{"title":"Cooperation and Cattle Herding in Eighteenth Century Acadia: Implications for Archaeological Studies of Agropastoralism","authors":"M. Welker, Joanne E. Hughes, S. McClure","doi":"10.2993/0278-0771-42.1.69","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract. Anthropological studies of cattle management have frequently used nomadic open-range African pastoralists as models even when examining more sedentary agro-pastoralists relying upon combinations of crops and livestock that prevent or inhibit mobility. The relatively limited number of datasets on more sedentary agro-pastoralists makes it difficult to assess the suitability of this analogy when modeling and understanding herd dynamics in sedentary or semi-sedentary societies like those in the European Neolithic or pre-industrial colonies in North America. Census data on seventeenth- and eighteenth-century French colonists in eastern Canada and the northeastern U.S. reveal that household herds average fewer than eight individuals. Herds this small would have been dangerously close to collapse if animals were slaughtered and would not have had sufficient numbers to grow quickly. Using effective population size, a measure from wildlife biology, to assess the demographic and genetic health of wildlife populations, we demonstrate that Acadian herders were able to overcome the challenges of their small herds by participating in village or inter-village herd networks. Furthermore, we demonstrate that differences in herd management existed across the Acadian colonies and correspond, in part, to local involvement in cod fishing. We suggest this case study may provide a useful model for understanding prehistoric sedentary agropastoralism and the role of cooperation in prehistoric animal management decisions.","PeriodicalId":54838,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Ethnobiology","volume":"42 1","pages":"69 - 85"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Ethnobiology","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2993/0278-0771-42.1.69","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANTHROPOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
Abstract
Abstract. Anthropological studies of cattle management have frequently used nomadic open-range African pastoralists as models even when examining more sedentary agro-pastoralists relying upon combinations of crops and livestock that prevent or inhibit mobility. The relatively limited number of datasets on more sedentary agro-pastoralists makes it difficult to assess the suitability of this analogy when modeling and understanding herd dynamics in sedentary or semi-sedentary societies like those in the European Neolithic or pre-industrial colonies in North America. Census data on seventeenth- and eighteenth-century French colonists in eastern Canada and the northeastern U.S. reveal that household herds average fewer than eight individuals. Herds this small would have been dangerously close to collapse if animals were slaughtered and would not have had sufficient numbers to grow quickly. Using effective population size, a measure from wildlife biology, to assess the demographic and genetic health of wildlife populations, we demonstrate that Acadian herders were able to overcome the challenges of their small herds by participating in village or inter-village herd networks. Furthermore, we demonstrate that differences in herd management existed across the Acadian colonies and correspond, in part, to local involvement in cod fishing. We suggest this case study may provide a useful model for understanding prehistoric sedentary agropastoralism and the role of cooperation in prehistoric animal management decisions.
期刊介绍:
JoE’s readership is as wide and diverse as ethnobiology itself, with readers spanning from both the natural and social sciences. Not surprisingly, a glance at the papers published in the Journal reveals the depth and breadth of topics, extending from studies in archaeology and the origins of agriculture, to folk classification systems, to food composition, plants, birds, mammals, fungi and everything in between.
Research areas published in JoE include but are not limited to neo- and paleo-ethnobiology, zooarchaeology, ethnobotany, ethnozoology, ethnopharmacology, ethnoecology, linguistic ethnobiology, human paleoecology, and many other related fields of study within anthropology and biology, such as taxonomy, conservation biology, ethnography, political ecology, and cognitive and cultural anthropology.
JoE does not limit itself to a single perspective, approach or discipline, but seeks to represent the full spectrum and wide diversity of the field of ethnobiology, including cognitive, symbolic, linguistic, ecological, and economic aspects of human interactions with our living world. Articles that significantly advance ethnobiological theory and/or methodology are particularly welcome, as well as studies bridging across disciplines and knowledge systems. JoE does not publish uncontextualized data such as species lists; appropriate submissions must elaborate on the ethnobiological context of findings.