The dynamics of wealth and poverty in the Transegalitarian societies of Southeast Asia.

The dynamics of wealth and poverty in the Transegalitarian societies of Southeast Asia. Introduction The goal of this article is to describe a major sector of thewealth-producing systems of tribal Southeast Asia and to understand themajor constraints in wealth production and accumulation. Four domainsexist where wealth is generated in traditional, subsistence andagriculture-based economies: agriculture, domestic animals, regionalexchange and feasting. Feasting and agriculture are analysed elsewhere(see papers in Dietler & Hayden 2001), while the mechanics anddynamics of regional exchange have been studied since Malinowski (1961).In contrast, there is much less information available on aspects ofanimal domestication domesticationProcess of hereditary reorganization of wild animals and plants into forms more accommodating to the interests of people. In its strictest sense, it refers to the initial stage of human mastery of wild animals and plants. that generate inequalities. Therefore, in thisarticle, I will focus on domestic animals as a source of wealth. Domestic animals provide an instructive discussion of wealth forseveral reasons. First, from a Southeast Asian emic viewpoint, domesticanimals are strongly identified with wealth. Second, in Southeast Asiathey play critical roles in the entire feasting complex upon whichconsiderable socioeconomic and political inequality is based (see Clarke1998; 2001). Third, the specific and detailed constraints on householdanimal production in Southeast Asia are very poorly understood byarchaeologists. And fourth, traditional animal-raising strategies seemuniform throughout most of tribal Southeast Asia. Raising and using animals I have argued previously (Hayden 1990; 1992; 1995) that animalswere domesticated do��mes��ti��cate?tr.v. do��mes��ti��cat��ed, do��mes��ti��cat��ing, do��mes��ti��cates1. To cause to feel comfortable at home; make domestic.2. To adopt or make fit for domestic use or life.3. a. primarily to increase fat content and desirability(and availability) for feasting. Perhaps nowhere else in the world isthe importance of domesticated animals This article or section may contain original research or unverified claims.Please help Wikipedia by adding references. See the for details.This article has been tagged since September 2007.This is a list of animals which have been domesticated by humans. for feasting more evident than inSoutheast Asia, although I suspect transegalitarian uses of animalsfollow a similar pattern almost everywhere (e.g. Keswani 1994). Indeed,in tribal Southeast Asia, often the only traditional use of domesticanimals (cattle, buffalo, pigs, ducks, and chickens) is for feasting andsacrifices (water buffalo water buffalo:see buffalo. water buffaloor Indian buffaloAny of three subspecies of oxlike bovid (species Bubalus bubalis). Two have been domesticated in Asia since the earliest recorded history. were also used for traction where paddy fieldsexisted). Otherwise, meat from domestic animals simply does not seem tohave been consumed. Keeping pigs in Oceanic societies has even beencalled a `luxury occupation' or `ostentatious os��ten��ta��tious?adj.Characterized by or given to ostentation; pretentious. See Synonyms at showy.os waste' (seeStrathern 1971: 131); while in Thailand, all hill-tribe domestic animalswere traditionally under-utilized for work functions or secondaryproducts, and they were viewed as a `supplement to subsistence'(Kunstadter 1978: 105). However, acquiring economic, social andpolitical benefits from feasting, and being successful at feasting, washighly dependent on success in raising animals (Strathern 1971: 134-5;Clarke 1998; 2001). In addition, there appears to be a general consensus that mediumand large domestic animals were used as a means of providing insuranceagainst bad crop years or other misfortunes. Surpluses were used toraise pigs or care for cattle which could be exchanged or eaten in timesof need (Strathern 1971: 131). Raising live stock was viewed like havinga bank account (Falvey 1977: 22-3, 38, 40, 86; Shubert 1986: 81).However, unlike modern banking, there were major risks and possibleliabilities in the form of damage compensations entailed in theinvestments in animals. In this respect and others, a better analogy forraising domestic animals would be like investing in the `stock'market rather than a bank. During fieldwork in northern Thailand Northern Thailand, one of the 5 regional groups of Thailand, usually describes the area covered by 17 provinces. Chiang Mai Chiang Rai Kamphaeng Phet Lampang Lamphun Mae Hong Son Nakhon Sawan Nan Phayao Phetchabun and Vietnam, I was confrontedby a number of critical problems in trying to understand why poorfamilies did not seem able to increase their production of domesticanimals. The main difficulty in modelling wealth production arose fromobservations that cattle, water buffalo and pigs (the mainstays of thefeasting complex) largely foraged for themselves in forests. Theyapparently did not require much, if any, fodder or care from their humanowners. If this was true, how did they really differ from wild animals WILD ANIMALS. Animals in a state of nature; animals ferae naturae. Vide Animals; Ferae naturae. ?What limited the animal populations within village territories? How wasownership exerted over animals? How were they retrieved from forestswhen needed? And why did more poor households not raise these animals? Answers to these questions proved difficult to obtain given theabstract nature of the concepts involved, problems in communication andsubstantial changes in traditional economies and land tenure land tenure:see tenure, in law. everywherein Southeast Asia in the last three decades. Initially, there seemed tobe no obvious constraints on animal food resources (or at least no wayof controlling who had access to grazing lands), no labour constraintsand no major capital requirements Capital requirementsFinancing required for the operation of a business, composed of long-term and working capital plus fixed assets. except modest ones related to thelargest domestic animals. With almost no apparent constraints, it was amystery why more people did not raise animals. Several regionalethnographers suggested that the poor were poor simply because they werenot interested in working to acquire wealth; the poor were notinterested in feasting and the extra work that it entailed; or that thepoor were not even interested in raising animals using minimal extraefforts. Other factors that I thought might limit the production ofanimals included high risks of animal losses, costs associated withdamages animals might cause, care costs such as tending animals orbuilding shelters, start-up costs, hidden labour or feeding costs, anddrug or alcohol addictions of household members. The magnitude of inequality and ownership According to according toprep.1. As stated or indicated by; on the authority of: according to historians.2. In keeping with: according to instructions.3. expressed emic views, there are no rich or poorhouseholds in most tribal communities. Everyone is supposed to be thesame. Yet there are very apparent differences between households thateven casual observers can note: differences in house size, house quality(e.g. dirt floors vs raised pilings), house contents and quality ofclothes and jewellery. In addition, Clarke (1998) has documented majordifferences between households in the magnitude and frequency of hostedfeasts. Numerous other authors have noted fairly substantial differencesbetween households in wealth levels (Alting von Gesau 1983; Shubert1986: 55ff). The Shubert study reports that 44% of all households are indebt, i.e. cannot sustain themselves by their own productive efforts.Chamberlain (1996: 31-2) also reports rice deficits as common among thehill tribes of central Laos, where rice is the preferred staple.Moreover, while most households had eaten meat (most probably in afeast) in the previous 10-20 days, 10% of the households had not had anymeat for over 30 days, indicating some substantial nutritionaldifferences between poor and well-off households. As well, pig fat (akey component for traditional cooking) was absent in 28% of thehouseholds in his survey. Because medium and large domestic animals probably constitute themajor form of wealth in tribal Southeast Asia, it is especiallyinstructive to examine data concerning animal ownership. Falvey (1977:27-36, 39) provides the most detailed data from a very large sample ofethnically varied communities. His data are particularly interestingbecause they were collected before major economic change. In general,only 30-50% of households in most communities owned stock (FIGURES 1& 2). Stock owners were more wealthy than non-stock owners. Whilemedian household herd size was less than 5, 30% of the village herdswere generally owned by a single household, usually that of the villageheadman or other influential people (FIGURE 3). Village herd sizesusually varied between 40-100 head. In fact, Falvey (1977: 23, 53) notedthat the village headman's house could often be identified from thehigh density of manure surrounding it, a potentially important detailfor archaeological investigations. He also notes a much smallerproportion of poor households to rich or moderately well-off householdsthan is the case for more stratified stratified/strat��i��fied/ (strat��i-fid) formed or arranged in layers. strat��i��fiedadj.Arranged in the form of layers or strata. societies (FIGURE 4), as well as amuch higher proportion of `rich' (i.e. stock owning) households(Falvey 1977: 41), although there is still a large gap between theaverage `rich' households and the richest of the rich. This is apattern that seems to be prevalent throughout tribal Southeast Asia(e.g. Leach 1954; Condominas 1977; Clarke 1998). I suggest thatFalvey's portrayal of the inverted pyramid For the structure in the Louvre in Paris, France, see .The inverted pyramid is a metaphor used to illustrate how information should be arranged or presented within a text, in particular within a news story.The "pyramid" can also be drawn as a triangle. distribution of wealthresources is probably typical of transegalitarian wealth distributionsin general (Hayden 1997). [GRAPHS OMITTED] Given a general distribution of animals such as Falvey describes,why are there animal-poor and animal-rich households? One of the mainissues that must be addressed is whether some individuals have decidedvoluntarily to opt out of participating in a surplus-demanding,time-consuming, traditional ritual and feasting complex, or whether theyhave been manipulated and manoeuvered into a marginalized socioeconomicposition by more powerful members of their community. The suggestionmust also be considered that dependence on alcohol or opium may accountfor the lack of motivation in poor households. While alcohol and opium dependency certainly do account for manycases of poverty, Cooper (1984: xix-xx) has noted that many wealthyhouseholds also use opium regularly and that opium addiction is usuallynot a problem unless the household is poor. Aside from addictions, it isdifficult to imagine many people willing to renounce their economic andpolitical stakes in a community by opting out of the traditionalfeasting complex. The resulting marginalization mar��gin��al��ize?tr.v. mar��gin��al��ized, mar��gin��al��iz��ing, mar��gin��al��iz��esTo relegate or confine to a lower or outer limit or edge, as of social standing. would simply be toorisky and costly, potentially leading to high fines, indebtedness,forced use of poor quality land, inability to marry and even enslavement en��slave?tr.v. en��slaved, en��slav��ing, en��slavesTo make into or as if into a slave.en��slavement n. or death. For instance, Condominas (1977: 94, 338-9) describes how onewoman's father had bought a large quantity of fish fromneighbouring people. Her father had paid for the fish with a billhookmachete. But when her father died, the neighbouring vendors claimed thatthey had never received the machete. The administrator and judges of thewoman's village agreed to pay their neighbour a sabre, vest, andturban to settle the dispute, with most of the costs being born by thehead of the lineage. The lineage head then demanded reimbursement fromthe widow who had no wealth. The widow, as well as her three youngchildren and her young sister, were unable to pay these inflated sumsand were therefore sold into slavery for a total of 10 gongs and 24water buffaloes -- recompense RECOMPENSE. A reward for services; remuneration for goods or other property. 2. In maritime law there is a distinction between recompense and restitution. (q.v. out of all proportion to the original debtthat was claimed. Thus, opting out of the feasting and support networkmay leave one open to socioeconomic 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. . As we shall see shortly, beside the risks of not being able torepay debts, there are several other more practical constraints onanimal raising that clearly do exist and that have the effect ofincreasing the cost of animal breeding well above the level most poorhouseholds could cope with. These constraints may have beenintentionally manipulated (and undoubtedly were so manipulated in somecases) by the more powerful members of the community for their ownadvantage (see Condominas 1977). Thus, while there are undoubtedly a fewindividuals who genuinely lack motivation or aspiration to defend theirown interests in the community or to participate in the feasting-socialcomplex, and while addictions certainly affect some households'ability to produce wealth, it is also apparent that there are very realpractical constraints that prevent many interested and aspiringhouseholds from becoming fully enfranchised in their communities. Let usdiscuss these constraints. Forage and feed Impressionistically, it always appears that there are far fewercattle and buffalo than might be supported in village forested areas andregenerating forest of old swidden swid��den?n.An area cleared for temporary cultivation by cutting and burning the vegetation.[Dialectal alteration of obsolete swithen, from Old Norse svidhna, to be burned.] plots. This impression is reinforcedby the observation that forage rights outside actively farmed swiddensnever seem to be restricted or controlled in any way within avillage's territory. Quantitative data also seem to confirm thisassessment. Falvey (1977: 55) uses an estimate of 15 ha (a range of 7-25ha) of forest forage required for every free-range head of cattle orbuffalo. Theera Visitpanich (pers. comm.) uses a similar estimate ofabout 20 ha per head (about 50 head per square kilometre Square kilometre (U.S. spelling: square kilometer), symbol km2, is a decimal multiple of the SI unit of surface area, the square metre, one of the SI derived units. 1 km2 is equal to: 1,000,000 m2 100 ha (hectare) Conversely: 1 m2 = 0. ). Theseestimates compare favourably with the 12 ha per head of deciduous deciduous/de��cid��u��ous/ (de-sid��u-us) falling off or shed at maturity, as the teeth of the first dentition. de��cid��u��ousadj.1. forestthat Gregg (1988: 106) uses for Neolithic Europe 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). . In Southeast Asia, themore grass (Imperata) graze that is available, either naturally or fromcultural effects, the higher the density and herd size a village will beable to maintain, reaching densities of up to one head per 1-5 ha. Thus,Falvey (1977: 107) reports that (presumably pre��sum��a��ble?adj.That can be presumed or taken for granted; reasonable as a supposition: presumable causes of the disaster. rich) villagers often opposereforestation ReforestationThe reestablishment of forest cover either naturally or artificially. Given enough time, natural regeneration will usually occur in areas where temperatures and rainfall are adequate and when grazing and wildfires are not too frequent. programmes in order to retain as much grazing land aspossible for their stock. If we assume a mix of forest and grass (Greggassumes a 3:1 mix) and a village spacing of 5 km or so (creating villageareas of about 7 sq. km), it is apparent that most villages should beable to sustain herds many times larger than they, in fact, do.Therefore, what is the limiting factor A factor or condition that, either temporarily or permanently, impedes mission accomplishment. Illustrative examples are transportation network deficiencies, lack of in-place facilities, malpositioned forces or materiel, extreme climatic conditions, distance, transit or overflight rights, in herd size? Cattle and water buffalo are not fattened or fed, although they maybe given minimal amounts of feed. The general attitude is that cattleshould take care of themselves (Falvey 1977: 67). Cattle areperiodically given salt. While this is done more to control animals thanfor nutritional purposes, adding salt to ruminant ruminant,any of a group of hooved mammals that chew their cud, i.e., that regurgitate and chew again food that has already been swallowed. Ruminants have an even number of toes on each foot and a stomach with either three or four chambers. diets can increaseproduction by as much as 30% (Falvey 1977: 52; pers. comm. 1998). Treatment of pigs is very similar to stock, with a few importantdifferences. Pigs are generally raised on a free-range basis and theyobtain much of their food by themselves in the surrounding forest.However, unlike stock, there are three important consequences if pigsare allowed to forage entirely for themselves. First, pigs are much moredifficult to keep out of gardens. Since pigs generally only forage in adaily radius of 2-3 km, if they can be `tethered' in one way oranother to the village, fields can be placed farther than 3 km from thevillage, effectively beyond the foraging range of pigs. Second, if pigsare not given any food supplement to their forest forage, they only growat about half the rate of pigs that are regularly fed (it takes 2-5years for free-range pigs to reach the same weight as regularly fed pigsreach in 9-12 months -- Visitpanich & Falvey 1980: 264). In turn,the longer the growth period, the higher the risk of losing the pig todisease (a major recurring source of loss) as well as having to use anundersized undersizedsee dwarfism, runt. pig for a ritual feast prematurely. A third consequence ofletting pigs forage entirely by themselves is that pig nutrition is sopoor that mortality rates increase substantially and fertility may beadversely affected as well (Visitpanich pers. comm.). Because of all these concerns, pigs are generally fed foodsupplements (mainly rice bran, maize and banana stalk) which requirecrushing or boiling (Visitpanich & Falvey 1980: 263). By feedingeach pig about 0.5 kg of maize each day for 3-6 months (i.e. as long assurpluses generally last), a pig will attain 60 kg in a year, vs only 30kg without supplements. The amount given generally increases to 2-3 kgper day during the month before slaughtering. This fattening frequentlytakes place between the harvest and the tribal New Year celebrations, atime when crop surpluses are most abundant and pigs are in most demandfor feasting. By feeding pigs daily, they return to their owner'shouses every night. Without feeding, it would be impossible to get pigsto return to the villages and they would become feral feraluntamed; often used in the sense of having escaped from domesticity and run wild. , creatingconsiderable crop damage (Visitpanich pets. comm.; BounsermCheva-Isarakut pers. comm.). Given this situation, the domestic pig The domestic pig (Sus scrofa domestica) is normally given the scientific name Sus scrofa, though some taxonomists use the term S. domestica, reserving S. scrofa for the wild boar. population is obviously heavily dependent on the ability of householdsto produce surplus food. Cattle density appears to be constrained byother factors. Risks and costs As noted earlier, raising animals is generally viewed as aninvestment of surpluses for future contingencies. However, being able togenerate surpluses may not be an option for some households due to lackof labour, incapacitation in��ca��pac��i��tate?tr.v. in��ca��pac��i��tat��ed, in��ca��pac��i��tat��ing, in��ca��pac��i��tates1. To deprive of strength or ability; disable.2. To make legally ineligible; disqualify. of household members or economicmarginalization. Even if some households can generate modest surpluses,there are important risks to consider if small surpluses are to be usedfor raising animals. There is also an economy of scale to consider.Bounserm Cheva-Isarakut (pers. comm.) argues that raising only one ortwo cows is simply not worth the trouble for most farmers unless perhapsthey are very ambitious. The long period of waiting for investmentreturns to come in from raising one or two cows may be a majordisadvantage, and the effort involved in raising one cow may be the sameas the effort needed for raising 20 head, but the risks of loss and thepossible risk of needing to make compensation payments for crop damagemay also be too high to make raising one or two cows worth while. Costs The costs of starting to raise animals are quite high for newlyestablished or poor families although this can vary considerablydepending on proximity of borders and lowland markets (Falvey pers.comm. 1998). In 1976, cattle cost from 2500-4500 Thai baht baht?n. pl. bahts or bahtSee Table at currency.[Thai bt.]Noun 1. each (Falvey1977: 89), with no returns for 2 years. He views the high investmentcosts Those program costs required beyond the development phase to introduce into operational use a new capability; to procure initial, additional, or replacement equipment for operational forces; or to provide for major modifications of an existing capability. (often the equivalent of a household's annual income) andlong period of no cash flow as one of the major deterrents to raisingcattle. Similar factors probably affect pig raising, although initialcosts and return intervals would be quite a bit lower. I have no datafor pigs on this matter, but Visitpanich (pers. comm.) argues that eventhe more modest initial capital investment for pigs is too high for mostpoor households. He points out that poor families cannot grow enoughfood for their own annual consumption and almost certainly could notafford the half-kilogramme of grain per pig per day considered to be theminimum necessary for successfully raising pigs. While there are no feeding costs associated with stock raising,there are salt costs, and initial capital costs would have been evenmore prohibitive for poor families than initial costs for pigs. Salttoday is used primarily to calm cattle and attract them back to theowner's household at periodic intervals or to gather them togetherin their forage range for monitoring or moving them to other locations.Opinions differ as to what extent salt would have been used to controlcattle before roads made industrial salts available, even though salt isimportant for proper cattle growth. Certainly, if salt was used in thepast, its cost as a long-distance trade item would have been far greaterthan it is today (possibly significantly increasing the value of cattle)and much smaller quantities may have been used. Because of the substantial start-up costs, most cattle (and pig?)raising is begun by inheritance or agistment AGISTMENT, contracts. The taking of another person's cattle into one's own ground to be fed, for a consideration to be paid by the owner. The person who receives the cattle is called an agister. 2. (the loaning of animals toothers to take care of in exchange for a share of the resultingoffspring). Terms of agistment contracts vary, but typically, theborrower receives every second calf born. The borrower often takes onconsiderable responsibility for risks involving the animals. Contractsare witnessed by third parties. Although there are no definitivestatements on the matter, it seems highly likely that cattle-richindividuals would be most interested in agisting some cattle to juniorlineage members who were trustworthy and responsible. Cattle owners arealways leary of agisting cattle to unrelated or poor individuals who maynot take proper care of the animals or who might allow high-risksituations to develop. At present, a common pattern is for lowland paddyfarmers, with cattle, to agist AGIST, in contracts. The taking of other men's cattle on one's own ground at a certain rate. 2 Inst. 643; 4 Inst. 293. some of their herd with people in thehighlands. Most lowland terrain is used for paddy, and there is littleforage. Using valuable paddy land to grow grass for grazing is verycostly in terms of lost rice production. In contrast, forest is abundantin the highlands and cattle can be raised at much lower cost. Therefore,the highlands are a significant reservoir of cattle for the lowlands andthere tends to be a net flow of cattle from the highlands to thelowlands with exchange of cattle for rice or silver or other prestigeobjects offsetting the trade imbalance. Such a pattern undoubtedlyextends far back into 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 and probably explains the presence ofarchaeological bronze prestige trade artefacts in the Vietnamese andother highland areas that are normally marginal areas for agriculture. However, life is never secure and neither are investments. Thereare always risks of varying magnitude, especially for ambitiousinvestors. The risks involved in raising cattle and pigs aresignificant, but there are few other options for using surpluses or foradvancing in socio-economic standing. Pigs and cattle are the onlyreally convertible form of surplus for accessing semi-precious metals orother items of wealth from distant regional centres. Raising animals isalso the major way of converting surplus agricultural crops into thesocial and economic currencies created by feasting (conversion intoalcohol and outright consumption being the main other alternatives).There are three main types of risks involved in raising animals:diseases, theft and compensation payments for damages caused by animalsto swidden crops, property, or other people. Epidemic diseases (especially swine fever swine fever:see hog cholera. ) frequently decimate dec��i��mate?tr.v. dec��i��mat��ed, dec��i��mat��ing, dec��i��mates1. To destroy or kill a large part of (a group).2. Usage Problema. pigherds, occurring with an average frequency of 1.6 years, and involving amean mortality rate of 74% (Visitpanich & Falvey 1980: 264). Evenchicken flocks undergo decimation DECIMATION. The punishment of every tenth soldier by lot, was, among the Romans, called decimation. every two years (Shubert 1986: 80). Onthe other hand, cattle mortality from disease is relatively low, onlyabout 10% per annum Per annumYearly. from epidemics (Falvey 1977: 64) although this maybe much more prevalent in other regions (Strathern 1971: 129, 130). Theft of cattle amounts to about 4-5 head per year per village herdwhen herds are untended, which is the usual practice. However, whenherds are closely monitored and shepherded, losses from theft are almostcompletely eliminated (Falvey 1977: 54). Thefts and suspicion of theftscreate substantial conflict between villages. Both theft and diseaseincrease as herd size and animal densities increase (Falvey 1977: 66).This helps place a limit on the size of individual and village herds. Finally, and most significantly, there are risks associated withdamage caused by animals, especially to crops. Fields are generallyfenced to prevent cattle from damaging crops, but as herd size andcattle density increase, so does the incidence of crop damage fromcattle. Some people do have herds of over 100 head, but risks ormanagement costs must reach maximum limits close to this level. Keepingcattle at a distance from fields is one of the primary techniques usedto keep cattle out of swidden plots, but it requires periodic monitoringand moving of herds (Falvey 1977: 53-5; pers. comm. 1998). Untendedherds can graze up to 5-10 km from villages. Ditches, 1-2 m deep, werealso used by the Lisu to keep cattle out of fields in some areas.Another technique for reducing crop damage involves the use of herdersto monitor the animals. However, this method involves considerablelabour costs. Monitored animals return to the villages nightly andgenerally graze within 2 km of the villages whereas most swiddens arefarther than this range. The seriousness of the risks and costs involved in compensation fordamages done by domestic animals is indicated by the fact that harvestscould not be obtained from some damaged fields. In some villages,systems of fines were established, and in other villages stock raisingwas completely abandoned due to frequent crop damages (Falvey 1977: 43,86). Crop damages must have been a recurring source of conflict andlitigation An action brought in court to enforce a particular right. The act or process of bringing a lawsuit in and of itself; a judicial contest; any dispute.When a person begins a civil lawsuit, the person enters into a process called litigation. within and between villages (Strathern 1971: 132; Visitpanichpers. comm.). Families with no domestic animals must have resented theextra labour needed to fence fields or locate them out of range of thedomestic animals that other families turned loose in the villageterritory. For poor households (or even households with only one or twoanimals), risks of damage compensation claims against them could bedevastating, potentially leading to a life of indebtedness, clientship,enslavement, or violent retribution in some of the more traditionaltribal areas of Southeast Asia (Condominas 1977: 123, 139, 151,156,338-9). Such risks must have inhibited many poor or socially isolatedhouseholds from embarking on any significant course of investment,leaving the field to the rich who could absorb the costs of misfortunesmuch more easily, and who had adequate political backing to resiststrong litigations and excessive claims so typical of transegalitariansocieties (Douglas & Isherwood 1979: 96; Condominas 1977; Burch1975: 209,226; 1980: 267). In a circular fashion, the use of animals in feasting was essentialfor establishing the kind of support networks (primarily with affinesand agnates AGNATES. In the sense of the Roman law were those whose propinquity was connected by males only; in the relation of cognates, one or more females were interposed. 2. ) that would agist animals, provide loans in the event ofdamage compensation claims, and provide political support to resist suchcompensation claims. Recently established households by newly marriedcouples who were well connected to lineage social networks via kinshipand feasting could expect such support. Poor households lacking feastinginvolvements or support networks would run substantial risks inventuring into cattle or even pig raising. These and other aspects oftraditional Hill Tribe feasting are discussed in detail by Clarke (1998;2001). Labour In considering labour constraints on cattle raising, most authorsare struck by the very low labour inputs compared to the high valueplaced on animals (Falvey 1977: 52-4; Shubert 1986: 80-81; Kunstadter1978: 102). Labour inputs do vary from almost nothing to constantmonitoring or even penning in the case of pigs. By far, the minimal endof the labour spectrum is more typical of tribal groups (Visitpanichpers. comm.). Low monitoring may save on labour costs, but it increasescosts from calf mortality, theft, and predation. Monitoring is generallyconsidered low skill work and is often assigned to children exceptduring planting and harvesting seasons when all available labor isrequired to maximize crop production (Falvey 1977: 55). For cattle, minimal labour costs include the need to check on thelocation of the animals every week or two to ensure that they have notwandered into another village's territory and are not in danger ofinvading swidden fields. Since cattle can wander up to 10 km fromvillages, these trips can consume considerable time. Giving cattle salton visits acts to attract them and make them more tractable tractableeasy to manage; tolerable. if they needto be moved. Some households also build shelters or corrals for cattleduring inclement in��clem��ent?adj.1. Stormy: inclement weather.2. Showing no clemency; unmerciful.in��clem weather or for cattle that return nightly to thevillage -- a more common occurrence during the late dry season whensurface water and forage can become scarce. Fencing or ditching fieldsshould also probably be considered a labour cost of keeping cattle andpigs, but these costs are borne by each household for their own swiddenplots. To an extent, the households that own cattle and pigs imposethese costs on households without such animals. Thus, labour costs related to cattle were traditionally limited,involving only occasional checks on their location and activities,providing them with salt on visits (or other attractive feed), theconstruction of field fences or ditches, and possibly the constructionof shelters or corrals. Cattle were not generally fed supplements orfattened before slaughter. Movement of cattle to the lowlands forexchange might also be considered a labour cost, but all in all, labourcosts are low. Labour investment is considerably higher for pigs, but pork ispreferred and pigs are probably the most frequently consumed domesticanimal (Shubert 1986: 58; Visitpanich pers. comm.). Preference for porkmay be due to its higher fat content. Some pigs are penned, but the moretraditional villages generally lack pens. As noted earlier, feedingsupplements to pigs is an essential part of keeping them, and thisgenerally requires about two hours of feed preparation per day (Shubert1986: 80). Some of the food used to feed pigs must also be collected orgrown, especially maize, and this can be considered an additional labourinput as well. Summary of the animal raising system Southeast Asia provides a particularly well documented and wellunderstood system of domestic animal use, raising, distribution andconstraints under traditional tribal conditions. Domestic animals serveas the primary vehicles for transforming agricultural surpluses andlabour via feasting into other useful currencies such as social,economic, and political mutual help or debt relationships, and wealth inthe form of silver or other prestige goods acquired through exchanges. There is considerable household variation in owning and raisinganimals with both poor and rich extremes. Poor households appeardisadvantaged in most aspects of village life unless they are members ingood standing of dominant lineages or power blocks. The poor must adaptto broadly supported aggrandizer strategies for raising domestic animalsin village communal lands. The poor must fence their swidden plots toprotect them from depredations of free-ranging animals owned by richerhouseholds. It is also possible that the competitive nature of somefeasts (especially using as many animals as possible to sacrifice atfunerals) may have been promoted by the rich as a ploy (justified onreligious or ideological grounds, such as to empower the ancestors) toput pressure on other villagers to produce and exchange greater andgreater quantities of surpluses either by raising animals or buying themfrom the rich. Families who could not afford either to buy or to raiseanimals would be subject to public ridicule and censure. These are poorhouseholds in the fullest sense that Douglas & Isherwood (1979: 65,80, 86, 95, 112, 132) use the term. That is, although they may receivesome feasting food directly or indirectly on occasion, the poor arelargely cut off from consumption rituals (feasting) and higher exchangespheres. They are thus excluded from building social networks, theirdominant activities are devoted to subsistence, they have little leewayin scheduling or for making mistakes, they do not participate much inactivities outside the household, they have little scope or synthesis intheir world views, they have little control in their information worldand their consumption activities have a high periodicity periodicity/pe��ri��o��dic��i��ty/ (per?e-ah-dis��i-te) recurrence at regular intervals of time. pe��ri��o��dic��i��tyn.1. but low value.The cost of improving their life constantly seems to be going up or tobe a self-defeating undertaking. In effect, the phenomenon of poverty begins with transegalitariansocieties. Douglas & Isherwood may focus on the consumption ofgoods, but feasting operates in much the same manner, except that amongsocieties with subsistence-based economies, prestige goods can be rare,while having enough desirable food to eat for the entire year is often amajor preoccupation. Thus, in most traditional transegalitariansocieties, the exchange and use of food surpluses -- specially highlyvalued types of foods -- plays the major role in social transactionsrather than the exchange of prestige goods (as in Chinese peasantcommunities -- Yan 1996). This is particularly true of groups with lowlevels of surpluses such as despot types of transegalitarian communities(Hayden 1995). From an archaeological viewpoint, it is interesting tonote that feasting may be easier to identify archaeologically thanconsumption rituals involving non-culinary types of goods due to thespecialized preparation and serving vessels involved, as well as thesometimes abundant food remains. Thus, animals are the centre of the economic and social universe ofSoutheast Asian tribal villages. Since there are constant demands foranimals for feasts, it may be difficult for poor families to accumulateenough surpluses to extricate themselves from poverty. The mainconstraints on the production of cattle appear to be costly initialinvestments (or lack of close connexions to owners willing to agist someof their stock), long periods with no return on investment or otherbenefits from owning stock, and high risks for significant economiclosses and conflicts. For pigs, the major constraints are initialprocurement costs (or ajistment connexions), production of surplus cornor other foods, and high risks. These constraints put poor and merelyself-sufficient households at a distinct disadvantage in raisinganimals; and it places the rich in a clearly advantageous situation. The above characteristics and generalizations may be common amongmost or all swidden cultures with stock and pig breeding. In particular,it might be interesting to conceptualize con��cep��tu��al��ize?v. con��cep��tu��al��ized, con��cep��tu��al��iz��ing, con��cep��tu��al��iz��esv.tr.To form a concept or concepts of, and especially to interpret in a conceptual way: the initial Neolithiccolonization of central Europe in these terms (Gregg 1988). Among themany parallels between the Southeast Asian tribal societies describedhere and the early European Neolithic are: 1 the highly symbolic and economic value of cattle (Thomas 1991:24); 2 the primary use of cattle and pigs in feasting contexts,especially at causewayed enclosures and other Neolithic monuments(Thomas 1991: 22-4,165); 3 the use of cattle as a major form of wealth (Whittle 1985: 61;Thomas 1991: 24); 4 the minimal role of cattle for secondary purposes such as dairyproduction (Sherratt 1981); 5 the use of other foods for normal meals including occasionalhunted animals (Whittle 1985: 109; Thomas 1991: 21,24). Ultimately, in both Southeast Asia and Neolithic Europe, successfulfeasting and raising of domestic animals must be predicated onagricultural surpluses (in the case of pigs), prior wealth accumulationsthrough inheritance of agistments (also deriving from production ofagricultural surpluses), and possibly abundant or good quality labour(for producing initial agricultural surpluses and for monitoringcattle). When cattle started to be used for traction and ploughing,surplus production undoubtedly increased (Bogucki 1993) and laterNeolithic societies probably resembled the more stratified lowlandSoutheast Asian societies rather than highland tribal societies.Understanding how the living systems operate and are related will surelyenhance our perceptions of prehistoric societies with similarsocio-economic foundations. Conclusions It should be abundantly clear that there are a number of importantconstraints on the accumulation of surpluses and wealth in the hilltribe communities of Southeast Asia. While in some cases poverty may bea choice of lifestyle by those who simply cannot be bothered with theextra efforts involved in producing surpluses for numerous feasts andattending or socializing at feasts, in other cases there are powerfulconstraints on the poor for improving their condition. In fact, the`choice' of a poor lifestyle by some individuals may be more therecognition of the futility of trying to effect changes in one'sstatus, an aspect of poverty suggested by Douglas & Isherwood (1979:62). However, their general conclusion (1979: 148) that the poor livethe way they do simply because they have lower consumption standardscannot be applied to all households living in poverty. It may be true ofsome households, but we do not know what that proportion is. In manyother cases, poor lifestyles probably result from despair and depressionresulting from feeling overpowered by the constraints established by themore powerful members of the community. While transegalitariancommunities almost universally give lip-service to an ideology ofequality, this rhetoric generally masks very powerful forces working toestablish inequalities of wealth, resources, influence and power asdocumented in the preceding pages. This is why these societies aretermed `transegalitarian'. We can almost certainly find the sourcesof our own institutionalized inequalities in these societies whereinequalities first emerge in furtive fur��tive?adj.1. Characterized by stealth; surreptitious.2. Expressive of hidden motives or purposes; shifty. See Synonyms at secret. , transient fashions using a widearray of strategies. Acknowledgements. Accumulating reliable data and observations onsuch a wide range of factors was a formidable task. Traditionalethnographies were universally silent concerning most such issues. Afterexperiencing considerable frustration in my attempts to grapple with to enter into contest with, resolutely and courageously.See also: Grapple these problems while interviewing household heads in the region, Isought out academic or other authorities that might be able to shedlight on some of these questions. I was very fortunate in being able todiscuss the most critical issues with a number of researchers at ChiangMai University Chiang Mai University (Thai: มหาวิทยาลัยเชียงใหม่) was the first provincial university established in Thailand and the first to be named after the city it is in. and the University of Melbourne AsiaWeek is now discontinued. Comments:In 2006, Times Higher Education Supplement ranked the University of Melbourne 22nd in the world. Because of the drop in ranking, University of Melbourne is currently behind four Asian universities - Beijing University, who were involved inresearch conducted by the Thai-Australian Highland Agronomy agronomy(əgrŏn`əmē), branch of agriculture dealing with various physical and biological factors—including soil management, tillage, crop rotation, breeding, weed control, and climate—related to crop production. Project inthe early 1970s. This project produced a number of useful publications.I am especially endebted to Dr Theera Visitpanich (Vice-Dean, Faculty ofAgronomy, Chiang Mai University), and Dr Lindsay Falvey (Dean, Instituteof Land and Food Resources, University of Melbourne) for sharing theirinsights. In addition, I would like to thank Ralana Maneeprasert of theTribal Research Institute in Chiang Mai for helping in all aspects of mywork in Thailand. Funding for this research was provided by the CanadianSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council The Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) is an arm's length Canadian federal funding agency.[1] Offering numerous funding programs with a 2006-2007 budget of CAN$306 million for grants and scholarships, and CAN$538 overall,[2] . References ALTING VON GEUSAU, L. 1983. Dialectics of Akhazan: theinteriorizations of a perennial minority group, in J. McKinnon & W.Bhruksasri (ed.), Highlanders of Thailand: 243-77. Kuala Lumpur: OxfordUniversity Press. BOGUCKI, P. 1993. Animal traction and household economies inNeolithic Europe, Antiquity 67: 492-503. BURCH, E., JR. 1975. Eskimo kinsmen. St Paul (MN): West Publishing. 1980. Traditional Eskimo societies in northwest Alaska, SenriEthnological eth��nol��o��gy?n.1. The science that analyzes and compares human cultures, as in social structure, language, religion, and technology; cultural anthropology.2. Studies 4: 253-304. CHAMBERLAIN, J. 1996. The Ethno-economic context, in Environmentaland social management plan for Nakai-Nam Theun catchment and corridorareas. Vientiane: IUCN IUCNInternational Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. . CLARKE, M. 1998. Akha feasting. Unpublished MA thesis, ArchaeologyDepartment, Simon Fraser University Simon Fraser University,main campus at Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada; provincially supported; coeducational; chartered 1963, opened 1965. The Harbour Centre campus in downtown Vancouver opened in 1989. , Burnaby BC. 2001. Akha feasting: an ethnoarchaeological perspective, in Dietler& Hayden (ed.): 144-67. CONDOMINAS, G. 1977. We have eaten the forest. 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): Hill& Wang. COOPER, R. 1984. Resource scarcity and the Hmong response.Singapore: Singapore University Press. DIETLER, M. & B. HAYDEN. 2001. Feasts: archaeological andethnographic perspectives on food, politics and power. Washington (DC):Smithsonian Institution Press. DOUGLAS, M. & B. ISHERWOOD. 1979. The world of goods. London:Routledge. FALVEY, L. 1977. Ruminants in the highlands of northern Thailand.Chiang Mai: Thai-Australian Highland Agronomy Project, Tribal ResearchInstitute, Chiang Mai University. GREGG, A. 1988. Foragers and farmers. Chicago (IL): University ofChicago Press The University of Chicago Press is the largest university press in the United States. It is operated by the University of Chicago and publishes a wide variety of academic titles, including The Chicago Manual of Style, dozens of academic journals, including . HAYDEN, B. 1990. Nimrods, piscators, pluckers, and planters,Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 9: 31-69. 1992. Models of domestication, in A.B. Gebauer & T.D. Price(ed.), Transitions to agriculture in prehistory: 11-19. Madison (WI):Prehistory Press. 1995. A new overview of domestication, in T.D. Price & A.Gebauer, (ed.), Last hunters -- first farmers: 273-99. Santa Fe (NM):School of American Research Press. 1997. The Pithouses of Keatley Creek. San Antonio (TX): HarcourtBrace. HAYDEN, B. & TRAN TRAN TransmitTRAN TransientTRAN Tax Revenue Anticipation NoteTRAN Dow Transport IndexTRAN Transport Layer QUOC VUONG. N.d. Report on ethnographic workamong the Ta Oi and Rhade. KESWANI, P. 1994. The social context of 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 in earlyagricultural societies, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 13:255-77. KUNSTADTER, P. 1978. Subsistence agricultural economies ofLua' and karen hill farmers, in P. Kunstadter, E. Chapman & S.Sabhasri (ed.), Farmers in the forest: 74-133. Honolulu (HI): Universityof Hawaii Press The University of Hawaiʻi Press is a university press that is part of the University of Hawaiʻi. . LEACH, E. 1956. The political systems of highland Burma. Boston(MA): Beacon Press. MALINOWSKI, B.. 1961. Argonauts of the Western Pacific. New York(NY): E.P. Dutton. 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 a secondaryproducts revolution, in I. Hodder, G. Isaac & N. Hammond (ed.),Pattern of the past: 261-305. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 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). . SHUBERT, B. 1986. Proposals for farming systems-oriented cropresearch of Wawi highland agricultural research station in northernThailand. Berlin: Center for Advanced Training in AgriculturalDevelopment, Technical University of Berlin. STRATHERN, A. 1971. Pig complex and cattle complex: somecomparisons and counterpoints, Mankind 8: 129-36. THOMAS, J. 1991. Rethinking the Neolithic. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press. VISITPANICH, T. & L. FALVEY. 1980. A survey of the highland pigindustry, Thai Journal of Agricultural Science 13: 259-67. WHITTLE, A. 1985. Neolithic Europe: a survey. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press. YAN YUNXIANG. 1996. The flow of gifts. Stanford (CA): StanfordUniversity Press. BRIAN HAYDEN, Archaeology Department, Simon Fraser University,Burnaby BC, Canada V5A 1S6. Received 5 October 2000, accepted 21 February 2001, revised 31 May2001