2 ms·
It isn't at all true that hunter-gatherers had only status and not wealth. The Native American tribes of eastern North America used wampum, small, regular bead
by samatman 5y ago
It isn't at all true that hunter-gatherers had only status and not wealth.
The Native American tribes of eastern North America used wampum, small, regular beads made from a few specific shells, as a store of value and medium of exchange.
Yes, they couldn't own that much more than they could carry. Some of these peoples did farm, some didn't, but all of them relied on hunting or fishing, and most had to move around at least a couple times a year.
But a wealthy Iroquois could wear enough wealth to buy many times what he could carry in meat, tools, furs, and anything else which other people could make available.
Shell money isn't limited to the Native Americans, either, it's been found in paleolithic grave goods and was quite widespread anywhere Europeans encountered hunter-gatherers.
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y agoThere's also the potlatch tradition of several PNW tribes, in which wealth was demonstrated by giving it away at celebrations, in the form of food, art, clothing, etc.
- samatman 5y agoYeah I was considering continuing down that road, and saying that, if anything, status derives more from wealth in hunter-gatherer cultures than it does in sedentary cultures. Status hierarchies in nomadic foraging societies tend to be flatter, and more fluid, and based on what the 'big man' can do for his posse: leading them in war parties, having a lot of wampum or copper to give away for life occasions like bride price, throwing big feasts and so on. The eldest son of a chief has a head start in life, but far less security than being the heir of titled nobility in a primogeniture culture entails.