Creighton (2005) Cattle, community and corrals

Cattle as 'shares' in a social community

The paper discussed the role of cattle in constructing enduring connections among kin and affines, patrons and clients, sovereigns and supporters, men and their ancestors. Exchange, usually involving cattle, secured rights in and claims over others. 'The object of social exchange was precisely not to accumulate riches with no strings attached: the traffic in beasts served to knit human beings together in an intricate weave, in which the density of linkages and the magnitude of the value were one and the same thing.' This they contrasted with the early modern concept of money as 'capable of setting free the intrinsic worth of the world to be traded in neutral, standardized terms'. Money was seen, in a sense, as anti-social 'in its refusal to respect personal identities, it also undermined "traditional" monopolies, eroded patriarchal powers, displaced received forms of relationship… In democratising access to value, it put a great deal of the past at risk.'

Coming from my angle of looking at the Roman world, I found this dichotomy curious. In the late Republic money was in many ways used in a similar way to the cattle amongst the Tswana. Far from being impersonal and diminishing social relations, coin was one of the media through which these were articulated, through pretty much the same processes of investing, giving, and lending it to a range of kin and affines.

In the Roman Republic the elite invested cash in relatives, friends and clients. These loans were not just anonymous interest bearing payments; they were one of the mechanisms through which the patron-client relationship was forged. Aspiring senators would lend money to clients, or act as surety for others to lend them cash. They would assist their subordinates in other ways too by defending clients' interests in court and would speak on their behalf to other influential Romans, such as the quaestors who distributed state funds and conducted auctions. If the senator was a commander in the field then his clients might serve and fight for him, in turn he would ensure his clients got a proportion of the booty. However, money flowed the other way as well. Clients would support their patron's career, even funding a senator's political campaigns for elected office to gain them a more influential job. They could even assist a patron in paying for a fine if he were convicted of some misdemeanour for embezzlement or abuse of power. Money flowed, often in large sums from one person to another or from one part of the empire to another, but this flow of cash for the main part took place bounded within and consolidating social relations. Other forms of money-lending at a high interest could also exist, but that was the exception.

The investment in clients and relatives with cash seems to directly parallel the Tswana investment with cattle. Indeed the Roman word for money (pecunia) derives from that for cow (pecus). So one question I would pose is to what extent is the distinction between social bonds through investing cattle and impersonal exchange through the use of coin a real dichotomy? Despite the plague of rinderpest in the late nineteenth century, cattle continued to be the preferred store of wealth amongst the Tswana; but is there any sign that those previously endowed with large herds start to invest cash in clients and relatives in the way that they had formerly invested cattle; or was coin used in a different socially un-embedded way from the start?

The size and management of cattle

The second area which I am very curious about is the transformation which takes place in the breeding and management of cattle as the process of commodification took place. The Commaroffs' paper is dominated by historical sources, but what are the archaeological correlates of this process taking place?

In northern Europe, the transformation from cattle to coin being the major 'store of wealth' is often seen as happening around the Roman conquest, with a shift back to the importance of stock after the decline of Rome. One piece of evidence which is often marshalled to support this interpretation is the change seen in the faunal record. As cattle were domesticated they generally decreased in size from their wild ancestors the aurochs; however, around the end of the first millennium BC the size of cattle increased again. Larger beasts predominate in Roman times only for them to temporarily shrink in size again during the early migrationary period until towns and markets once again predominated in the landscape in the later medieval era. The argument goes that in prehistory it was the number, investment and dispersal of the cattle which was valued and the social ties thereby generated (a clear analogy being made with societies such as the Tswana here); whereas in the Roman period we have the development of an urban market in meat, so the size of the animals becomes important in a way it was not before. Size of cattle and the commodification of meat are seen as relational.

So what happened in nineteenth century amongst the Tswana? While cattle were still invested in as the preferred 'store of wealth', did their increasing exchangeability with cash lead to similar process at work, with new stock management practices leading to larger cattle or new breeds coming in?

In Southern Africa as a whole the indigenous Africander breed of cattle dominated (from the Sanga group of cattle breeds found across the continent), these had a good resistance to heat and ticks and had a quiet temperament. They were large animals, mature cows nowadays being around 525-600kg. But whether this size and weight was reached by the cattle before selective Afrikaans stock breeding in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries is unclear, again it would be worth looking at the faunal record. Breeding programmes in the twentieth century tried to improve on this stock as it had a lower than desired growth-potential, were late in reaching maturity, and many of the cows did not calve regularly. Interbreeding with other stock (British Herefords and Shorthorns) led to new breeds such as the Bonsmara which grew more rapidly, having about 20% higher weights at weaning; they also calved more regularly. Here the requirements of the market clearly led to change in the cattle stock. But what about cattle amongst the Tswana at an earlier date? They had their own distinct but smaller breed of the Sanga-type cattle, mature cows nowadays averaging around 360kg, but alas a brief search has not revealed data about changing practice amongst them (DIAGRIS 2004). Archaeological analysis of cattle bones is really needed to give the time-depth data to see the impact of any changes in the cattle alongside the historical changes outlined by the Kommaroff's.

On a different tack, what happened to the Tswana settlements? Structurally these had been dominated by a cattle enclosure at their heart, signifying the importance of these animals. Around this houses were built to form the homestead and the whole was surrounded by a stockade. The entrance to the complex was at the lowest point, often facing the east, opposed at the highest point by the male head of the household's dwelling, with those of wives ordered on either side in order of seniority. Within the central enclosure grain was stored and important men were commonly buried. This common arrangement has come to be described as the Central Cattle Pattern (CCP). But what happened in the period of commoditisation of cattle? Did the central cattle enclosures retain their dominant position or can we see their importance change as the role of cattle altered? Did men continue to be buried associated with the all-important cattle enclosures as their role in society shifted?

These are some of the potential types of archaeological evidence which I would look for to help elaborate Jean and John Commaroff's historical narrative.