether it be of the same kind of thing, as money, or whether it be of different things, as, one hundred dollars, in one legacy, and a thousand dollars in another, or whether process is not necessarilylinear or unidirectional. A major goal is accumulating sufficientresources to establish the households of offspring as viable economicunits. Different households have different degrees of success in thepursuit of their accumulation strategies; yet this does notautomatically imply social inequality. Many societies have levellingmechanisms that put a damper on excessive accumulation. Some householdstake risks, others manage their resources conservatively. Hazards havevarying impacts on households of differing size, composition, holdings,and reserves. But the fact of accumulation and competition at householdlevel does not in itself lead to long-term or permanent inequalitiesbetween households. Each household undergoes a developmental cycle, from founding todissolution. In his classic discussion, Fortes (1958) describes its fivestages: 1 Establishment -- the new household, possibly still dependent onits parental household(s), builds a house and establishes a farm; 2 Expansion -- the new household becomes clearly independent andchildren are born; 3 Consolidation -- the household expands to its fullest point; 4 Fission fission,in physics: see nuclear energy and nucleus; see also atomic bomb. -- children begin to marry and leave the parentalhousehold, perhaps associated with the relinquishment of control overhousehold resources from the parental to the filial generation filial generationn.The generation resulting from a genetically controlled mating that is successive to the parental generation.filial generationany generation following the parental generation. ; 5 Decline -- the final stage, which often contributes to theexpansion stage of filial filial/fil��i��al/ (fil��e-al)1. of or pertaining to a son or daughter.2. in genetics, of or pertaining to those generations following the initial (parental) generation. households, if the parental household becomeslodged in them. Fortes' model assumes a two-generation structure of householdsand their filia. In many societies, these stages may not be clear cut,especially if the development takes place over three generations aschildren remain in parental households after marriage and birth of theirfirst children. In polygynous po��lyg��y��ny?n.1. The condition or practice of having more than one wife at one time.2. Zoology A mating pattern in which a male mates with more than one female in a single breeding season. households, different sub-sections of asingle residential group may be at several of these stagessimultaneously. The household structure is not static, but constantlychanging. Similarly, relationships are constantly changing betweenparental households and those of their offspring, as well as betweenthem and other households into which they have entered into alliancesthrough marriage and betrothal. One effect of this is the transfer ofassets from the parental household to its filia. Another effect is that households in a settlement usually findthemselves in some sort of asymmetrical relationship with each other,depending on where they are in the developmental cycle. These social andeconomic asymmetries would be characterized as 'inequality'(e.g. Tringham & Krstic 1990: 606) if they were permanent andcumulative. So long as the range of variation in the abilities ofdifferent households to accumulate and to disperse assets falls within avery short range, each household finds itself at different times on theplus side and on the minus side. The crucial question, then, is: when dothese asymmetries become permanent (or, at least, lasting) andcumulative? Land, labour and (perhaps) capital in Neolithic Europe Among small-scale agriculturalists, as is the case in mostsocieties, land, labour and capital form the elements of the productivesystem; their control provides access to status, power and wealth.Within household subsistence economies, land and labour are usuallycritical in determining household production. In most parts of the worldtoday, ability to acquire land is viewed as the primary factor limitinghousehold subsistence production. I have argued (Bogucki 1988), however,that in Neolithic Europe arable land In geography, arable land (from Latin arare, to plough) is an agricultural term, meaning land that can be used for growing crops.Of the earth's 148,000,000km2 (57 million square miles) of land, approximately 31,000,000km2 (12 million square miles) are was relatively abundant. Althoughby the Late Neolithic optimal habitats might have been thoroughlysettled, there was still adequate arable land on watersheds andlesser-quality soils. In many parts of temperate Europe, tracts ofvirgin forest were not broken for agriculture until this millennium.Instead of land, labour supply was a major limitation on Neolithichousehold production (Bogucki 1988), as in most'pre-capitalist' societies (e.g. Meillasoux 1972; Bourdieu1977); the matching argument can be made that control of labour is thebasis for social inequality (Bourdieu 1977). Tringham & Krstic(1990) have seen unequal control of labour by households as the basis ofsocial inequality in the Late neolithic and Copper Age of southeasternEurope; Webster (1990) has argued more broadly for control of labour amajor factor in the development of social stratification Noun 1. social stratification - the condition of being arranged in social strata or classes within a groupstratificationcondition - a mode of being or form of existence of a person or thing; "the human condition" in prehistoricEurope This bulk of this article encompasses the time in Europe from c 900,000 years ago to 8th-7th century BCE. Pre-PleistoceneThrough most of Earth's history, various subcontinental land masses such as Baltica and Avalonia that would later be part of Europe moved about the globe . In a household economy, the labour available does indeed define thelimits within which the household as an economic unit can produce. Ofparticular importance is the household developmental cycle. The labourthat a particular household can mobilize depends on where it is in thiscycle. A Neolithic household which this year can provide two able-bodiedparents and several late adolescent children will in 15 years putforward two enfeebled parents and such of the children as remain in theparental household. Labour does not of itself translate intocross-generational wealth in a subsistence economy A subsistence economy is an economy in which a group generally obtains the necessities of life, but do not attempt to accumulate wealth. In such a system, a concept of wealth does not exist, and only minimal surpluses generally are created, therefore there is a reliance on renewal . As householdsfission and decline, the cycle starts anew. Moreover, a household cannot support an unlimited amount of labour,even at its peak. The parts of the agricultural cycle The Agricultural cycle refers to the annual activitites related to the growth and harvest of a crop.This includes loosening the soil, seeding, special watering, moving plants when they grow bigger, and harvesting, among other activities. which requireconsiderable amounts of labour, such as land-clearance, planting,weeding and harvesting, occur as relatively short periods: 'labourbottlenecks' (Richards 1985: 68; Jaeger jaeger(yā`gər), common name for several members of the family Stercorariidae, member of a family of hawklike sea birds closely related to the gull and the tern. The skua is also a member of this family. 1986: 7). The householdeconomy must balance its labour requirements for these bottlenecksagainst its ability to support this workforce all the year. Timelinessis also an essential element in agricultural operations, and labour mustbe available in the necessary amount at very specific moments (Shahbazi1992). Labour, then, is a very inelastic inelasticOf or relating to the demand for a good or service when quantity purchased varies little in response to price changes in the good or service. resource, impossible to store,which limits the ability of any one household to produce simultaneouslyfor survival and for accumulation in the absence of ways to transformthe productive equation. Archaeologists have tended to avoid a concept of capital in theproduction equation of Neolithic societies, believing there is aqualitative difference between kin-based 'precapitalist'economies and profit-oriented capitalist ones. The conflation of'capital' and 'capitalism' is unfortunate. Althoughthese Neolithic societies can be legitimately termed'pre-capitalist', in that there was not a category of peoplewhose sole livelihood came from the manipulation of capital, nonethelessthere are elements of the productive structure that are neither land norlabour -- yet also did not exist solely for consumption. Livestock canplay a dual role both as consumable product and as an investment whichfigured in a household's accumulation strategy. Can animals beconsidered 'capital'? Domestic livestock certainly constituteassets beyond their direct return in the form of food. The idea of livestock as 'investments' is not new ineconomic anthropology Economic anthropology is a scholarly field that attempts to explain human economic behavior using the tools of both economics and anthropology. It is practiced by anthropologists and has a complex relationship with economics. (e.g. Barth 1964), but the orientation towardsproducts has led many subsistence-minded archaeologists to see herds ofdomestic animals primarily in terms of their food-yield, especially formeat. Yet anthropologists and economists who study livestock-keepingsocieties see this as only one aspect of an animal economy, which theyterm 'offtake'. Offtake Off´take`n. 1. Act of taking off; specif., the taking off or purchase of goods.2. Something taken off; a deduction.3. A channel for taking away air or water; also, the point of beginning of such a channel; a take-off. for meat is an outcome ofcarefully-considered decisions rather than something done casually, forit means the consumption of an asset. Almost no societies keep livestockwhich can potentially yield secondary products and traction only fortheir meat. The return on this 'investment' can come in avariety of currencies: security, prestige, wealth, dowry dowry(dou`rē), the property that a woman brings to her husband at the time of the marriage. The dowry apparently originated in the giving of a marriage gift by the family of the bridegroom to the bride and the bestowal of money upon the bride by , alliances,secondary animal products and -- ultimately -- meat. Animals and the Neolithic household In a vast archaeological literature on the use of animal productsby prehistoric peoples, the different uses of the major Old Worldprimary domesticates are well known. Pigs provide meat, hide, bristle bristle1. the thick strong animal fibers collected at commercial abattoirs for use in brushes.2. the sharp serrated awns of grass and some cereal seeds that confer a capacity to penetrate normal skin and mucosa and to cause ulcerative stomatitis, grass seed abscess and the like. and bone. Sheep and goats yield milk and, in the case of sheep, wool inaddition to meat, skin and bone. Cattle provide meat, milk and hides. Adistinction is usually drawn, appropriately, between the pigs whichyield their products only upon death, and the sheep, goats and cattlewhich provide secondary products. Cattle are unique among these species in their strength which canbe harnessed and converted into animal traction. In discussions of theSPR, animal traction is rightly treated as another secondary product,alongside milk and wool. Yet there is a crucial distinction. Meat, milkand wool are raw materials for food and clothing, for which the animalconverts nutrient energy into a material, a relatively inefficientprocess by the time that the humans use these materials. Animaltraction, in concentrating and exploiting nutrient energy, replaceshuman labour directly and expands what humans can do. The energy returnto humans from animal traction follows a different pathway, suggestingthat the relationship between humans and animals used for traction willalso be different, even if the latter are ultimately consumed at the endof their useful lives. Animals as insurance It has become commonplace to view Neolithic domestic livestock as'insurance' against subsistence shortfalls from cultivatedcrops, a 'walking larder' in which an investment in time andlabour acts as a hedge against future deficits in other subsistenceresources. In this discussion, however, two important distinctions mustbe made. The first is between animal use during the earliest stages ofthe Neolithic in the Near East, eventually in Europe, and that duringthe later European Neolithic, while the second is between cattle andsmaller stock such as sheep, goats and pigs. For the earliest stages of animal husbandry in the Near East and insoutheastern Europe, a reasonable case can be made for livestock as asubsistence reserve. Sheep and goats, the major components of domesticherds during this period, have the obvious characteristic of small size.Flocks could be culled a member at a time while leaving most of thebreeding stock intact. A household could be sustained over a few days byone animal, whereupon another could be killed. Sheep and goats, in theabsence of needs for secondary products, lend themselves to short-termliquidation during difficult times. Pigs, with their prolific reproduction and rapid growth, are evenbetter as a 'food bank'; they have been important in temperateEurope from the middle of the Neolithic until modern times in thiscapacity, although unsuited to arid regions like the Near East and NorthAfrica. Pigs proved tremendously adaptable and enabled households tohave a 'trash compactor' which converted domestic refuse andbarely-edible forest products and field waste into meat. Once sheep andgoats became valuable producers of secondary products in temperateEurope, pigs would have been the animals that could be liquidated asindividual small units. Where does this leave cattle? Cattle simply do not make sense as aninvestment for meat alone or only as insurance against agriculturaldeficits, particularly in an agricultural system in which the householdwas the primary productive unit. Cattle take almost 4 years to reachtheir optimal meat weight. Cows and draught oxen have productive livesup to a decade. For a Neolithic household, the investment made in a cow,bull or ox would have had a different character and purpose from thatmade in a sheep, goat or pig, Cattle would have been for the long term,to be liquidated only when their value began to decline or in emergency. Individual households in Neolithic Europe presumably pre��sum��a��ble?adj.That can be presumed or taken for granted; reasonable as a supposition: presumable causes of the disaster. kept smallcattle herds. In the forested environment of central Europe, limitationson grazing land and on household labour would have kept the herds small.Neolithic households probably kept no more than in many central Europeanfarmsteads today, at most 10 head of cattle and usually far fewer. Thesmaller the herd, the greater the need to maximize the productivity ofeach individual (Low 1985: 111-12). A household simply would not havethe luxury of raising cattle in such small numbers simply for beef.During the Early Neolithic in temperate Europe, before c. 3500 BC, apossible economic rationale for cattle keeping was provided by dairyproducts dairy productsdairy npl → produits laitierdairy productsdairy npl → Milchprodukte pl, Molkereiprodukte pl(Bogucki 1984; 1986). Males would have been useful only untilreaching their maximum meat weight between 42 and 48 months, with a fewbeing kept on for breeding. Cattle were still a costly investment, forto obtain the long-term productivity of half of the calves born, ahousehold had to absorb the expensive short-term productivity of theother half. Animal traction The emergence of animal traction in the 4th millennium BC wouldhave provided the missing element which made male cattle valuable beyondtheir 4th birthday. The birth of a male calf promised a long productivelife, rather than a passing windfall of meat four years hence. Animal traction enabled households to make a quantum leap quantum leapn.An abrupt change or step, especially in method, information, or knowledge: "War was going to take a quantum leap; it would never be the same"Garry Wills. in theirallocation of labour, by multiplying productive capacity beyond thatwhich human labour can provide. The two areas to which animal tractionwould be applied, tillage and cartage, address two of the mostlabour-intensive aspects of an agrarian economy: the production of fieldcrops and the transport of bulk goods from remote locations to theresidential base. Singh (1988) has discussed the economics of animal traction forplough agriculture in Burkina Faso Burkina Faso(burkē`nə fä`sō), republic (2005 est. pop. 13,925,000), 105,869 sq mi (274,200 sq km), W Africa. It borders on Mali in the west and north, on Niger in the northeast, on Benin in the southeast, and on Togo, Ghana, and (West Africa West AfricaA region of western Africa between the Sahara Desert and the Gulf of Guinea. It was largely controlled by colonial powers until the 20th century.West African adj. & n. ), one of the few modernsituations in which households using animal traction can be comparedwith those that do not, although the crops used (millet millet,common name for several species of grasses cultivated mainly for cereals in the Eastern Hemisphere and for forage and hay in North America. The principal varieties are the foxtail, pearl, and barnyard millets and the proso millet, called also broomcorn millet , sorghum sorghum,tall, coarse annual (Sorghum vulgare) of the family Gramineae (grass family), somewhat similar in appearance to corn (but having the grain in a panicle rather than an ear) and used for much the same purposes. ,peanuts and corn) are not directly comparable with European Neolithicwheat and barley. Singh found households using animal traction are ableto cultivate an area almost twice that of households without animaltraction. He does not entirely attribute this to animal traction,however, since these were also generally larger households (averaging13.5 members as opposed to 9.9 members for non-traction households) andthe direction of causality between these two characteristics is notknown. Even correcting for family size, however, households using animaltraction brought more land under cultivation. A labour-hour in atraction-using household cultivated about 30% more land than in anon-traction using household. Yields per hectare actually dropped withanimal traction for millet and sorghum, but the increased area meantthat the absolute yield per household was considerably higher. In themost significant finding, the use of animal traction saved labour inputper unit area by an average of 30--40%, particularly on heavier claysoils. Other studies in West Africa (Barrett et al. 1982) indicate thathouseholds with oxploughs expend 31% less labour time per hectare thanhouseholds with hand hoes. In Ethiopia, McCann (1984: 4) reports, afrequent rate of exchange is one day's use of a team of oxen forfour or five days of human labour. The labour costs involved inmaintaining the animals can be spread throughout the year outside of thecrop cycle and through members of the household too young to contributeto field labour. In the West African West AfricaA region of western Africa between the Sahara Desert and the Gulf of Guinea. It was largely controlled by colonial powers until the 20th century.West African adj. & n. study reported by Barrett et al.(1982: 65--6), the average age of those taking care of livestock was12.6 years, so cattle allow young household members to contributetowards work in which they would otherwise not participate. Animaltraction can thus significantly alter the producer/consumer ratio thatChayanov (1986) viewed as the determinant of the economic success of ahousehold. Oxen pulling wagons would have reduced household labour costssubstantially as well. What would have been carted? Whilesubsistence-oriented archaeologists would look first towards crops, thismay not have been the primary use of wagons, and it would have beenseasonal in any event. Rather, carts would have been used more for bulkitems that needed to be supplied regularly and which would requiremultiple trips to and from remote locations. An example would be fodder,in the form either of tree branches or of hay. Quite possibly, however,the most important item for carting would have been wood, in the form oftimber for construction and for firewood. Archaeologists have rarely paid serious attention to the fuelrequirements of prehistoric settlements, which even in premetallurgytimes would have been considerable. Firewood should not necessarily beequated with logs. At Bronocice, most of the charcoal remains were fromsmall branches used as firewood (S. Milisauskas pers. comm.), and eventhe gathering of adequate kindling and small limbs from short distancesrequires considerable time. Neolithic fires would have been kept burningconstantly, and 'temperate' Europe can become very cold evenon a summer night. Recent studies of Third World economies have shownthat firewood collection is a significant time-consuming householdactivity, particularly for women, along with agricultural work and watercarrying (e.g. Barnes et al. 1984; Kumar & Hotchkiss 1988). By hand,it can take several hours daily in some environments. Using draughtanimals and a wagon, a household could save significant amounts of timein transporting and stockpiling firewood. The savings in human labour provided by animal traction could beapplied directly towards agricultural productivity Agricultural productivity is measured as the ratio of agricultural inputs to agricultural outputs. While individual products are usually measured by weight, their varying densities make measuring overall agricultural output difficult. or to otherextractive extractive/ex��trac��tive/ (-tiv) any substance present in an organized tissue, or in a mixture in a small quantity, and requiring extraction by a special method. ex��trac��tiveadj.1. activities, such as flint mining. Animal traction would havebeen especially important during the labour bottlenecks of theagricultural cycle. While it is not yet possible to say where the labourbottlenecks were in the Neolithic agricultural system (land clearanceand weeding seem the most likely), anything that would have allowed morehuman labour to be brought to bear would have had a pay-off inagricultural productivity. The emergence of animal traction in Neolithic Europe transformedthe role of domestic cattle from being simply sources of nutrition toproductive assets in the Neolithic agro-pastoral economy. Their rolewould have been different from that of livestock in primarily pastoralsocieties where they are exploited for milk and meat. In such societies,cattle are assets and perhaps capital, but in a very rudimentary sort ofway. In traction-using agricultural societies, however, cattle transformthe labour dimension of the production equation, making it extremelyelastic. The household that has control of draft animals is able tomanage its labour in a way that is less constrained by its developmentalcycle that the household without traction. Animal traction also wouldhave affected the labour supply of a Neolithic household in a way thatpermitted it to develop many other dimensions Other Dimensions is a collection of stories by author Clark Ashton Smith. It was released in 1970 and was the author's sixth collection of stories published by Arkham House. It was released in an edition of 3,144 copies. of its accumulationstrategy as well -- higher crop yields, small-stock ownership,participation in other extractive and production activities. Cattle and Neolithic household accumulation strategies The ownership of cattle as a productive asset would have introducedan important dimension to the Neolithic household's accumulationstrategy. Cattle and their offspring became a means to transfer capitalassets capital assetsn. equipment, property, and funds owned by a business. (See: capital, capital account) across generations. Let us consider the possible ways in which aNeolithic household could acquire cattle. We can presume that most new households would have been limited inthe number of cattle that they could possess. Brideprice, gifts andinheritance could have transferred livestock from parental households tothose of offspring. Barter for small stock or other products would allowa household in the upward swing of its accumulation cycle to acquirecattle. Once a household had acquired enough cattle, the birth of calveswould have formed a significant part of the accumulation strategy, topropagate the household herd or to exchange outside the household. Onealso cannot rule out the possibility of theft and rustling from otherhouseholds, although it is doubtful that such irregular practices wouldhave been common in a tightly-knit Neolithic community. Warfare orraiding between communities, perhaps more frequent (Milisauskas &Kruk 1989: 88--9), would have been another avenue for the acquisition oflivestock. These mechanisms would lead to direct property rights of thehousehold over the stock, their products and their work. Many societies, both pastoral and agropastoral, offer otherinstitutions through which new households or households without adequatelivestock can obtain the use of animals. These involve the lending orrenting of livestock, either for their subsistence products or for theirtraction. The lending can be either for as short as a single day (e.g.the use of a team of oxen) or for the life of the animal (e.g. thehusbanding of animals by livestock-less household). Loaning out a teamof oxen gives a household an additional return on the animals'maintenance, since it is doubtful that they could be in use at all timeson one farmstead. Indeed, it may have been more effective for smaller ornew households to borrow draught animals rather than commit time andenergy to their maintenance. Long-term lending also has economicrationale. If livestock are viewed as productive assets, it represents away to manage the resources of the cattle-owning household, whichretains control over the productive assets and 'value' of theanimals while shifting the labour costs of maintenance to others (Starr1987). These arrangements involve households as lenders in the expansionand consolidation stage, and households as borrowers in theestablishment or decline stage. Such mechanisms for the transfer ofcapital resources across generations are routine in many societies inorder to ensure the eventual establishment of new households as viableeconomic units. Although an asymmetrical relationship may exist betweenborrower and lender, the developmental cycle of the new household and asuccessful accumulation strategy will make this a temporary situation.Once the household reaches its expansion and consolidation phase,participation in such a relationship may cease to be necessary. The developmental cycle and the accumulation strategy of ahousehold does not always follow an idealized model. The human membersof a household are prone to disease, accidents and death. Animalpopulations are vulnerable to disease, predation predationForm of food getting in which one animal, the predator, eats an animal of another species, the prey, immediately after killing it or, in some cases, while it is still alive. Most predators are generalists; they eat a variety of prey species. and theft. Baddecisions were as much a reality of Neolithic life as they are today.The premature demise of prime breeding stock or draught oxen wouldseriously disrupt a household's management of its livestock assets.Several calamities could put a household into a downward spiral fromwhich it would be difficult to recover simply by reallocating otherresources (such as by trading small stock, intensifying agriculturalproduction, selling labour or exchanging offspring for brideprice ordowry). Livestock, especially cattle, were not 'money in thebank' for the Neolithic household but an investment which carriedrisk of failure. If livestock, particularly cattle, emerged as productive assets inLate Neolithic Europe, the potential was created for some households tofind themselves in a downward spiral brought on by hazards, calamities,and mismanagement mis��man��age?tr.v. mis��man��aged, mis��man��ag��ing, mis��man��ag��esTo manage badly or carelessly.mis��manage��ment n. . Failing households would be limited in the degree towhich assets could be transferred to subsequent generations, creating aneconomic stagnation Economic stagnation, often called simply stagnation is a prolonged period of slow economic growth (traditionally measured in terms of the GDP growth). By some definitions, "slow" means that it is significantly slower than a potential growth as estimated by experts in or improverishment. Other households, emerging withdisproportionate control over livestock, could transfer them todescendants, or loan them to other households in need of either draughtanimals or livestock of their own to produce secondary products. Thesehouseholds would have found themselves in an upward spiral ofacquisition, particularly as livestock multiplied and wise managementdecisions continued. Emergence of dependency relationships We tend to think about the origins of social differentiation interms of the emergence of elites. Typically, the model is one of a smallsegment rising above the rest of society to economic or social dominanceor to greater authority. Movement is seen as invariably in��var��i��a��ble?adj.Not changing or subject to change; constant.in��vari��a��bil upward, towardsthe apex of a progressively more exclusive pyramid of social hierarchy Social hierarchyA fundamental aspect of social organization that is established by fighting or display behavior and results in a ranking of the animals in a group. .Yet we really do not know much about the process of socialdifferentiation within previously 'egalitarian' societies. Isit always that an elite rises, or is it the disadvantaged who fall?While these are two sides of the same coin, new perspectives on theemergence of social differentiation follow from an examination of thelatter possibility. In other words Adv. 1. in other words - otherwise stated; "in other words, we are broke"put differently , rather than some individuals orhouseholds emerging as an 'elite' at the very beginning of aprocess of social differentiation, perhaps it was the other way around,with improverished households slipping below the societal 'averagerange' for assets. The apparent development of elites andhierarchies may have been only a later development when the number ofdisadvantaged began to outweigh those who had retained access to wealthand status. The interplay of animal traction, secondary products, andagricultural productivity would have set Neolithic households withoutadequate livestock at a disadvantage. Let us expand on the consequencesfor a household unable to take advantage of animal traction and tocontrol adequate domestic livestock at crucial times. Peters (1986: 140)reports from Botswana: Households at the end of the queue for draft power are likely to bekept there not only by the conditions of production but also by laborsupply factors. Many exchanges for draft power involve the offer of ahousehold member's labor in return for the use of draft. As aresult, cattleless farming households run the risk not only of failingto acquire draft animals early enough to plant at the 'best'times but also of having to provide labor during the crop cycle on thelender's fields at the expense of their own fields. Poorerhouseholds may be unable to break out of a cycle of low output andincome in part because they lack adequate access to draft and in partbecause, to borrow draft, they are forced to spend less time on theirown fields than they would wish or than is necessary. Under these conditions, households trapped in a downward spiralcould be forced to enter into dependency relationships with others. Suchrelationships might take a variety of forms. For instance, ethnohistoricsources document the existence of clientship during the 1st millenniumAD in Ireland (Gibson 1988), and descriptions of this institution inCeltic society by Caesar and others indicate that it was widespread inlater prehistoric western Europe Western EuropeThe countries of western Europe, especially those that are allied with the United States and Canada in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (established 1949 and usually known as NATO). (Champion 1985). Clientship is oftenmentioned in ethnographic accounts as a consequence of the inequitabledistribution of animal traction (e.g. Alverson 1979; Peters 1986). Whileit would be premature to say that hypothesized dependency relationshipsbetween households in Late Neolithic Europe already had the contractualform of patron--client relationships, it may eventually be possible todemonstrate that elements of the social structure of later prehistoricand early historic Europe have considerable antiquity. Conclusion Is it an overstatement o��ver��state?tr.v. o��ver��stat��ed, o��ver��stat��ing, o��ver��statesTo state in exaggerated terms. See Synonyms at exaggerate.o to say that the roots of socialdifferentiation in prehistoric Europe lie in animal ownership, with thedevelopment of animal traction as the crucial turning point? Perhaps.Nonetheless, I am persuaded that the opportunities for households topursue accumulation strategies, constrained by their developmental cycleand environmental hazards and with cattle as a vehicle for the transferof assets across generations, provided a set of conditions whichcontained the kernel of variation in access to status, power and wealth.Within such a system, other factors, such as trade in metals and flint,could have added a 'multiplier effect', yet it is difficult tosee how trade alone could have formed the basis of an agrarianhousehold's accumulation strategy. Instead, livestock -- especiallydraught animals -- provided self-regenerating productive assets in theway that they displaced human labour and provided greater elasticity inthe household labour budget. In a recent article in ANTIQUITY, David Anthony David Lamar Anthony (born 1948), better known as David Anthony, is a convicted murderer who allegedly killed his wife and her two children. The Anthony murder case and subsequent trial received much media attention in the United States, particularly in Arizona. & Dorcas Browndeclared (1991: 22) Horses, not wheels, provided the first significant innovation inhuman land transport, with an effect comparable in scope to that of theintroduction of the steam locomotive or private automobile. Horses and cattle had impacts on different scales and in differentways. Horse riding indeed triggered an important transformation of humanmobility and social interaction over long distances. On a mundane leveland a local scale, the ownership of livestock, particularly of cattleused as draught animals, may have provided a source of householddifferentiation equally significant for human social development in theOld World. When archaeologists are interested in exotic tin and copper,trade and exchange, mortuary ritual and burial monuments as proxyevidence for late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age Bronze Age,period in the development of technology when metals were first used regularly in the manufacture of tools and weapons. Pure copper and bronze, an alloy of copper and tin, were used indiscriminately at first; this early period is sometimes called the social differentiation, itis all too easy for them to overlook the lowly oxen. Acknowledgements. Pam Crabtree, Sarunas Milisauskas and RobertHunt Robert Hunt may refer to: Robert Hunt (chaplain), (c. 1568-1608) Robert Hunt (scientist), (1807–1887) Robert Hunt (illustrator), (1952– ) Robert Hunt (football coach), former National Football League player and now football coach , along with two anonymous reviewers, made very helpful comments onan earlier draft of this essay, although responsibility for its contentrests solely with the author. Penny Malyszka helped immensely in thepreparation of the manuscript. References ALVERSON, H. 1979. Arable agriculture in Botswana: somecontributions of the traditional social formation, Rural Africana 4--5:33--47. ANTHONY, D. & D. BROWN. 1991. The origins of horseback riding,Antiquity 65: 22--38. ASHMORE, W. & R. WILK. 1988. Introduction, in R. Wilk & W.Ashmore (ed.), Household and community in the Mesoamerican past: 1--28.Albuquerque (NM): University of New Mexico Press The University of New Mexico Press, founded in 1929, is a university press that is part of the University of New Mexico. External linkUniversity of New Mexico Press . BARLETT, P. 1982. Agricultural choice and change: decision makingin a Costa-Rican community. New Brunswick (NJ): Rutgers UniversityPress Rutgers University Press is a nonprofit academic publishing house, operating in Piscataway, New Jersey under the auspices of Rutgers University. The press was founded in 1936, and since that time has grown in size and in the scope of its publishing program. . BARNES, C., J. ENSMINGER & P. O'KEEFE (ed.) 1984. Wood,energy, and households: perspectives on rural Kenya. Stockholm: BeijerInstitute. BARRETT, V., G. LASSITER, D. WILCOCK, D. BAKER & E. CRAWFORD.1982. Animal traction in Eastern Upper Volta: a technical, economic, andinstitutional analysis. East Lansing (MI): Department of AgriculturalEconomics, Michigan State University Michigan State University,at East Lansing; land-grant and state supported; coeducational; chartered 1855. It opened in 1857 as Michigan Agricultural College, the first state agricultural college. . BARTH, F. 1964. Capital, investment, and the social structure of apastoral nomad nomad(nō`măd'), one of a group of people without fixed habitation, especially pastoralists. (Some authorities prefer the terms "nonsedentary" or "migratory" rather than "nomadic" to describe mobile hunter-gatherers. group in South Persia, in R. Firth & B.S. Yamey(ed.), Capital, savings, and credit in peasant societies: 69--81.London: G. Allen. BAWDEN, G. 1982. Community organization reflected by the household,Journal of Field Archaeology 9: 165--81. BOGUCKI, P. 1984. Linear Pottery ceramic sieves and their economicimplications, Oxford Journal of Archaeology 3(1): 15--30. 1986. The antiquity of dairying in temperate Europe, Expedition28(2): 51--8. 1988. Forest farmers and stockherders: early agriculture and itsconsequences in north-Central Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress Cambridge University Press (known colloquially as CUP) is a publisher given a Royal Charter by Henry VIII in 1534, and one of the two privileged presses (the other being Oxford University Press). . BOGUCKI, P. & R. GRYGIEL. 1981. The household cluster at BrzescKujawski 3: small-site methodology in the Polish Lowlands, WorldArchaeology 13: 59--72. BOURDIEU, P. 1977. Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press. CHAMPION, T.C. 1985. Written sources and the study of the EuropeanIron Age, in T.C. Champion & J.V.S. Megaw (ed.), Settlement andsociety: aspects of west European prehistory prehistory,period of human evolution before writing was invented and records kept. The term was coined by Daniel Wilson in 1851. It is followed by protohistory, the period for which we have some records but must still rely largely on archaeological evidence to in the first millennium BC:9--22. New York New York, state, United StatesNew York,Middle Atlantic state of the United States. It is bordered by Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and the Atlantic Ocean (E), New Jersey and Pennsylvania (S), Lakes Erie and Ontario and the Canadian province of (NY): St Martin's Press. CHAPMAN, J.C. 1982. 'The Secondary Products Revolution'and the limitations of the Neolithic, Bulletin of the Institute ofArchaeology The Institute of Archaeology is an academic department of University College London (UCL), in the United Kingdom. The Institute is located in a separate building at the north end of Gordon Square, Bloomsbury. 19: 107--22. 1989. Review of Forest farmers and stockherders: early agricultureand its consequences in north-Central Europe by Peter Bogucki,Archaeological Journal 146: 593--5. CHAYANOV, A.V. 1986. The theory of peasant economy. Madison (WI):University of Wisconsin Press The University of Wisconsin Press (or UW Press), founded in 1936, is a university press that is part of the Graduate School of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, United States. It published under its own name and the imprint The Popular Press. . CLARK, J.G.D. 1952. Prehistoric Europe: the economic basis. London:Methuen. DAVIS Davis,city (1990 pop. 46,209), Yolo co., central Calif.; settled in the 1850s, inc. 1917. It is an education center with light industry; machinery, processed foods, and computer equipment are produced. The extensive Univ. , S. 1984. The advent of milk and wool production in westernIran: some speculations, in J. Clutton-Brock & C. Grigson (ed.),Animals and archaeology 3: Early herders and their flocks: 265--78.Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. International series S202. ELLIS, F. 1988. Peasant economics: farm households and agrariandevelopment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. GIBSON, D.B. 1988. Agro-pastoralism and regional socialorganisation in early Ireland, in D.B. Gibson & M. Geselowitz (ed.),Tribe and polity in late prehistoric Europe: 41--68. New York (NY):Plenum Press. GREENFIELD, H.J. 1988. The origins of milk and wool production inthe Old World: a zooarchaeological perspective from the Central Balkans,Current Anthropology 29: 573--93. 1989. Zooarchaeology and aspects of the secondary productsrevolution: a central Balkan perspective, Archaeozoologia 3: 191--200. GRYGIEL, R. 1986. The household cluster as a fundamental socialunit of the Brzesc Kujawski group of the Lengyel culture, Prace iMateria y Muzeum Archeologicznego i Etnograficznego (archaeologicalseries) 31: 43--334. HUIJSMAN, A. 1986. Choice and uncertainty in a semi-subsistenceeconomy. Amsterdam: Koninklijk Instituut voor de Tropen. JAEGER, W.K. 1986. Agricultural mechanization mechanizationUse of machines, either wholly or in part, to replace human or animal labour. Unlike automation, which may not depend at all on a human operator, mechanization requires human participation to provide information or instruction. : the economics ofanimal draft power in West Africa. Boulder (CO): Westview. JOHNSON, A.W. 1989. Horticulturalists: economic behavior in tribes,in S. Plattner (ed.), Economic anthropology: 49--77. Stanford (CA):Stanford University Press. JOHNSON, A.W. & T. EARLE. 1987. The evolution of humansocieties. Stanford (CA): Stanford University Press. KRISTIANSEN, K. 1982. The formation of tribal systems in laterEuropean prehistory: northern Europe 4000--800 BC, in C. Renfrew, M.Rowlands & B. Seagraves (ed.), Theory and explanation inarchaeology: 241--80: London: Academic Press. KUMAR, S.K. & D. HOTCHKISS. 1988. Consequences of deforestation deforestationProcess of clearing forests. Rates of deforestation are particularly high in the tropics, where the poor quality of the soil has led to the practice of routine clear-cutting to make new soil available for agricultural use. for women's time allocation, agricultural production, and nutritionin hill Areas of Nepal. Washington (DC): International Food PolicyResearch Institute The International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) was founded in 1975 to develop policy solutions for meeting the food needs of the developing world in a sustainable way. . Research Report 69. LOW, A. 1986. Agricultural development in southern Africa. London:James Currey. MCCANN, J. 1984. Plows, oxen, and household managers: areconsideration of the land paradigm and the production equation innortheast Ethiopia. Boston (MA): African Studies Center, BostonUniversity. Working Paper 95. MEILLASOUX, C. 1972. From reproduction to production, Economy andSociety 1: 93--105. MILISAUSKAS, S. & J. KRUK. 1984. Settlement organization andthe appearance of low level hierarchical societies during the Neolithicin the Bronocice microregion, southeastern Poland, Germania 62: 1--30. 1989. Economy, migration, settlement organization, and warfareduring the Late Neolithic in southeastern Poland, Germania 67: 77--96. 1991. Utilization of cattle for traction during the later Neolithicin southeastern Poland, Antiquity 65: 562--6. NETTING, R. 1974. Agrarian ecology, Annual Review of Anthropology3: 21--56. NETTING, R., R. WILK & E. ARNOULD (ed.) 1984. Households.comparative and historical studies of the domestic group. Berkeley (CA):University of California Press "UC Press" redirects here, but this is also an abbreviation for University of Chicago PressUniversity of California Press, also known as UC Press, is a publishing house associated with the University of California that engages in academic publishing. . PETERS, P.E. 1986. Household management in Botswana: cattle, crops,and wage labor, in J.L. Moock (ed.), Understanding Africa's ruralhouseholds and farming systems: 133--54. Boulder (CO): Westview. POLANYI, K. 1957. The economy as instituted process, in K. Polanyi,C. Arensberg & H. Pearson (ed.), Trade and market in the earlyempires: 243--70. New York (NY): Free Press. RICHARDS, P. 1985. Indigenous agricultural revolution: ecology andfood production in West Africa. London: Hutchinson. SHABAZI, A. 1992. The impact of energy shortages on the timelinessof agricultural operations, Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 38:167--78. SHERRATT, A.G. 1981. Plough and pastoralism PastoralismArcadiamountainous region of ancient Greece; legendary for pastoral innocence of people. [Gk. Hist.: NCE, 136; Rom. Lit.: Eclogues; Span. Lit. : aspects of thesecondary products revolution, in I. Hodder, G. Isaac & N. Hammond(ed.), Pattern of the past: studies in honour of David Clarke: 261--305.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1983. The secondary exploitation of animals in the Old World, WorldArchaeology 15: 90--104. SINGH, R.D. 1988. Economics of the family and farming systems insub-Saharan Africa. Boulder (CO): Westview Press. STARR, M.A. 1987. Risk, environmental variability, anddrought-induced impoverishment: the pastoral economy of central Niger,Africa 57: 29--50. SUTTER, J.W. 1987. Cattle and inequality: herd size differences andpastoral production among the Fulani of northeastern Senegal, Africa 57:196--217. TRINGHAM, R. 1991. Households with faces: the challenge of genderin prehistoric architectural remains, in J. Gero & M. Conkey (ed.),Engendering archaeology: women and prehistory: 93--131. Oxford: BasilBlackwell. TRINGHAM, R. & D. KRSTIC. 1990. Conclusion: Selevac in thewider context of European prehistory, in R. Tringham & D. Krstic(ed.), Selevac, a Neolithic village in Yugoslavia: 567--616. Los Angeles(CA): Institute of Archaeology. WEBSTER, G. 1990. Labor control and emergent stratification inprehistoric Europe, Current Anthropology 31: 337--66.