In the Dani culture, subsistence is derived from irrigation-based cultivation, a system which is considered a form of agricultural intensification. Therefore, by definition, Dani agriculture features intensive cultivation. However, specifically, Dani agriculture features ditchworks (the irrigation system) and can be characterised as an agriculturalist approach since they have changed their environment “through the elimination of forest cover, the construction of irrigation ditches, and adoption of other techniques to enhance the productive capacity of the land” (“Unit 3,” n.d.). In other words, the Dani have altered the surrounding landscape in order to produce their living.

Their primary staple is sweet potato; prior to its introduction taro was one of the most significant crops being cultivated (Shankman, 1991). Sweet potato performs better in the climate of New Guinea than taro and yam; it is known for its “tolerance of poor and agriculturally depleted soils” (Golson & Gardner, 1990, p. 396). Related to this is the Dani reliance on domesticated pigs (a reliance founded on population growth which reduced wild game in the area), which are often fed by the remains from gardening, which in turn necessitates farming (Shankman, 1991). Returning to the significance of sweet potato farming, some scholars point to the introduction of the sweet potato as driving force which “transformed a region where before there had been only low levels of agricultural activity and population” (Golson & Gardner, 1990, p. 396). The Dani do employ some horticultural practices, which occur when a society simply relies on “natural sources and cycles of water and soil fertility” (“Unit 3,” n.d.). Their horticultural practices are represented by swidden cultivation of the taro (“Unit 3,” n.d.).

How a society conducts its subsistence systems has a direct impact on its social institutions. Agricultural intensive cultures have distinct features (“Unit 3,” n.d.). Since these methods produce more crops, they are able to support larger populations, resulting in denser populations. These larger populations and their subsistence systems usually mean larger operations, resulting in occupational specialization – that is, there are full-time craft producers. Larger populations combined with occupational specialization produce stratification, which features a nonproducing elite which possesses wealth and power based on land ownership. These large operations often produce centralization, which is the presence of a territorial state, and urbanization, which contains population concentrations that have special control functions. These elements also produce nonagricultural classes of people. The presence of the urban element in conjunction with the rural element (where the farming takes place) results in such societies generally being labelled peasant societies, from an anthropological point of view.

However, many of these features are not found in Dani culture. In fact, the Dani seem to fall more in line with social institutions that are associated with horticultural practices, despite their heavy reliance on agriculturalist practices. Dani social institutions are more like tribal level societies (“Unit 3,” n.d.). The Dani feature “localized unilineal descent groups that allocate land use” (“Unit 3,” n.d.), since “the language of descent, siblingship, and kinship provides the means for describing and reckoning important social relations” (Golson & Gardner, 1990, p. 396). They do practice sedentarism, as evidenced by their large villages, though Dani leaders often encourage immigration to enhance labor for the sweet potato fields (Shankman, 1991). There is not significant political centralization; there are periodic ritual wars between villages, though two secular wars have also been recorded (Shankman, 1991).

Secular wars are often the result of ritual wars which escalate (Shankman, 1991). There are leaders who appear to wield control economically which can contribute to the appearance of political power, but mostly the ‘big men’ who are regarded as economic power-holders are simply able to wield just that: economic power (Golson & Gardner, 1990). The Dani are not urban (a key characteristic of agriculturalist societies), nor do they appear to be moving towards industrialism (“Unit 3,” n.d.). Nevertheless, they seem to have large populations, much like agriculturalist societies. In short, the Dani do not appear to incorporate agriculturalist social institutions as expected. They appear to reflect more horticulturalist leanings in their practices, which – given the fact that they did not always cultivate sweet potato, which requires heavy agricultural practice – is not entirely surprising. As noted earlier, the Dani used to cultivate taro significantly, which allowed them to use swidden cultivation, which is a horticulturalist approach.

The presence of ‘big men’ or leaders, which represents a kind of political economy (Golson & Gardner, 1990), is an aspect of the culture that can be explained by their subsistence patterns. These men are associated with moka, a “complex ceremonial exchange network” that is a “central feature of social life” which is associated with “reproductive exchange and warfare payments” and “agricultural production and pig husbandry” (Golson & Gardner, 1990, p. 398). Relevant to this discussion is the pig husbandry, since the ‘big-men’ are directly responsible for and control the pig trade. Considering the importance of pigs in the subsistence systems of the Dani, whoever controls access to pigs – either directly or in the form of trade – would wield significant power within the culture.

Therefore, the presence of the moka suggests a leaning towards agriculturalist practices not otherwise seen in Dani culture. Some scholars suggest that while the introduction of the sweet potato to Dani culture changed Dani cultivation practices, it was done in such a way that did not affect the overall social structure of the Dani (Shankman, 1991). That is to say – or, at the very least, suggests – that while the introduction of the sweet potato in some ways improved the prospects of the Dani culture, it did not and potentially could not undermine already existing social structures established during the culture’s primarily horticulturalist days.