Charles, I have combined your two queries into one to give a more comprehensive response.
Charles Brown wrote:
Do you employ the distinction between gift exchange and commodity exchange as it is developed in the literature of economic anthropology ? Marcel Mauss, Sahlins et al ?
Charles
Yes, I do make that distinction though, in some cases, there was little difference in them in that the gift exchange was a matter of time-shifting in that potlatch gifts were expected to be paid back over the following period before the next potlatch, sometimes with "interest"..
Jim, I don't think you are right on this either. This is not to say there were not 'wars' between tribes or communities, but any community that preyed on members of another community would soon find itself the subject of retributive action. Neighbouring communities, for the most part, appear to have maintained fairly peaceful relations, including trade relations -- primarily, because the trade was beneficial to both groups. Paul P ^^^^^^ CB: These groups didn't treat land as private property ,did they ? These were not actual private property regimes , no ?
Different aboriginal groups had somewhat different variants of social or communal property rights. Personal property, including tools, clothes, jewelry and certain totems, songs, masks, etc. were usually private property. Production property (resources, fishing, hunting and trapping rights to specific regions) were communal (commons) but were allocated to individuals, bands, hunting parties, families etc. by the communal authority which differed among different first nations groups. e.g. among the Pacific NW groups, the chief of the dominant house in the village in theory "owned" the resources but they were allocated to house families or subgroups basically on a customary basis. The output produced, however, was generally communally consumed during the winter village period although each production unit was required to return a certain percentage or amount to the chief for communal redistribution. In some cases, the entire village would move to a particular fishing area depending on the seasonal run where the fishing was a communal effort. This was also true for the interior Indians and for the plains Indians for the annual buffalo hunts. In the case of the agricultural Indians (Hurons, for instance) land was claimed by the families of the clan which first cleared and planted the land. As I understand it, the women of the clan tended the crops while the men went away in larger or smaller hunting parties. Consumption, again was communal within each long house. Generally, since aboriginal religion was animistic based on nature as 'god', individuals could not 'own' god but could only manage and use the fruits of nature. Paul P -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.2/613 - Release Date: 1/1/07 2:50 PM
