Project Reason is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit foundation devoted to spreading scientific knowledge and secular values in society. The foundation draws on the talents of prominent and creative thinkers in a wide range of disciplines to encourage critical thinking and erode the influence of dogmatism, superstition, and bigotry in our world.
big red football:
I’m arguing that trading as a practice does not predate at least some level of social, economic, and technological development. Very early humans who practiced purely subsistence hunter-gathering were not likely to practice trade with other groups—that’s my argument.
Well, I’m far from being an anthropologist, but it sounds like this was a hot topic amongst the experts recently.
I contend that you don’t need a “surplus” to trade. The OP is considering human behavior from DAY ONE, so as far back as there were Homo sapiens. I define trading, not just as a planned sort of commerce, but as simple as “I’ll give you this, if you give me that.” An example is modern children trading cookies at lunch time. No surplus needed, just agreement to swap, as opposed to grabbing or stealing.
Trading is a hallmark of the human species and uncommon in other species. Here is a link to an abstract of a study of trade in chimpanzees:
Unfortunately, I did not see the whole text available for free.
Anyway, the authors write: ...barter is mutually beneficial and appears to be within the cognitive capabilities of many species. It may be that other species do not recognize the gains of trade, or that they do not experience conditions (e.g., low risk) in which barter is most beneficial.
Language plays a key role: At the simplest level, a critical aspect to confidence in trade is reputation — reinforced through language, or gossip, which is something chimpanzees lack.
Although in the OP I mentioned an inland clan trading with a seashore clan (like trading obsidian for seashells), I was also thinking of person to person trading as Hannah mentions here - “I’ll give you this if you give me that.” I feel sure that Neanderthals and other hominid species also traded with each other, within the clan, and maybe with neighboring clans. Your family is hungry but has extra fur clothing so you trade with a group that just had a very successful hunt but they’re walking around in tatters. Someone who had special skill making superior footwear would quickly learn that he or she had a valuable trade item. A fertile couple who have so many children they don’t know what to do, trade with a childless couple who are pining for a wee one?
Next: (lost track of the numbers)
Warn and frighten children about the giant hairy men-like creatures living in yonder woods, or in the bog down there. “Hey you kids. Don’t go far or the Bogeyman will get you!” I suspect that since Day One parents have warned their kids not to accept treats from strangers, or go with them anywhere.
(I just saw a news report that a court in Australia has ruled that a dingo did take that baby, exonerating the infant’s mother).
Since Day One, grass fires and forest fires were set by lightning, and accidentally from campfires. Within a year of the burn people would notice that more grazing animals showed up for the tender new grass, and they were easier to see and hunt than when in dense undergrowth. No?
big red football:
I’m arguing that trading as a practice does not predate at least some level of social, economic, and technological development. Very early humans who practiced purely subsistence hunter-gathering were not likely to practice trade with other groups—that’s my argument.
Well, I’m far from being an anthropologist, but it sounds like this was a hot topic amongst the experts recently.
I contend that you don’t need a “surplus” to trade. The OP is considering human behavior from DAY ONE, so as far back as there were Homo sapiens. I define trading, not just as a planned sort of commerce, but as simple as “I’ll give you this, if you give me that.” An example is modern children trading cookies at lunch time. No surplus needed, just agreement to swap, as opposed to grabbing or stealing.
Trading is a hallmark of the human species and uncommon in other species. Here is a link to an abstract of a study of trade in chimpanzees:
Unfortunately, I did not see the whole text available for free.
Anyway, the authors write: ...barter is mutually beneficial and appears to be within the cognitive capabilities of many species. It may be that other species do not recognize the gains of trade, or that they do not experience conditions (e.g., low risk) in which barter is most beneficial.
Language plays a key role: At the simplest level, a critical aspect to confidence in trade is reputation — reinforced through language, or gossip, which is something chimpanzees lack.
Although in the OP I mentioned an inland clan trading with a seashore clan (like trading obsidian for seashells), I was also thinking of person to person trading as Hannah mentions here - “I’ll give you this if you give me that.” I feel sure that Neanderthals and other hominid species also traded with each other, within the clan, and maybe with neighboring clans. Your family is hungry but has extra fur clothing so you trade with a group that just had a very successful hunt but they’re walking around in tatters. Someone who had special skill making superior footwear would quickly learn that he or she had a valuable trade item. A fertile couple who have so many children they don’t know what to do, trade with a childless couple who are pining for a wee one?
Next: (lost track of the numbers)
Warn and frighten children about the giant hairy men-like creatures living in yonder woods, or in the bog down there. “Hey you kids. Don’t go far or the Bogeyman will get you!” I suspect that since Day One parents have warned their kids not to accept treats from strangers, or go with them anywhere.
(I just saw a news report that a court in Australia has ruled that a dingo did take that baby, exonerating the infant’s mother).
Since Day One, grass fires and forest fires were set by lightning, and accidentally from campfires. Within a year of the burn people would notice that more grazing animals showed up for the tender new grass, and they were easier to see and hunt than when in dense undergrowth. No?
You’re assuming a concept of ownership. I am not so sure that very early humans had developed that concept. You can’t really trade this-for-that if everybody/nobody “owns” either item.
Once tool-making advanced, once the manufacture of other products advanced, once techniques of hunting and knowledge of food-gathering had developed somewhat, then yes, I can see that.
Once tool-making advanced, once the manufacture of other products advanced, once techniques of hunting and knowledge of food-gathering had developed somewhat, then yes, I can see that.
By the time we (Homo sapiens) evolved, our ancestors had already been using tools for over two million years. So true humans were never without tools. And considering that many non-human animals have a definite concept of ownership (my nest, my chew toy), I’ll bet the earliest humans did too.
In sum, there was never a time when Homo sapiens were creatures without tools, group social structure, or strategies for hunting and gathering. Maybe a primitive type of trade would look like this: One energetic boy hikes away from the group to gather a pouch full of special stones from a cliff. He gives them to the adult tool makers, who give him back a few shaped as scrapers. The boy helps his mother scrape the hides the hunters provided. All the people share the meat and the hides. The idea of trading services requires language, since some of the “pay-back” is not immediate. I think this scenario is possible for the earliest humans.
I venture that the boy might also have a small pouch with a collection of especially interesting tiny stones. He could trade these for decorative feathers or chewing resin collected by his buddies.
And this brings me to
51. Collects items of special interest or significance to the individual
Once tool-making advanced, once the manufacture of other products advanced, once techniques of hunting and knowledge of food-gathering had developed somewhat, then yes, I can see that.
By the time we (Homo sapiens) evolved, our ancestors had already been using tools for over two million years. So true humans were never without tools. And considering that many non-human animals have a definite concept of ownership (my nest, my chew toy), I’ll bet the earliest humans did too.
In sum, there was never a time when Homo sapiens were creatures without tools, group social structure, or strategies for hunting and gathering. Maybe a primitive type of trade would look like this: One energetic boy hikes away from the group to gather a pouch full of special stones from a cliff. He gives them to the adult tool makers, who give him back a few shaped as scrapers. The boy helps his mother scrape the hides the hunters provided. All the people share the meat and the hides. The idea of trading services requires language, since some of the “pay-back” is not immediate. I think this scenario is possible for the earliest humans.
I venture that the boy might also have a small pouch with a collection of especially interesting tiny stones. He could trade these for decorative feathers or chewing resin collected by his buddies.
And this brings me to
51. Collects items of special interest or significance to the individual
I said “Once tool-making advanced”. As in, advanced beyond the level of the lower and middle Paleolithic. Yes, humans have been using tools for a long time, but they were relatively simple tools which didn’t change over time for most of that period. The simple stone axe and adz implement which were used for most of that period were very…well, simple, and were unchanged for so long that there’s nothing to suggest that one clan would encounter another clan which had a technological edge over the other.
I still maintain that there’s a fundamental difference between the examples you’re giving—barter between members of the same group—versus actual trade, which is between individuals of a different class/trade/caste, or between members of different groups. The scenario you give above is more of a collective problem-solving or task-delegating scenario than actual “trade”.
I still maintain that there’s a fundamental difference between the examples you’re giving—barter between members of the same group—versus actual trade, which is between individuals of a different class/trade/caste, or between members of different groups. The scenario you give above is more of a collective problem-solving or task-delegating scenario than actual “trade”.
OK, barter has been going on since day 1. Trade, as per your definition, came later. Good to define terms.
I still maintain that there’s a fundamental difference between the examples you’re giving—barter between members of the same group—versus actual trade, which is between individuals of a different class/trade/caste, or between members of different groups. The scenario you give above is more of a collective problem-solving or task-delegating scenario than actual “trade”.
OK, barter has been going on since day 1. Trade, as per your definition, came later. Good to define terms.
DOLLARS USED AS BARTER SINCE DAY 1
One hundred thousand years ago, a clan of Homo sapiens, driven from their ancestral beach home by a tsunami (a big chunk of the Canary Islands fell into the sea) travel through highlands, looking for a new place to settle. They meet another clan and communicate with sign language. A young beach woman, wanting to ‘buy’ a present for her husband, offers a peculiar ornament to a hunter in exchange for a gleaming white spear point. (quartz)
(She is offering a magical pendant that displays the interior design of a sand dollar).
I still maintain that there’s a fundamental difference between the examples you’re giving—barter between members of the same group—versus actual trade, which is between individuals of a different class/trade/caste, or between members of different groups. The scenario you give above is more of a collective problem-solving or task-delegating scenario than actual “trade”.
OK, barter has been going on since day 1. Trade, as per your definition, came later. Good to define terms.
DOLLARS USED AS BARTER SINCE DAY 1
One hundred thousand years ago, a clan of Homo sapiens, driven from their ancestral beach home by a tsunami (a big chunk of the Canary Islands fell into the sea) travel through highlands, looking for a new place to settle. They meet another clan and communicate with sign language. A young beach woman, wanting to ‘buy’ a present for her husband, offers a peculiar ornament to a hunter in exchange for a gleaming white spear point. (quartz)
(She is offering a magical pendant that displays the interior design of a sand dollar).
I found a naturally-preserved sea urchin that looked something like this on a coastal cliff in Northern California. It was very delicate and beautiful.
55. Chewing leaves, gum, or roots, like betel, chicle, or licorice root. Are teen girls chewing bubble gum, or baseball pitchers spitting on the mound, maintaining a 100,000 year-old human tradition? Imagine a wolf trotting along with a chaw in its mouth, occasionally spitting, or pausing to blow a bubble!
Did orangutangs ever discover betel or other mild narcotic or stimulant, or chew sap from Ficus elastica . . . possibly taking their chaw out at night, sticking it on the underside of their sleeping platform, and retrieving it in the morning? (During WW2, when UK urchins would skip along after American soldiers with the query, “Any gum chum?” - a lucky recipient might put their prize wad of Blackjack on the bedpost, retrieve it in the morning and make it last for a week). (Sometimes confiscated by a horrified schoolteacher on day 4).
55. Chewing leaves, gum, or roots, like betel, chicle, or licorice root. Are teen girls chewing bubble gum, or baseball pitchers spitting on the mound, maintaining a 100,000 year-old human tradition? Imagine a wolf trotting along with a chaw in its mouth, occasionally spitting, or pausing to blow a bubble!
Did orangutangs ever discover betel or other mild narcotic or stimulant, or chew sap from Ficus elastica . . . possibly taking their chaw out at night, sticking it on the underside of their sleeping platform, and retrieving it in the morning? (During WW2, when UK urchins would skip along after American soldiers with the query, “Any gum chum?” - a lucky recipient might put their prize wad of Blackjack on the bedpost, retrieve it in the morning and make it last for a week). (Sometimes confiscated by a horrified schoolteacher on day 4).
Does chewing cud count?
And domestic dogs chew on stuff, like sticks or bones, just for the enjoyment of chewing. Usually while sitting still though, rather than running along. Seems like wild animals would do the same. Come to think of it, my parakeet used to chew on non-food stuff all the time.
Animals also eat things for “medicinal” value. Cats eat grass to make themselves regurgitate.
Returning to the question of early humans and how they may or may not have traded, this article may be relevant. It was printed in a 2005 Scientific American:
It must have taken a lot of cooperation for termites to build their skyscrapers in northern Australia and elsewhere. Then there’s musk oxen mustering in a protective circle. Before our own species evolved, hominids must have been watching the cooperative hunting techniques of pack animals like wolves. There are places in the world where the living is easy, but in many places we inhabited a lone human couldn’t survive. In those places, banishment from the clan would be like a death sentence.
If humans around the world today were cooperating think what could be accomplished! Instead, from birth we’re instilled with ideas (not realities) that set us against each other and against the commonweal. Considering Homo sapiens’ last 100,000 years, the last 100 year population and technology explosion is unprecedented. (I used to hear that there are more of us alive today than have ever lived since Day One).
Worldwide cooperation? Now we are like a plague of rabbits relentlessly changing our YOSEMITE into DEATH VALLEY.
