Searching for Symbolic Value of Cattle: Tropical Livestock Units, Market Price, and Cultural Value of Maasai Livestock
We examine metabolic, market, and symbolic values of livestock relative to cultural “positioning” by gender, marriage, and household production among Maasai people in Simanjiro, Tanzania to assess local “proximate currencies” relevant for “cultural success.” Data from mixed methods ethnographic research include qualitative interviews since 2012, observation of 85 livestock market sales in 2013 and 2015, and 37 short key informant interviews in 2015. We examine fit between market values, Tropical Livestock Units (TLU, weight-based species exchange ratio), and perceived value from interviews for moran (unmarried men), muruo (married men), and tɔmɔnɔ́k (married women). Hedonic regression using livestock species, sex, maturity, and size accounted for 90% of the local market price of livestock. We compared the market-based exchange ratio between cattle and smallstock (sheep and goats) to TLU and perceived values situating symbolic value of cattle in terms of Maasai household production schema. One TLU model accurately predicted market exchange ratios, while another predicted hypothetical exchanges, suggesting need for improved livestock wealth estimation for pastoralists. Ritual context, subsistence work, and cultural position influenced perceived values: Moran overvalued cattle by 100% of the local market value. Tɔmɔnɔ́k accurately perceived the market exchange ratio despite never directly engaging in livestock market transactions. Muruo perceived exchange ratios intermediate between moran and tɔmɔnɔ́k. We argue that these perceptions of value reflect distinct labor responsibilities of moran, muruo, and tɔmɔnɔ́k in livestock management, differential value of bridewealth, and control of meat and milk.Attention to value of different livestock species in cultural models of production may prove useful for development efforts.
Aktipis, C. A., L. Cronk, R. de Aduiar. 2011. Risk Pooling and Herd Survival: An Agent Based Model of a Maasai Gift Giving System. Human Ecology 39:131-140. DOI:10.1007/s10745-010-9364-9.
Call, D. R., M. Subbiah, M. Caudell, L. Orfe, R. J. Quinlan, M. B. Quinlan, L. Matthews, and C. Mair. 2016. Consumption of Raw-milk: A Critical Risk Factor in Disseminating Antibiotic-resistant Bacteria to Maasai People in Northern Tanzania. Unpublished data. Available from email@example.com.
Caudell, M., M.B. Quinlan, M. Subbiah, D. R. Call, C. J. Roulette, J. W. Roulette, A. Roth, L. Mathews, R. J. Quinlan. n.d. Veterinary Antibiotic Use among Agro-Pastoralists in Northern Tanzania. Unpublished manuscript. Available from firstname.lastname@example.org.
Coatney, K. T., D. J. Menkhaus, and J. D. Schmitz. 1996. Feeder Cattle Price Determinants: An Hedonic System of Equations Approach. Review of Agricultural Economics 18:193–211. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1349432?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents. Accessed on January 28, 2016.
Fratkin, E., and E. A. Roth. 1990. Drought and Economic Differentiation among Ariaal Pastoralists of Kenya. Human Ecology 18:385–402.
Fratkin, E. 2001. East African Pastoralism in Transition: Maasai, Boran and Rendille Cases. African Studies Review 44:1–25. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/525591?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents. Accessed January 28, 2016.
Galvin, K.A. 2009. Transitions: Pastoralists Living with Change. Annual Review of Anthropology 38:185–98. DOI:10.1146/annurev-anthro-091908-164442.
Herskovitz, M. J. 1926. The Cattle Complex in East Africa. American Anthropologist 28:230–272. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/660813.pdf. Accessed January 28, 2016.
Irons, W. 1998. Adaptively Relevant Environments Versus the Environment of Evolutionary Adaptedness. Evolutionary Anthropology 6:194–204. DOI:10.1002/(SICI)1520-6505(1998)6:6<194::AID-EVAN2>3.0.CO;2-B.
Grandin, B.E. 1988. Wealth and Pastoral Dairy Production: A Case Study from Maasailand. Human Ecology 16:1–21.
Hodgson, D. 2001. Once Intrepid Warriors. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, IN.
Hodgson, D. 2011. Being Maasai, Becoming Indigenous. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, IN.
Jahnke, H. E. 1982. Livestock Production Systems and Livestock Development in Tropical Africa. Kieler Wissenshfstverlag Vauk, Kiel, Germany. Available at: http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/pnaan484.pdf. Accessed January 28, 2016.
Lankester F, A. Lugelo, R. Kazwala. J. Keyyu, S. Cleaveland, and J. Yoder. 2015. The Economic Impact of Malignant Catarrhal Fever on Pastoralist Livelihoods. PLoSONE 10:e0116059. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0116059.
Leslie, P. W., and J. T. McCabe. 2013. Response Diversity and Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems. Current Anthropology 54:114–143. DOI:10.1086/669563.
Mathews, J. D., R. Glasse, and S. Lindenbaum. 1968. Kuru and Canibalism. The Lancet 292:449–452. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(68)90482-0.
McCabe, J. T., N. M. Smith, P. W. Leslie, and A. L. Telligman. 2014. Livelihood Diversification through Migration among a Pastoral People: Contrasting Case Studies of Maasai in Northern Tanzania. Human Organization 73:389–400. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4347807/. Accessed January 28, 2016.
Miller, B. W., P. W. Leslie, and J. T. McCabe. 2014. Coping with Natural Hazards in a Conservation Context: Resource-Use Decision of Maasai Households during Recent Historical Droughts. Human Ecology 42:753–768. DOI 10.1007/s10745-014-9683-3.
Rosen, S. 1974. Hedonic Prices and Implicit Markets. The Journal of Political Economy 82:34–55. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1830899?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents. Accessed January 28, 2016.
Roulette, C. J., E. F. Njau, M. B. Quinlan, R. J. Quinlan, and D. Call. N.D. Maasai Dietary Additives in Tanzania: Ethnomedical Beliefs, Ethnopharmacology, and Gender Differences. Unpublished manuscript. Available from email@example.com.
Sachedina, H., and P. C. Trench. 2009. Cattle, Crops, Tourism and Tanzanite: Poverty, Land Use Change, and Conservation in Simanjiro District, Tanzania. In Staying Maasai?, edited by K. Homewood, P. Kristjanson, and P. C. Trench. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY.
Turner, V. W. 1973. Symbols in African Ritual. Science 179:1100–1105. Available at: https://www.amherst.edu/system/files/media/1479/Symbols%2520in%2520African%2520Ritual_0.pdf. Accessed February 24, 2016.
Copyright (c) 2016 Ethnobiology Letters
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain ownership of the copyright for their content and grant Ethnobiology Letters (the “Journal”) and the Society of Ethnobiology right of first publication. Authors and the Journal agree that Ethnobiology Letters will publish the article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International Public License (CC BY-NC 4.0), which permits others to use, distribute, and reproduce the work non-commercially, provided the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal are properly cited.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
For any reuse or redistribution of a work, users must make clear the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International Public License (CC BY-NC 4.0).
In publishing with Ethnobiology Letters corresponding authors certify that they are authorized by their co-authors to enter into these arrangements. They warrant, on behalf of themselves and their co-authors, that the content is original, has not been formally published, is not under consideration, and does not infringe any existing copyright or any other third party rights. They further warrant that the material contains no matter that is scandalous, obscene, libelous, or otherwise contrary to the law.
Corresponding authors will be given an opportunity to read and correct edited proofs, but if they fail to return such corrections by the date set by the editors, production and publication may proceed without the authors’ approval of the edited proofs.