5.2 Contemporary forms of exchange
5.2.1 The „pastoral‟ Maasai and the Kamba „farmer‟: Exchange through diversity
One notable thing about these two groups is that despite sharing a similar ecological zone, they have specialised in fairly distinct modes of subsistence. From ethnological studies, it has long been established that in certain settings, groups living side by side may occupy clearly distinct niches and therefore be in minimal competition for resources limiting interdependence despite co-residence in an area (Barth, 1969: 19). Barth also noted that groups may on the other hand monopolise separate territories, and compete for resources that are available in each territory and where groups may erect barriers to exclude others. He agrees though that in reality, these are fairly mixed situations and only through gross simplifications can reduce interactions into simple types. Although specialisation in different modes of subsistence is often seen as an aspect of distinction, on the other hand, it creates an opportunity for exchange and indispensability.
When I talk about the Maasai as cattle keepers and the Kamba as farmers, I am simply talking about the dominant modes of production otherwise there are overlaps, with the Maasai increasingly taking up farming. But this distinction can be seen in the trading centres where you see Maasai women selling ghee and milk while their Kamba counterparts sell agricultural products like maize, beans, pigeon peas, and cowpeas, as well as tomatoes, potatoes and cabbages. However, some of the products the Kamba women sell are not necessarily obtained from Ukambani but from the so-called “Kikuyu lorries”, an aspect that highlights the external dimensions of this trade.222
Generally speaking, trading patterns and interdependence change significantly depending on the season and whether there are food shortages or not. For most of the cattle keeping Maasai who do not practice crop farming, regardless of whether there is drought or not, they obtain their supplementary foodstuffs from the farmers in their midst (in cash or bartered), in the
222 These are lorries that are mainly from Central Province (Kikuyuland) that crisscross Ukambani selling cabbages, tomatoes and potatoes.
157
open air markets or in food stores in the trading centres. The only thing that changes is that during drought, the foodstuffs appreciate in value. This makes food shortages and famine to be more devastating to the Kamba whose diet is entirely cereal oriented, besides the fact that they have fewer cattle to fall back to. When drought is prolonged, with the exception of Kamba traders, most Kamba farmers temporarily cease to be source of grain needed to supplement Maasai diet. In such occasions, both groups have to rely on the trading centres whose food stores rely on transporters (middlemen) obtaining their supplies from the rich agricultural belt of Trans Nzoia, Uasin Gishu and Kericho in the western parts of Kenya or the irrigated farms in Loitokitok and even Tanzania.
Barter trade
When Kamba farmers have had a bumper harvest, then the Maasai may obtain their cereals simply through barter trade. One of my Maasai research partners (Nkata) participates in this trade where, in the company of other Maasai women or alone, she visits Kamba homesteads in search of agricultural produce particularly maize and beans. She offers goats or sheep and ghee in exchange for muthokoi, maize, beans, pigeon peas and cow peas. For 0.75 litre of ghee, she gets in return 5 kilograms of maize or 3 kilograms of beans. The quantity of the grains is measured using cooking fat tins while ghee and milk is put in soft drink or juice bottles measuring 0.3 and 0.75 litres respectively. These are locally improvised and cross-ethnically acceptable measurements that ease trade transactions. In a few occasions, measurements can also be determined arbitrarily. The quantities exchanged are also determined by how
“desperate” one of the parties is. If there is drought and Maasai animals drop in value, the Maasai are forced to exchange goats, sheep and cattle for relatively fewer quantities of grain as the „exchange rates‟ change. For instance, a bull, which could „ordinarily‟ fetch up to 5 bags of maize from a Kamba household, is exchanged for 2 bags during prolonged droughts.
During harvest, a goat is normally exchanged for one maize bag (90 kg). Equivalents of exchange are also determined by how “close” the parties are. This borders on the Bielefelder Ansatz in which, Hans-Dieter Evers in one of the studies, The Moral Economy of Trade, the embeddedness of a trader‟s economic behaviour by societal norms and obligations is discussed. In the Trader‟s Dilemma, he argues that traders have to balance between accumulation of capital and the moral obligation to share with kinsfolk (Evers and Schrader, 1994: 5; cf. Hyden, 1983). In my study, the Maasai who had Kamba friends or were related in marriage would be offered „better terms‟. In other cases, intervention of elders and other leaders would make it easier and cheaper for the Maasai to access Kamba pastures and
158
agricultural produce. These compromises, to be revisited later, constitute what I am referring to as the „price of interethnic coexistence‟.
The cattle economy
It has been noted in the study that both groups value cattle. It is their meeting point. But this common fascination with animals, though at varying degrees and for fairly distinct purposes, allows a very strong bond to develop, which is also sustained for mutual benefit. There is even a semblance of patron-client relationship through which Maasai cattle keepers lend cattle to the Kamba. These will be Kamba whom the Maasai have known for a considerable period, often linked by marriage, living or working in Maasailand. Such loaned cattle may be milked, one may use or sell the ghee, they have to be taken good care of and may be reclaimed if not well fed or watered. They are monitored by the owner who should know of new calves and under no circumstances can the trustee sell these animals. Rarely will such animals be used for drawing carts or ploughs, engagements which the Maasai consider unsuitable for their bulls and oxen.223 „Monitoring‟ of these animals and the restrictions placed on them makes the Kamba realise that although cattle are just as important to them, Maasai obsession with livestock is unmatched. The Dutch missionary (referred earlier) makes a description that captures this difference. He notes that when Maasai animals are coming home “every woman, man and child sit outside the house to watch the cows (cattle) return. There is absolute silence.
I do not know if you can understand me but it is a very moving sight. I almost cry watching this. If one single cow is missing, you will know from the emotional reaction and the body language”.224
Although both groups practice transhumance, it is organised differently among the Kamba.
When there is a prolonged drought, some of the Kamba cattle keepers practice what is called kuvithya indo where one‟s animals are taken to relatives or neighbours who have bigger pieces of land. This may involve cash payments or expectations that your relatives reserve the right to access your pastures or other assistance in the future, making the arrangement appear reciprocal. Others take their animals to distant areas where they may have kyengo225 (pl.
syengo). These are pieces of land which one bought or acquired (kukwata) for the „rainy day‟
and may be outside of Ukambani (e.g. in Maasailand). The whole family will normally not
223 This particular requirement is a major bone of contention between Maasai cattle lenders and Kamba trustees.
While ploughing and drawing of carts is one of the major reasons why the Kamba tend bulls, the Maasai normally use donkeys for these activities. To the Maasai, using bulls and oxen this way amounts to
“mistreatment” and serves as further evidence for their claims that the Kamba are “fake” cattle keepers.
224 Fr. Frans Mol‟s account during an interview with Phil Ikonya of the Nation Newspapers (see Sunday Nation, October 28, 2001).
225 The „kye‟ is pronounced „che‟.
159
move but one or two family members will. The contemporary practice is to send a salaried herder(s) to take care of the animals, but who will be monitored closely.
In recent years, there has been a trend where the Kamba adopt some of the „superior‟ cattle breeds of Sahiwal and Boran kept by the Maasai. These breeds yield more milk and fetch higher prices when sold or exchanged compared to the traditional Zebu. Acquisition of these
„new‟ breeds has become a marker of social status among the Kamba while it has enhanced Maasai pride, since it serves as resilience of the Maasai as models and pacesetters. Such animals are acquired through many ways; through some form of barter where an agreed equivalent quantity of grain (e.g. four bags of beans) is exchanged for a cow, while others simply pay cash in the cattle markets or by going to Maasai homesteads. Some Kamba borrow male bulls from the Maasai to improve their breed sometimes „free‟ depending on how „well‟
they are acquainted. Others (e.g. Kyuli) got a Sahiwal bull in exchange for his grazing fields where his “Maasai friend” grazed his animals for two months. Apart from Sahiwal breeds of cattle, nearly all the Kamba I met during my study who possessed donkeys had acquired the same from the Maasai.
The photos below, taken during the study, show the traditional Zebu and the preferred Sahiwal breed.
Plate 2 : A „traditional‟ Zebu cow with a calf.
160 Plate 3: The Sahiwal breed of cattle.
There are many Kamba who cross to Maasailand during droughts to burn charcoal, get firewood for sale, in search of herding jobs or to hire fields near springs to irrigate. In addition, there are Kamba families that have specialised in storing maize stalks (either after harvest or crop failure) and then sell these to cattle keepers in the dry season. Mr Kyuli of Kiboko, who has made this a form of trade, buys these stalks from his neighbours at “throw away prices”
immediately after harvest or when rains fail and then waits for the dry spells. The maize stalks are not sold at „fixed‟ prices, and the Maasai pay more for them not just because they are outsiders, but since they are more desperate (given the economic significance and emotional attachment to cattle). However, the Maasai who keep large herds would generally not be interested for it would either be too expensive or the maize stalks would be inadequate. In other cases, the farms were also turned into grazing fields during droughts at a fee. These are normally the large ones (e.g. 20 acres and more) and well fenced off to ensure that only selected herds have access. The progressive Kamba farmers also travel to Kajiado and negotiate for cow dug which they use as manure in their farms. While some get it for free among their in-laws or in families where ties already exist, many obtain it in exchange for cash or grain. The existence of barter trade in the midst of a cash economy showed the contradictions that exited in the two groups in spite of the fact that one regarded itself
“modern” and portrayed the other “traditional”. The hybridity of the trade shows that despite distinctions, the groups are interconnected in intricate ways.
161
One sees that to a very large extent, droughts enhance interaction between the two groups, but with mixed fortunes. Mr Palalelei noted that the Maasai were not necessarily placed at an advantage after a bumper harvest in Ukambani since the Kamba got an alternative source of income and therefore were less willing to rent out their pastures to the Maasai, but, “when they (Kamba) have a lot of food, we also get it cheaply,” he notes. The Maasai have their advantages; “when schools are about to open,” notes he, “the Kamba are desperate to sell their cattle so we take advantage of this”. It is a complex symbiotic relationship with contradictions and antagonisms. When there are food shortages and fewer sources of income, some Kamba along the border resort to crossing over the „Maasai‟ side, haul wood during the night, transport it to „their side‟ where its either burnt for charcoal or sold as firewood. The Maasai on the other hand may take their animals to Kamba grazing areas at night, including farms.
The cattle herders often adopt a strategy where cattle are „let loose‟ and made to look like their whereabouts is unknown, while the herders monitor the cattle‟s movement from a distance as they devour crops in farms or pastures in „private‟ parcels. By the time the Kamba find out, the cattle have already grazed as the Maasai herders emerge with all manner of apologies including feigning having lost them! This is cross-border grazing among the Kamba and the Maasai. Such incidences have been increasingly common (particularly in the last 20 years) that they are often ignored or are treated as „normal‟ unless they are pushed to extremes (e.g. a time when trees on Maasai soil were cut with impunity and “in broad daylight” or when cattle are led into Kamba farms “deliberately” destroying crops). As antagonistic as these relations might look, still, each group knows the „limits‟ beyond which optimal equilibrium would be disrupted.
5.2.2 “Maasai milk” and Kamba customers: Maasai women as „brokers‟
As noted earlier, the Kamba and Maasai modes of subsistence are not a dichotomy. Yet, due to a fairly long history of specialisation and adopting varying land tenure systems, one cannot deny the fact that the production of milk is dominated by the Maasai. Whereas most Kamba today have to rely on goat milk for tea and the children, the Maasai, on average, have a lot of cow milk that has over time been commoditised to generate income. So whereas, there are Kamba who are self sufficient in milk production and others who simply do without it, just like there are Maasai who have neither cattle nor goats, what is of interest here is the flow of this commodity from one group to the other and to find out how this commoditisation impacts on interethnic relations (e.g. whether it leads to consolidation of relations between the Kamba and the Maasai: See Mwende‟s story in chapter four).
162
At one time, I spent three days with a Maasai family. They live about 8 kilometres from Simba trading centre. I would like to present the story of one of the family‟s three wives.
Nkata and her two co-wives and with the assistance of their four daughters were milking a total of 18 cows and producing about 35 litres of milk. The cows could have produced more milk if they were all “improved” breeds or hybrids (e.g. Sahiwal). The family was selling about 30 litres and the rest was for family use. The commoditisation of milk has meant that less and less milk is available for domestic use. The milk trade however had motivated the women to tend cows particularly by ensuring that they have enough pasture and are taken to the watering areas every day (which also translates into more workload). But by so doing, Maasai women in general are involving themselves not just in looking after cattle but in the control and appropriation of this resource. It is worth mentioning that among the pastoral Maasai, milk is normally a woman‟s domain. What is a bit striking is that despite the commoditisation of milk, Maasai men have generally shied away from seeking to control this resource.
It has been shown that money changes the social-cultural interactions of society and those involved (Simmel, 1978). It influences not only lifestyles and living conditions but interpersonal relations. Going back to Nkata‟s case, her husband said: “We cannot touch milk, that is degrading for a man...ahaa...how much do they make anyway, little money,” implying that the men might not mind the money but would not want to „bend low‟ by seeking to
„control‟ milk. Almost in agreement, a councillor noted: “To us (Maasai men), milk is not wealth, if the woman can earn a living and the men lose nothing, why not! after all, the men will even spare their money”. A careful analysis however revealed that in most cases, once a woman began to generate some income, then the husband either covertly or deliberately abdicated or ignored certain financial responsibilities in the family. Nonetheless, the commoditisation of milk among the Maasai has not only shaped women‟s activities and propelled them to attain a sense of self determination, but also to act as „brokers‟ in forging closer interethnic links in the process. It would also be good to point out that the Maasai men, whose wives were involved in the milk business, tended to be more concerned about the
„contacts‟ and the „exposure‟ than the money generated. This „concern‟ forced one man to make all the business contacts himself and would also occasionally deliver the milk.
The milk was retailing at Ksh 15 (EUR 0.2) per litre although the price was „negotiable‟.
Kamba homesteads that were known to the Maasai could be given the milk at a „friendly‟
price of as low as Ksh 10. In Nkata‟s case, she was getting a bigger share of the proceeds
163
because „some‟ of the cows were hers.226 She was more literate than her co-wives and that perhaps explains why she had taken some leading role in the milk trade. When I asked her whether she would not cheat on her co-wives on the proceeds, she said that: “I wouldn‟t do anything like that, mzee(husband) would kill me”. „Kill‟ here basically means that she would be liable for some form of punishment. Mentioning of the husband to some extent suggested that he, and by extension other Maasai men, were not as disengaged in the milk trade as initially implied. About the milk trade, its commoditisation had been “a recent phenomenon.”
And this development had not just been influenced by an increasingly market oriented economy or the need to raise monies to pay for school fees but other external factors as well.
Suffice it to say that the collapse of a key state parastatal, Kenya Co-operative Creameries (KCC) in the 1990‟s seems to have created a vacuum which boosted sales of unpacked whole milk country wide.227 The family started offering milk for sale in 1993. It was evident that some other Maasai families in the village had started earlier. It started on a barter scale basis between families, then to occasional payments in cash to a fairly sophisticated monetary economy. Prior to the 1990‟s there was limited sale of „Maasai milk‟ in restaurants/tea kiosks in the trading centres, particularly those along the border. Nkata explained: “the Kamba who run these businesses used to say that our milk is dirty”. I asked her why the tea kiosk and restaurant proprietors changed their attitude and she said that with time, they came to “learn more about the Maasai,” the Maasai women also transformed themselves into “business women”, learnt a bit of Swahili, had to be “cleaner”, put the milk in plastic containers (rather than traditional gourds), and the question of demand; a vacuum had been created after scarcity of packaged milk and finally, that the Kamba had found out that „Maasai milk‟ “had no water like the one sold by the Kamba”.228 The Maasai therefore, it seemed, had won the trust of the Kamba businesspersons. I did accompany Nkata in her milk marketing ventures which involved transporting the milk from the homestead at about 6.00 hours using donkeys to the Nairobi-Mombasa road where she took a matatu (commuter taxi) to Kiboko, Makindu or Kibwezi. Occasionally, she would also take with her milk from “other women,” particularly her relatives to the markets. After delivering milk to one of the Kamba „customers‟ in Kibwezi, I posed a number of questions:
226 Maasai women accumulate property, particularly cattle, although ideally, they are supposed to be a custodian of the animals allocated to them by their husbands; that is, hold them but bequeath them later to their sons.
227Through accusations of corruption and debts, the co-operative had collapsed, owing dairy farmers (particularly in Central and Rift Valley provinces) millions of shillings. It was later privatised and renamed KCC 2000 but by then smaller packaging firms had emerged giving it stiff competition. The firms that took centre stage include;
Mount Kenya, Delamere Dairies, Brookside, Tuzo, Meru Dairy operative Union and Kitunda Dairy Co-operative Union.
228 She said that with fewer cattle, the Kamba who marketed milk added water to increase sales. This claim was not entirely implausible. To Nkata, Maasailand is a land of plenty while Ukambani is one of scarcity.
164
Q : How did you get this client?
A: He was introduced to me by a neighbour, she could not supply anymore (meet the contractual obligations) after selling some of their animals and moving the others to Nguu (Makueni district).
Q: Did you sign a contract?
A: No it is just on mutual agreement. He doesn‟t even know where I come from (but not the ethnicity). I assured him that I will be supplying him with milk everyday and that if there was a problem, I would let him know.
Q: Did he trust you?
A: At first he didn‟t. He said that we are very unreliable but with time he has come to trust me.
Q: Did he give you any conditions?
A: Yes. He said that I should be coming here very early. If I don‟t make it by 10 a. m., then I take the milk to any other market or hotel (tea kiosk, restaurant). He also said that the milk should be put in clean containers and I should not add water.
Apart from these demands, the Maasai seemed happy that the Kamba „accepted‟ their milk.
Of course, the „rejection‟ of Maasai milk and the notion that it was dirty, is definitely a new phenomenon which took root during the differential transformation witnessed during the colonial period. Anyhow, this change of attitude towards Maasai milk had created new arenas of interaction, communication, negotiation and deliberation that were not available before. As the Maasai proudly say that the Kamba tea kiosks and also families “depend on our milk” they also acknowledge that, to quote Nkata, who put in a very succinct way: “When they (Kamba) accept our milk, they also accept us.” (Simba, 05/01/2000). The money earned from the milk also enhances cross-ethnic interaction since it is used to buy grains, vegetables and fruits, and even to offset fees balances in schools.
5.2.3 “Kamba shops” and Maasai customers
To understand interethnic property relations, it was imperative to establish who owns what, where and of what significance were such property in terms of cross-ethnic interaction and coexistence. Although this was partly discussed in chapter four, I would like to revisit the subject from another dimension.
The heading of this subchapter should not be construed to mean that the Maasai have no stake in local businesses. For most of them though, the „market‟ is a place where exchange between them and „strangers‟ takes place. Nevertheless, owning shops, food kiosks (locally called hoteli), cereal stores, bars and butcheries was regarded highly among the two groups. Even among the Maasai, the importance placed on owning cattle is gradually being eclipsed by