A STICK FOR COOPERATION

Carlo Maxia

The purpose of this article is to give a brief description of the use of the
musròju (a stick used for measuring milk) and of the pastoral "partnership"
in which it was used, but most of ali to invite researchers who have stud­
ied similar methods of measurement or calculation to a discussion of the
theme; it is also hoped that it will act as a stimulus for further research or
analysis of systems of this kind.
Up to thirty years ago, in Villasalto, a small Sardinian town, goatherds1
continued to join together to cooperate on the basis of an agreement
known as "a cumpàngius". Each partner took turns doing a specific task
(grazing, cheese-making and so on). Turns were decided on the basis of
the amount of milk produced by each member. To measure the milk and
total the amounts produced over a period of several days, each goatherd
used his own stick, on which notches were cut.

Pastoral cooperation in Villasalto

Villasalto's goatherds joined together in small "partnerships" for three fun­
damental reasons: to have the time and the amount of milk necessary far
cheese-making and to have the time for grazing; the latter required an
entire day.
Besides grazing, milking and milk processing, it was necessary to lead
two secondary flocks to pasture: the kids (in the springtime) and the ewes
that stili had not been fecundated (in the autumn and winter period). Other
chores were the gathering of firewood for cheese-making and warmth at
night and the cleaning of the area and utensils. Finally, it was necessary
to return to town periodically to change clothes, replenish food supplies,

1 l refer to the goatherds l observed, but what follows is also on the whole true for sheep­
raisers.
 CarloMaxia

take the cheese to their homes and sell it.

The "partnership" usually included two or three partners; there were,
however, examples with larger numbers. lt was governed by certain rules
on the basis of which each goatherd took a turn at performing a single ac­
tivity or a defined series of compatible activities. The rules on which rights
and duties were assigned were based on the difference in the amount of
milk produced by each partner. In the morning, each partner milked his
own flock at the same time as the others. Once this operation was com­
pleted, the common flock was reconstituted and each partner performed
the chores he had been assigned in the turn-taking. With these rules,
each partner was guaranteed the proceeds from his own flock and the
results of his own work.
The fundamental rules of this organisation required the division of daily
chores into two main operations: leading the common flock to pasture
(muda) and cheese-making (indicated as a "milk day" or "cheese day").
To obtain a "milk day" meant to take the milk produced by ali the partners
in a single day and to have the time to turn it into cheese. The "milk day"
always had to be preceded by a day of grazing. In this way each goatherd
received the fruits of his labour: in fact, milk production could vary with the
good or bad performance of the grazing operation. The goatherd whose
"grazing day" it was did nothing else that day; the one whose "milk day" it
was had the duty of taking care of ali the other chores involved in running
the fold, besides the right to process cheese.
The "partnership" was preferably made up of goatherds who produced
similar amounts of milk. In this way the partners could alternate "grazing
days" with "cheese days". The amounts of milk were similar but not identi­
ca!: they were measured quite accurately by means of a system we shall
analyse further on and, on the basis of the differences in production, even
when minima!, the distribution of rights and duties was decided.

The system for measuring the milk

The economics of the goatherds' "partnership" was based on a kind of
milk distribution similar to a loan: to assess the exact amount of the "loan"
and the amount necessary for repayment of the "debts", a stick known as
the musròju was used. This object, into which notches were cut, perfor­
med different functions: it was a unit of measurement, a measuring instru­
ment, an instrument for calculating sums relating to amounts measured

:;:;:;::::::::::::::::::;: ;: ;: ;: ;: ;: ;: ;: ;: ;: ;: ;: ;: ;: ;: ;: :;;: :;:;:;:::::::::;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;�:?-;�:?.;:;:::�::�;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;�:;:;�:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;: ;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:::;.:.:.:�.:..:::.:��:��:::::::::::: :;:;:;:;:;: ;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;::;; :;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;::;; :;:;:;:;:;;:

172 EUROP.tEA 1995, 1-1
A stickfor cooperation
:s:.-:..�:�:;;:;:;:;: ;:;:;::;:;:;:;:;:::::;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:::;:;:�;:;:;:-::=;:;�.:.:-::?: ;:;:;:;:::::r&�'i:'i:-::;::�;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:::::::;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;::t:·:�.(

over a period of several days, and a "ledger" containing the amounts

measured and totalled (Fig. 1 ).
Each goatherd had his own stick for
measuring and recording the amounts of
milk consigned to the partners. The meas­
uring was in fact done exclusively by
those partners who had to give the milk to

T
the receiver of the "cheese day". Those
who produced less referred to the amount
SCALE FOR MEASUREMENT, of milk produced by the largest producer;
MEASURING
WHOlEUNITS
ANNOTATION,
SUMMINGOF
the latter took in the entire production,
PARTIAlUNITS
sometimes for severa! days on end, until

l
one of the other partners, by summing his
daily amounts, had matched the daily
production of the largest producer. Once
Fig. 1 he had reached this amount, the small
producer had the right t o a "milk day".
The milk produced each morning
was placed in a cylindrical recipient
known as the làuna (Fig. 2). The
stick was graduated on the basis r --- - - - '7
l
of the height of the recipient: the
level of maximum capacity of the
làuna (the unit) was indicated by a
large notch on the stick. To meas­ l l
ure the milk, the stick was dipped -
L _j ___ ___

into the milk and checked to see if Calibration ot the

làuna
the level reached the large notch. musroju
When the recipient was full, a
notch was cut into the top part of Fig. 2
the stick, which was the part on
which the number of full recipients "lent" was recorded. When the amount
of milk did not reach the unit mark, a notch was cut at the level reached
by the milk: in this way, the measuring instrument became an instrument
for recording fractions.
The partner who was obliged to "lend" or "pay back" the milk added up
day by day the amounts he milked from his ewes and gave to the goat-

.....
E'UìfO rkK 1995; ��� .... . ,..
·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:-:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·: :- : ·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·: :·:·:·:·:·: ·:·:::·:::-.:::
· · »="" ·:·:::-. .:·-.:-.: :;:::::::::::;:::;::::::::::::::::::::::::����=��:;:�::;:;::::*:::*:�:::::;:;:; ·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:::::::::::::::::::::·:·:·:·:·:
&W"�·:......

ì73.
 CarloMaxia

herd who had the right to the "cheese day". The musròju thus also allow­
ed the recording of the totals, as well as the units and fractions of units.

Totalling the amounts of milk

With the musròju it was possible to sum up accurately the amounts of milk
contributed over a period of several
days. To arrive at the sum of the
units, a glance at the top part of the
stick was sufficient (Fig. 1 ) : the units
(discrete amounts) were simply re­
corded and counted. The notches
representing the fractions (cui/lèddas)
identified continuous quantities and
could not be numbered, at least not o� o
until they had reached a unit. But it
o e

was stili possible to "add", that is, 9

bring together, the fractions of several

days. We shall show how fractions Fig. 3
were totalled with an example for two
days (Fig. 3).
Here is how the current notches were cut and old ones eliminated
(Fig. 4): to cancel a notch, another notch was cut in the opposite direction,

current notch cancelled notch

Fig. 4
A stickfor cooperation
;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:::::::::::::::::�;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::-;:;;;:::::;:::;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:::::;:;:;:;:;:;:;:::;:;:;::::::::*;:;:;;;�r::::;:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;:;�:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;: ; :;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:: :;:;;: ;: ;: ;: ;: ;: ;: ;: ;: ;: ;: ;: ;: ;: ;: ;: ;: ;: ;: �:;:;

thus forming a circular figure which could not be mistaken for a current
one. l wish to point out that the cancelling was exclusively a part of the
summing operation; it was therefore not used for the recording of units.
Let us now examine how a small producer obtained a "cheese day"
through the daily summing of the amounts of milk his ewes produced.
In the Fig. 5 we see two sticks belonging to goatherd X and goatherd
Y. At the beginning, X, the larger producer, has an advantage of five mus­
ròjus (units): (SM); Y produces one unit (1M) plus a fraction (t1). According
to the rules, X has the right to take in ali of Y's milk unti! the latter has
reached the five units. Once he has reached this amount, Y will receive in
a single day ali the milk. he had turned over to X in a period of severa!
days. During this period only Y measures his milk.
O n the second day (Fig. 6), Y has to add the cuìlla (the leftover) of the
previous day (tl) to the fraction of milk just measured (t2). He thus has to
increase t2 by segment 0-t1; to do this, he uses a piece of bark the same
length as O-t1 and "adds" it to t2.

1st Day 2nd Day

(X) (Y) L(y,2)

2M 2M

- t2 +t,
- 12 �I *
*
t,
-

- t,
o o

L(x,1) = 5M L(y,1) =1M+ 11

Fig. 5 Fig. 6

On the third day (Fig. 7), Y makes a new measurement: one unit,
which he records on the top part of the stick, and t3, which he enters at
 CarloMaxia
::::::::::::::::::::;:;:;:;:;:;;;��:;:;:;:;:;:;:;.:··:: :;;: :;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;;: ;: ;: ;: ;: ;: ;: ;: ;: ;: ;: ;: ;: ;: ;: ;: ;: ;: ;: ;: ;: ;: ;: ;: ;: ;: :: ;: ;: ;: ;: ;: ;: ;: :: :::: :::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::;;.;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;::·: ··::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;: :: :: :: .:.:: ...

the leve! of the milk. Wishing to add t3 to the fractions recorded previously,
he will have to reproduce the segment O-t3 and bring it up to above the
notch indicating the old total (t2 + t1) .
On the fourth day Y records another unit on his stick (4M) as well as a
small fraction (t4). He adds by bringing segment 0-4 up to the notch of the
day before, and arrives at a point above the large notch. In this way, by
summing day by day, Y has reaehed X in four days; now it is his turn to
have a "milk day". The difference between notch (4 + t3 + t2 + t1)- 1 = tr;
Y has thus paid back to X the five units and is his creditor to the amount
of 0-tr.

3rd Day 4th Day

L(y,3) L(y,4)

- \J+Ì2+t1

�r:
o *
*
-4

* * t,
* * *
* * *
* * *

o o o o o

(4 +t3 +t2 + t1- 1) t, =

L(y,4) = 4M + (t4 +t3 + t2 + t1) = 5M +t,

Fig. 7 Fig. 8

The "lending" system

As we have seen, the measurement of the milk allowed the partners to

establish who would receive a "milk day". The grazing day and other op­
erations were assigned consequently: the "grazing day" always had to
precede the "cheese day" and the other activities followed.
l shall now illustrate the relationship between the amount of milk produ-

:;::···:··: :·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·: :;:;:;:;:;:;:;::::��=:;:';2:;:;:'�;:::::::::::: :;:;:::: :::::::::::: ;: :: :: :: :: :: :: :::::::::::::::::::::::::;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;;: ;: ;: ;: :: ·::;;: ;: ;. ;. . . . ;.::: :: :: :: :::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::: :::::::::: :: :::::;;: ;: ;: ;: ;: ;: ;: ;: ;: ;: :: ·: .·.·. ·
176 EUROPA-ìA 1995, 1-1
 A stickfor cooperation
;::=::::::::�:��:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;: . ;:;:;:;:;:;:; :::::; :; :; :;:; :;:; :; :; :; :; :; :; :; :;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:, ;:;:;:; :; :
:;:;:; :::::::::::::;·:·:·:·:·:·:·:· ·:·;:;:;:;:;::;:·······
: : :;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;.;.;.;:;:::::;:::::::::::::::::::::::::: ;:; :;:; :; :; :;:;:;:; :;:;:::::::; :; :; :; :; :; :; :; :; :; : : :;:;::
;;

ced and the assignment of chores by describing the two most frequent
"typical" situations2 for simplicity's sake l shall express amounts in terms
of litres.

x y

1st CHEESE takes ali lends l O GRAZTNG

2nd GRAZING retum IO takes ali CHEESE

Table 1. "A mittàdi" (Half and half) - when the amounts produced, L(X) and L(Y) were
equal. Ex.: 1st day. X produces 10 litres of milk [L(X) 10] and Y produces 10 [L(Y) 10]. = =

The term "lends" implies the entire production of a day of the goatherd
making the loan; "takes all" indicates ali the milk produced on that day by
both goatherds. Cheese indicates the person who is to have the "cheese
day"; GRAZING identifies the person who is to have a "grazing day". As we
can see, rights and duties are divided exactly in half in this case.

x y

1st GRAZING
takes ali lcnds 5
CHEESE

2nd CHEESE takes ali lcnds 5 GRAZING

Jrd GRAZING retum IO takes ali CHEESE

Table 2. "De tres una" (one out of three)- when L(Y) is 1/3 of the sum L(X) + L(Y). Ex.: 1st
day. X produces 1 O litres of milk [L(X) 1O] and Y produces 5 [L(Y) 5]. = =

2·When two or more goatherds formed a "partnership", they checked the different amounts
of milk produced and, on this basis, established their production ratio. Once this ratio had
been established, that is, once they had calculated how many times the milk of a small
producer went into that of a large producer, the partners established how many and which
"cheese days" would be assigned to each one. This was, however. an approximate
calculation, and as such could be confirmed or not by the daily measurements. Production
ratios were transformed into "cheese days".

:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:::;:: .:::::::::::;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:::::::::::::::::;:;:;:::::::::::;:;:�:
: :�*!:::!:�:!:::?:i:::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;::::::.:»::::::::::::::::::;::;
� :;. ··.::::::;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:: ::;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:::::::::;�
EUROPA::A 1995, I-l 177
 Carlo Maxia
;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;::::�::::=*:: :::::::::;:;:::::::::::::::;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;::::::��: ::::::::::;:;:;:;:::::::::::;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:�:::::�:::::;:;:;:;:;:: :;:;:;:; :;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;:;:;:;:;:;:;:; :;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:=·.::::::::::::

Since L(x) > L(y), X will take ali the milk produced on the first day. On
the second day, Y reaches the 10 litres produced by X the first day; this
will allow him to have ali the milk produced on the third day for himself. To
do this he will have to lead the animals to pasture on the second day.
The two cases just described were the most frequent, but they did not
proceed with such precision; in fact, not only have we kept the amounts of
milk produced constant, for simplicity's sake, but we also considered them
in terms of whole numbers with no fractions: in each example L(x) was a
multiple of L(y). In the concrete situations, the amounts varied from day to
day, and fractions always entered into the calculations.
Here is a situation somewhat closer to reality, in which the production
of the two goatherds varied randomly every day.

Y's
x y
crcdits

GRAZINO
1st CHEESE
takcs ali lends 8

2nd CIIEESE takcs ali lends 9 GRAZINO

3rd GRAZlNG rctums Il takes ali +6 CHEESE

4th CHEESE takes ali Jcnds R GRAZTNG

5th GRAZINO rctums IO takes ali +4 Ci·lEESE

6th CHEESE takes ali lends 7 GRAZINO

7th GRAZINO retums 9 takes ali +2 CHEJ:::SE

8th CHEESE takes ali Jends 8 GRAZINO

9th relums-10 takcs ali =even CHEESE

Table 3. Ex.: 1st day. X produces 10 litres of milk [L(X,1) = 10] and Y produces 8 (l(Y,1) = 8].

:;::
; :;;
:
;:
:
; ;:;: ;:;:;:�
;: �<<
-: ::::� ;:;::::: �:: :::::::: : ::�:»» $.�:$.$.���:;:;:;:;:::;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:: :;:;:;:�:-:·:
;::::::����:::»
: : · ·:·:�.:··:-·:f:f:f
...
..:·:·: ;:{:;:;: ;::
-:o::: ; ;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;;
:;:
;
; ��?. � �;;:;
:� :;: ;-;
;; ���==�:::;::;::::
:;:;::
;:
; ;:;::
178 EUROPIEA 1995, I-1
 A stickfor cooperation
:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;::· ..:·:·:·:·:·:.::::;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:::::::;:;:;:;:;:::;:;:;:;::::::::::::::::::::;::::�:::;:�;:::;�:;::::;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:; . :·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·;:;:;::·:·::; :;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;: :;:;:;:·:·:·:········ ·

Comparisons

Many mentions of the use of notched sticks to record numerica! quantities

are to be found in the literature. G. lfrah [1989] states that this technique,
which appeared some thirty thousand years before Christ, was used even
up to the recent past by institutional bodies in some European countries:
the British Chancellor of the Exchequer, up to the beginning of the last
century, kept records of tax payments and cash flow using notched sticks;
in France, taxes collected for payment to the aristocracy and the
sovereign were also recorded in this way. Notched sticks used as ledgers
were frequent in Germany, Switzerland and the Scandinavian countries.
In marketplaces, sticks were used as a kind of credit card, and also as
guarantees in contracts or to certify the delivery of goods. P. Atzeni [1989]
described the technique used in recording the purchase of wheat on credit
in southern Sardinia.
G. lfrah also points out the widespread use of sticks by shepherds in
different parts of Europe: he mentions the alpine shepherds (ltalian, Swiss
and Austrian) the Celts, the Tuscans and the Dalmatians. In these cases,
the stick was used as a "ledger" on which the numbers of livestock were
entered. This inventory could also register the animals by sex, age, as
barren, as good milkers and so on: in this way an inventory in every sense
of the word could be kept without recourse to writing. Some informers
from Burcei (a small town in Sardinia) have told me about a stick on which
the number of animals an owner entrusted to the care of a shepherd, on
the basis of the terms and conditions of a specific contract, was recorded.
The stick was sawn lengthwise and the shepherd and the owner each
kept one half of the stick to make sure that neither changed the numbers.
Although he did not describe the method, G. lfrah mentions a case of
the measuring of milk by shepherds from the town of Ulrichen (Switzer­
land). He illustrates the symbols with which the amounts of milk were
indicated (a special mark for each five units), but unfortunately he says
nothing about the units of measurement used.
P. Scheuermeier describes a "turn-taking system" in the ambit of
summer mountain pasture in ltaly, in Trentina and in the province of Ber­
gamo (Lombardy), in which some points in common are to be found with
the system used in Villasalto: the putting the animals together in a com­
mon flock or herd, the noting of the amounts of milk produced (in this case
both credits and debts), the distribution of milk on the basis of differences

;:::: : :·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:· :·:·:·:·:·::;:; :;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:: :;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:::::::;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:: :;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:::::::::::::::::::;:::;:;:;:;:;:;:::::::;:;:;:::::::::��=:��

EUROP!EA 1995, I-1 179
 Carlo MaxiJJ
x:::::=��::::x: �:-;;:;:;x"::�==�:::::::;:::..���::�*:�::�;:;:;:�::.::s::e:��=:=:=:=:�::�$:>.:.:��-:����=�::::�.�.:....::�::���:�::s:��

in production, the possibility of summing up the amounts produced over

several days. However, some noteworthy differences are to be found,
both as concerns the kind of "partnership" and the function of the stick. In
the Sardinian case, the "partnership" was made up exclusively of goat­
herds and lasted ali year long; in Trentina the common herd was formed
only in the summer and the owners were usually farmers. Once they had
reached their summer pastures, the cows were taken into custody by a
group of highlanders made up of persons to whom special duties were
assigned: the cheese maker with his helper (who took care of the wood,
the fire and cleaned the stalls}, a chief cowherd, a cowherd and a young
helper. Ali took part in the milking, except for the cheese-maker who
weighed and recorded the amount of milk produced by each cow. On the
contrary, in Villasalto each goatherd was assigned a duty on the basis of
the amount of milk he produced, as we have seen.
The differences between the sticks are also rather important: the m us­
ròju was used for measuring (no reference was made to any official unit of
measurement, either of capacity or weight}, recording and calculating; the
téssera, the stick used during mountain pasturing, was used only to
record and add up the amounts produced. Using a rather complicated
system of differentiated notches, the date and weight (expressed in kilo­
grams or in traditional units of measurement) of the milk produced in the
morning and in the evening were recorded on the téssera, while the mus­
ròju required nothing more than the cutting of undifferentiated notches,
which took their meaning from their position o n the stick.
The description of systems like these suggests different ideas both for
the study of traditional societies from the viewpoint of their economie
organisations and from that of extending knowledge on a subject of re­
search that today is becoming more and more important: ways in which to
consider practical mathematics and special ways of calculating the solu­
tions of concrete problems. lt would therefore be opportune, to my way of
thinking, to conduct comparative studies in this sense, and l should be
most grateful to anyone who could provide me with information on re­
search that has been done or is stili in progress in this field.

Carlo Maxia
(Université de Provence)
A stickfor cooperation
.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·,•,·::::::::::::::::;:::::;:;:;: :·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·::: :;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;::·::;:;:;:;:;: : ::.:..:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;: ;:;:::::::::::::::::::::::::::;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;: ;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;::

REFERENCES

Angioni, G.
1974 Rapporti di produzione e cultura subalterna: Contadini in Sardegna,
Cagliari, EDES.
1989 l pascoli erranti: Antropologia del pastore in Sardegna, Napoli, Liguori,
and Nuoro, ISRE.

Atzeni, P.
1989 Il corpo, i gesti, lo stile: /lavori delle donne in Sardegna, Cagliari, CUEC.
Campiglio, A. - Eugeni, V.
1990 Dalle dita al calcolatore, Milano, Bompìani.

Elster,J.
1979 Ulysses and the Sirens, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
1989 Nuts and Bo/fs for the Social Sciences, Cambridge, Cambridge University
Press.

Gambetta, D. (ed.)
1988 Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations, Oxford, Basil Blackwell.

Godbout, J.
1992 L'esprit du don, Paris, Edition de la Découverte.

Grendi, E. (ed.)
1972 L'antropologia economica, Torino, Einaudi.

lfrah, G.
1985 Les chiffres ou l'histoire d'une grande invention, Paris, Editions Robert ·

Laffont.

Kula,W.
1970 Miari i /udzie, Warszawa, Panstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, it., Le
misure e gli uomini: Dall'antichità a oggi, Bari, Laterza, 1987.

Pavanello, M.
1992 Sistemi umani: Profilo di antropologia economica e di ecologia culturale,
Roma, CISU.
1993 Le società acquisitive e i fondamenti razionali dello scambio, Milano,
Franco Angeli.

Picutti, E.
1977 Su/ numero e la sua storia, Milano, Feltrinelli.

Polanyi, K.
1957 (ed.) Trade and Market in Early Empires, Glencoe, The Free Press.
1968 Primitive, Archaic and Modern Economies, Doubleday & Company.
 CarloMaxia

1977 The Livelihood of Man, New York, Academic Press.

Sahlins, M.
1972 Stone Age Economics, Chicago, Aldine-Atherton.

Scheuermeier, P.
1943 Bauernwerk in ltalien der italienischen und ratoromanischen landwir­
t
schaftlicher Arbeiten und Gerate, Erlenbach-ZOrich, Eugen Renstch
Verlag, it. l/lavoro dei contadini: Cultura materiale e arit gianato rurale in
Italia e nella Svizzera italiana e retoromanza. Milano, Longanesi & C., 1980.

Solinas, P.G.
1992 Economie minori: Saggi di antropologia, Cagliari-Sassari, EDES.

Squillacciotti, M. (ed.)
1992 Antropologia del numero, Facoltà di Lettere e Filosofia, Università di Siena.