A Really General Introduction



My Christmas Report on Primitive Money

Anthony Sealy

March 2002

A Really General Introduction

Being that this is the first of this sort of thing that I have

done, I'll admit to being a little unsure of how exactly to go

about it. As a student, my primary aim has always been to write an

essay, to make a specific and hopefully original point in my

writing. Given, however, that my present occupation is as a RA,

and not as a student, I suspect that I ought to be going about what

I am doing in a somewhat different manner. The beginnings of what

I have done are similar; I have gone to the library, found a number

of books and articles relevant to the topic of discussion, and done

as much reading as I suspect is useful, and then gone back and done

it twice more. However my presentation of what I have found will

be rather different. What I am going to try to do is not to present some point in particular, but instead to present a wholistic survey of what I have found, including both what I believe to be useful, and that which is less useful. I have, of course, focussed my energies upon what I believe to be most useful, and will present that material in greater detail, but what I want to do is present a general report to you so that you can decide what is of the most significance, and where you (or I if you believe that what I have done is still insufficient for you to

continue with what I have began) can further the study if you believe it will be fruitful. I will make some preliminary comments about what I think regarding the material, but this will be of secondary importance. My primary aim will be to tell you what I have found, and let you use your much more able cerebral abilities to figure out the significance. Of every piece of writing mentioned, I have either the article photocopied or the book on loan until the end of April, at your disposal.

Most generally, I have focussed my study upon the concept of

'primitive money'. The exact meaning of this term is somewhat

unclear, at least to me, since exactly what makes primitive money

'primitive' seems at the outset to beg the question. If primitive

money is indeed money, why is it primitive, and not just money?

What I believe to be a wholly unsatisfactory answer is that

primitive money is any sort of money that was 'introduced' prior to

the advent of coinage. Why coined currency is in any relevant

sense more advanced that other sorts of currency is a question to

which I have no answer, but I am busy thinking again, and I

promised in the preceding paragraph not to. At any rate, I am

hopeful that this will serve us as useful, if not altogether

satisfactory, definition of the concept of primitive money.

More specifically, I have been interested in the idea of

'fiat' primitive money. Coined currency, for the most part in

human history, has been commodity money, the value of the coin

being the use value of the metal in the coin, with the function of

coinage being merely to provide a standardized measure of the

metal. There have, however, been some instances of 'token'

coinage, the most famous being Chinese knife money; but in all of

these cases, they have been issued by largish governments (China,

Macedonia, Persia and Greece), so I am more than sure it can be

demonstrated that your hypothesis is correct, that they were

accepted for payment of taxes. Modern paper money is, of course,

fiat money also, and it too is also accepted for purposes of

taxation. Your question, as I take it, is whether there has every

been any sort of 'fiat', i.e. some non-commodity primitive money

that has not been accepted for payment of taxes.

Something that I want to draw attention to at the outset is to

some general trends in the anthropological literature that I have

surveyed. One in particular may be of particular interest to you,

and if not, then at least of sufficiently noteworthiness that I

think you should at least have a think about, that being the

'Polanyi school' of economic anthropology. The general idea goes

something like this. When approaching primitive economies and

monetary systems, economists generally tend to try to take the

typical modern economic structure and impose that upon these

primitive communities without paying enough attention to how the

structure of these communities differ from ours. They view

primitive communities through the eyes of Western culture, without

trying to understand how the primitive communities see themselves,

and thus fail to grasp the essence of what is actually going on in

these communities. They merely assume that primitive economies are

smaller versions of our Western economies, and thus fail to

understand significant differences between the two economic

structures. They might, for example, argue that your theory

regarding taxation suffers from a Westernized perspective, because

you fail to understand that many of these cultures do not have what

is analogous to our system of taxation.

For a more detailed account see, George Dalton, 'Primitive Money',

in American Anthropologist (Feb 1965). Dalton was a student of

Polanyi at Columbia.

Right, right, a bunch of post-modern gibberish, but how is

this particularly relevant to your thesis? Well, anthropologists

of this variety (and they are numerous) assert that most forms of

primitive money are not actually money in our Western sense. Goods

in a Western society are demarcated in specific values of our

currency; a can of corn costs 99 cents, a pair of Nike Jordan Airs

costs $199.99. But goods in primitive societies are not demarcated

in the same way. Each good on the island of Yap does not have some

particular equivalent in Yapese stone money. Western money is

'general purpose' money; it functions as a means of exchange, a

mode of payment, and a standard of value. Primitive money is

'special-purpose' money; it serves only one or two of these

functions, but never the third. Hence assuming that primitive

monetary systems function in the same way as our Western system

fails to appreciate this basic distinction.

Economics textbooks (e.g. Samuelson and Reynolds) err in

citing primitive monies indiscriminately as equivalents

of Western media of (commercial) exchange [...]. By

giving the impression that all primitive monies perform

the same primary function as dollars, they quite wrongly

imply that all primitive economies may be regarded as

crude market systems. (Dalton, 60)

Not everything on the island of Yap can be bought with Yapese stone

money. They are used for specific social purposes each with particular

social significance, and are not used to buy corn or shoes.

A result of the popularity of this critique is that

anthropology appears to have become a hotbed of Marxism. I will

admit that I am about to be a little more liberal than perhaps I

ought to be with my summarizing here, but it this seems to be the

general point of the Marxists : the money of primitive communities

often serves a special function that Western money does not serve;

it is a good itself with intrinsic prestige value. Primitive

communities are replete with conspicuous displays of wealth.

What I Think

The first difficulty I encountered was to figure out exactly

what constituted non-commodity primitive money. The textbook you

provided me offered some clues, offering for examples both shell

money in general and the stone currency of Yap. I went about

researching this in earnest for quite some time until it struck me,

rather recently, that the whole idea is little bit absurd. It

seems to me that ALL primitive money, at some time or another, must

have been commodity money. It must have been useful for some thing

at some time.

However, it is clear that at some time, the value of the money

began to exceed its use value, i.e. its value as a commodity. What

began as being valued as an ornament began to be generally

exchanged as an ornament, then became valuable because it could be

exchanged and then began to be stored because it could be

exchanged; the use value of ornamentation sometimes disappeared,

but the exchange value, and hence the prestige value of owning the

particular hunk of stone or polished shell remained.

How does your 'taxation' thesis pan out? Incredibly poorly,

to tell the truth. In almost all cases, taxes have been collected

in kind; sometimes fixed as some particular local staple (some of

which have included copra (the dried flesh of coconuts), gold dust,

mulberries, oxen and cows, livestock, pepper, skins and cloth,

textiles, grains, and sugar), but as likely just as some sort of

hodgepodge of goods that had to be turned in. I do not have a good

thesis why there should be apparently NO coincidence between the

collection of taxes and the existence of primitive fiat money, but

it appears that this is the case.

One thing, however, did become apparent as I did my research,

and my clever little Political Scientifically trained brain

instantly (more or less) recognized the equivalence between

taxation and collected social or political fines. As I have and

you shall discover, almost every form of primitive fiat money that

I investigate could be used as some sort of politically recognized

sanctioned means of social redemption, be it for the payment of

blood money, fines for adultery, theft, etc. It is also used

extensively, if not universally, as a means of bride payment,

although this is not nearly as related. Regardless, I claim to

have found the underpinning that you were looking for, and most

extensively at that. Where I have not found it, I remain convinced

that I could. Every time I made a sufficiently determined effort,

I was rewarded with sufficiently detailed material to support the

hypothesis.

I also think that the additional function of money described

by the Marxists, money as a prestige instrument, is particularly

interesting, and probably quite easily defendable. Another point

to make : most of this money takes considerable effort to produce

or acquire. Hence smaller amounts become relatively more valuable,

thus not necessitating a very small supply. Some things I noted

mentally, but not always physically.

The only problem I can see with your hypothesis is that I

think you need to establish the direction of causation. I'm now

certain that we can demonstrate (have demonstrated) correlation,

but is that enough? Isn't the counter-claim simply going to be

that these forms of primitive money were accepted as payment for

fines, blood-money, etc. because they were money (i.e. valuable),

and not that they were money (i.e. valuable) because they were

accepted as payment for fines, blood-money, etc? Sure, you've got

a model that explains why you think this is the case, but I still

sort of see it as problematic.

At any rate, your problem, not mine. I'm just finding the

facts. You have to do the thinking, Herr professor.

Something to Consider

This warning should, however, be noted. The frequent

statements that shells, rings, teeth, mats and feathers

were used as money in Oceania, and their inclusion in

currency collections, are explained by the fact that

after the coming of whites, traders and natives adapted

the articles used in gift-exchange, in payment for

services rendered, in marriage-payments and in fines, for

secular and commercial transactions ; these articles

cannot properly be called 'primitive money', though their

use illustrates a stage in the history of its

development. (Quiggin 119)

Primary Evidence

Paul Einzig, Primitive Money (1949).

A phenomenally useful book, unfortunately one of the last I

found. I suspect that a thorough reading would make me quite an

authority on the subject, and further suspect that a number of

authors of other pieces I will discuss should have taken the time.

This book, written by an anthropologist, attempts to document every

existence type of primitive money known. It breaks the topic down

into ethnological, historical, and theoretical sections. The

ethnological section is subdivided into continents, and includes in

the lists of primitive currencies the following :

mats, teeth and tusks, rats, stones (from Yap), beads,

pigs, feathers, shells, yams, rice, drums, bronze, bees

wax, buffaloes, cattle, cauldrons, axes, jars, tin, gold

dust, silver, lead, tea, coconuts, grain, reindeer,

tamarind seeds, camels, iron, salt, calico (cotton

cloth), slaves, brass, fur, alcohol, wampum, cocoa,

maize, arrows and guns.

From this we will make a primary list of the apparently fiat

currencies : teeth and tusks, stones, beads, feathers, and shells.

At the outset it is interesting to note that five of the six have

some use value as ornaments, all except the stone money of Yap.

These six are the ones we will focus upon.

A. Hingston Quiggin, A Survey of Primitive Money (1949).

Another anthropologist with another useful book. Not as well

organized as Einzig, and so I used it more as a supplementary

text, but does essentially the same job and fills in a lot of the

gaps. I did most of my work going from the index, looking up the

aforementioned six different kinds of apparently fiat primitive

currency.

Teeth and Tusks

Teeth and tusks have been used as primitive currency primarily

in Oceania. Although he does give a detailed account of how the

teeth are organized and traded in Oceania, Quiggin does not do a

particularly good job of explaining the uses of tooth money,

telling us only that they are 'used freely for ornamentation',

(126-8). However, he does tell us that in Bougainville and Buka

teeth are not frequently used in ordinary trading, but instead for

marriage payments and compensation for wrongs (24). Einzing tells

us that in the Solomons, dog, porpoise, and bat teeth are used

extensively and have relatively fixed exchange values. These teeth

are used extensively in the payment of fines, the ceremonial

purchase of wives and pigs, and after the arrival of white traders,

began to circulate more widely as currency, even being accepted by

the white traders themselves. In Fiji, the teeth of Sperm whales

are used primarily as bride money and blood money (Einzing, 32).

But Fijians seem to hold these teeth in as intrinsically valuable,

and probably are perhaps best understood as being a form of

commodity money. Einzing (79) also tells us that both dogs' teeth

and boars' tusks are used in New Guinea, but fails to mention what

for. Luckily Quiggin tells us that the tusks are 'essential in

bride-price, in fines and compensations, and in death ceremonies'

(126), and since Einzing tells us that the two can be exchanged at

relatively constant rates, presumably so too are dogs' teeth, if

only indirectly.

The use of tooth money also occurs in the rather strange

'economic' system on the Admiralty Islands. Einzing tells us that

there, tooth money is used as a standard of deferred payment, as a

means for exchanges arranged in connection with marriages, and in

connection with religious rites (65). But the economic system

there is sufficiently complex that I think it best that you either

read the couple of pages on it, or I have a chat with you.

Everybody is honest and money exists to create artificial

obligations so that people are ethically obliged to produce. It

doesn't really fit into the rubric of any sort of economic system

that I am accustomed to.

The only mention of the use of teeth as currency outside of

Oceania is a brief paragraph in Quiggin, in association with the

Crow native peoples' tribe of North America. For the Crow, Elk

teeth are used in ornamental display : 'the larger the number [of

Elk teeth] displayed, the greater indication of a man's prowess in

hunting, his wealth and importance' (Quiggin, 310). He also

mentions that they can be exchanged for purchases, but the brevity

with which he describes them and the conspicuous absence of their

mention in Einzing leads me to believe that they are merely

commodities, and not money in any significant sense.

Feathers

Feathers have played the role of primitive money is a

particularly limited area; Quiggin suggests exclusively on the Banks

Islands and Santa Cruz (119). He quotes Codrington who tells us

that they were used as ornamentation, and although he suggests that

they were 'used more for prestige than trading', they were also

used for the purchase of large objects, for marriage payments, and

for fines for fornication. Einzing generally agrees, saying that

they were used as medium of exchange for large objects, and were

known to serve as a means for special payments such as ransoms,

fines and blood money (52).

Beads and Wampum

Quiggins begins his discussion of beads with the African

'aggry'. The origin of this peculiar specimen is quite completely

unknown, and Quiggins treats us to a quite lengthy discussion of

exactly how complicated the entire subject actually is. Some of

them evidently date back at least over 2000 years ago, and most

likely a good deal earlier. Herodotus, the first historian from

ancient Greece, notes that the Phonecians traded beads with

Africans some time in the seventh century B.C., which probably

originated from the Egyptians, but artifacts have been found in

pre-Columbian graves in North America, so who the heck can explain

that? At any rate, even though they were for a short time used by

white traders, who purchased them in North Africa for less than

they could be sold for on the Gold Coast in middle Africa, they

appear to be more like mystical charms than anything else, and

don't really seem to qualify as money.

Einzing, on the other hand, gives some quite useful

descriptions of bead currency. The first is on the Pelew Islands,

where a rather intricate system has developed. There, there are

seven main different types of beads, each with an indefinite number

of sub-categories. This money is believed to be of foreign origin

(Quiggin cites claims that some are of the same origin as the

African aggry (42)) and so the quantity of currency is fixed, as

are prices. It is used extensively as a standard of deferred

payments, for weddings, and for fines. Fines are fixed in terms of

the various types of offences, and any offence, be it political,

social of religious, can be paid in beads. Fines are the principle

revenue of the chiefs on Pelew (Einzing, 41-3).

Another interesting use of bead money is a definite token

system that has developed in the bazaars of Africa. Again, Einzig

provides the useful discussion. While livestock is the generally

accepted social standard of value and means of exchange, it is not

a particularly practical one. Hence, with the arrival of European

and Arab traders came a more practical temporary means of exchange.

At the beginning of the market, beads are sold to those wishing to

make purchases, and at the close of the market they are re-

purchased from the merchants who have collected them.

Unsurprisingly, this has proved to be a particularly unstable

mechanism (Einzing, 119-21).

The final discussion of the use of beads is a transition

between this and the ensuing section; the use of shell beads as

money. Whether this discussion ought to be included here or within

the discussion of shells is rather unclear. Anyway. Shell beads

have been used particularly by native peoples in the eastern

woodlands of North America, the Algonquin and the Iroqois, to make

wampum belts. Due to their spiritual and sentimental value, the

belts themselves could not be traded as currency once they were

assembled, but the beads used in their construction could be

(Einzig, 165-6). Besides their use as a means of exchange, wampum

beads could be used for ceremonial presentations, fines and

compensation, blood money, for conveying messages and recording

tribal history (although I think that was the function of the belts

and not the beads themselves) and for ornamental value (Quiggin,

305).

Quiggins also has a brief paragraph discussing 'gold-money'

cylindrical beads of the Pomo tribes (298), and introduces but

fails to elaborate upon the shell, stone, and clay beads of the

Aztecs (293). I'll try to look into this.

During my tertiary research I did try to look into this, but

without too much success. One book that appeared as if it might

have been particularly useful was H. H. Bancroft's 'The Native

Races of the Pacific States of North America' (1875). Presumably

due to the age of the book, it no longer seems to be available in

any form other than microfiche, save a few scanned pages on the

internet. If you are interested, I'm more than happy to go about

fiddling with microfiche, but since it rather time-consuming,

I'll leave that for you to decide. His book comes in five

different volumes, and would probably be valuable in researching

not only the bead monies of the Pomo and the Aztec tribes, but also

a number of the shell currencies of Native American tribes which we

shall next consider.

Pop 304 - beads

161 - Bastudo (South Africa) used special beads of coral for the

purposes of blood money and tribute E 161

Lots and Lots of Shells

The problem with this section is that the number of different

primitive tribes or peoples to use shells as a primitive currency

appears to verge on being innumerable. While previous to this

undertaking, I was accustomed to thinking of gold as the most

generally appreciated form of currency, I was surprised to find

that the use of gold as currency is a primarily Western concept;

even the Incas, famed for filling the coffers of the Monarch of

Spain with more gold than the world could have believed to exist,

did not regard gold as currency. Although it has gradually been

adopted by the rest of the world, in their primitive origins the

greater part of the world seems to have used shells as their

initial currency. Indeed one particular type of shell, the cowry,

appears to have been used at one time or another in areas as

diverse as Africa, Oceania, India, China, and has even been found

in graves in Europe. Since my world geography is one or two steps

from perfection, the organization of this section is a little

suspect, let me repeat myself again; more time would provide a

greater degree of certainty. Let us begin with something I know a

little bit about :

The Americas

Unfortunately, I haven't come across a great supply of

information about South America, although I have no doubt that it

must exist. However, the information on North America is

relatively more thorough. As just mentioned in the previous

section, the wampum beads (made from shell) were the primary

monetary instrument of the Eastern Canadian tribes. In the west,

the currency was also predominated by shell. Quiggin writes of the

Yurok, a tribe centered in Northern California, that every injury

and offence can be valued in terms of shell money. He also tells

us that 'among the Shasta, injuries of all sorts, from loss of

property and petty theft, to murder and killing in avowed warfare,

were settled by the payment of shell money' (296). He indicates

that two other additional tribes in the area used shell money, the

Pomo and the Chumash, who used disks made from clam shells as

currency, but does not go on to discuss the ways in which the money

was used.

Einzig does the same of the Nootka; just indicates that they

used shell money, but says no more. He does, however, tell us

generally that 'shell money was used to a large extent by the

maritime tribes of British Columbia for payment of fines and blood

money', and more specifically that 'among the Haida murder was

settled with relatives of the victim by payment of large sums of

shell money, and that 'among the Karok, outraged husbands were

placated with shell money at about the rate that would be paid for

murder. Bride money was also paid in the form of shell money.'

(Einzing, 166)

Africa

As previously mentioned, the cowry has been used extensively

throughout the world, but became particularly prevalent in Africa

through their introduction by Arab traders into eastern Africa, and

later by white traders into western Africa. Cowries had previously

existed in Africa before the arrival of large quantities from

foreign traders, but functioned as much as valuables than an actual

medium of exchange. However, due to their early introduction,

there is limited historical evidence about their particular use.

They were obviously used as a medium of exchange at one time or

another throughout Africa, and both Einzig and Quiggin make

numerous statements of the form 'in so and so a place at such and

such a time, this article would cost that many cowries'.

As for useful evidence, however, there is not a whole lot to

speak of. Einzig discusses the problem of the importation of vast

amounts of cowries into the former French Sudan (132-4), but does

not discuss many of their uses. He does, however, explain that in

1901, cowries were no longer accepted as a means of paying taxes in

Uganda, implying that they had been accepted previously (124). He

tells us that they were used as bride-payment, certain traditional

gifts and payments, and fees for membership and promotion in secret

societies in Nigeria. Finally, he suggests that they were

introduced into Angola from the Congo, where they were reportedly

of no value except in trade with other Africans. This appears

strange given the fact that Quiggin reports that they were used

extensively in the Congo, where 'some 6000 to 7000 [cowries] might

have been paid to an injured husband if adultery is proved, and

fines for murder or suicide ran into higher figures' (34). Quiggin

also tells us that shell money was used for bride-price and fines

in East Africa, Kenya and Northern Rhodesia (50), but little else

in a albeit colourful five-page description of the use of cowries

in Africa. However, given the breadth to which it can be used and

apparently positive signs, I would tentatively suggest that shell

money must have been widely accepted by the government, particularly

considering the vast quantities that the native governing

authorities often amassed.

Oceania - Polynesia, Micronesia, and Melanesia

Oceania is the area from which the most detailed and accurate

information can be found. This seems to be the case primarily

because of the lateness with which our interactions there have

transpired; new areas were being contacted up until the 1950s.

Oceania is normally partitioned into three different areas;

Polynesia, Micronesia, and Melanesia. Polynesia is characterized

by primarily communistic tribes which had little use for money

properly. However Melanesia, and to a lesser degree Micronesia,

had a much more individualistic conception and a greater degree of

private property. It is interesting to note that the Polynesians

are generally regarded as being far more advanced that either of

their neighbours (Quiggin, 109).

i) In and Around New Guinea

In his discussion of New Guinea, Einzig again speaks in

general terms, telling us that 'in most communities in and around

New Guinea, shell money is used extensively for the payment of

bride-price, for the purchase of pigs, and various ceremonial and

other unilateral payments (Einzig, 77). It is likely that these

unilateral payments include the payments for fines, but it is not

explicitly stated. He discusses one section of New Guinea, in the

interior along the Diak river, where shells appear to be more like

valuables than a form of money; 10 cowries were considered a

fortune. It seems that for some time after the arrival of white

traders the cowries began to serve temporarily as money, but when

vast amounts appeared, the natives quickly lost interest (78). In

the Trobriand Islands, just to the east of New Guinea, the use of

shells was very limited for everyday transactions, but they were

sometimes used by chiefs as a reward for services or as ceremonial

payments and bride payments (69-70). Einzig also notes that many

areas in New Guinea have not yet reached the stage of systematic

barter, let alone established a systematic currency (77).

Einzig does discuss one area called Kapauku, where cowries

served as 'a medium of exchange, standard of value, store of value,

standard of deferred payment, and means of non-commercial payment'

(Einzing, 81). Again, he does not explicitly state what this non-

commerical payments are made for. Luckily, in his book entitled

The Kapauku Papuan Economy (1963), Leopold Pospisil explains that

'in Kapauku, the cowry shell and necklace can be used as payments for food, crops, land, artifacts, wages, rents, pride price, and 'damages

in the form of blood money or legal fines' (at 301).

ii) Micronesia

Both Einzig and Quiggin discuss the area of Micronesia,

suggesting that shells have been used in Kusaie, Truk, Yap, the

Marianas, and on the Pelew, Ellice, Mortlock, Gilbert, and Marshall

Islands (Einzig, 45; Quiggins, 137-44). Although they both provide

lengthy discussions, and indicate that shell money has been used

at one place or another, as bride money, blood money, payment of

services, purchase of land, and payments for victors after war, as

well as constructed into fishhooks that are often, but not always

serviceable (Quiggin, 137-44), there is no sustained pointed

discussion, and both admit that much of the information about this

area is suspect and highly contentious. The only particularly

dependable information about this area is related either to the

bead money of the Pelews discussed in the preceding section, or the

shell and stone money of Yap, which is to be discussed in the next

section.

iii) Bismarck Archipelago (further to the east of New Guinea)

Although both Einzig (72) and Quiggin (149) differentiate

between the Gazelle Peninsula, where the shell money is called

tambu, and the Duke of York Islands, where the shell money is

called diwara, neither seems to distinguish between these two

differently named currencies. According to Einzig, diwara is used

for 'every kind of purchase, from the largest to the smallest'

(76), as well as 'payment of bride wealth, and also fines, ransom,

and blood money' (77). Quiggin writes that diwara can, among other

things, be used to pay for murders, fines, and adultery, and that

theft of it is the greatest of all crimes, and is punishable by

death (which can be reversed, of course, with enough diwara (152).

However, being that I was sufficiently interested, I tried to find

a similar account of the same for tambu, and have as yet been

unable to do so.

In Capitalism, Primitive and Modern (1968), T. Scarlett

Epstein explains that the Tolai, residents of the Gazelle

Peninsula, accumulate tambu for conspicuous display, and that it is

the central component of gaining power and prestige in the area

(25-6). She also explains that tambu is used extensively for

bridewealth and mortuary rites, and that the supply is strictly

controlled by leaders; the importation of tambu requires the

permission of the chiefs (26). In his book Vunamami (1970),

Richard F. Salisbury explains that tambu is used as a general

medium for interactions, for weddings, ceremonial dances, and

funerals, and also greatly emphasizes the social importance of the

possession of tambu (287-295). But nowhere could I find any

reference to the payment of fines with tambu.

iv) The Solomon Islands (to the north-east)

Einzig tells us that on Bougainville and Buka Islands, the

shell currency is used in a similar fashion to the diwara of the

Bismarck Archipelago; for bride money, pigs, as compensation for

theft in return for the release of the culprit (56). He further

explains that in the South-eastern Solomon Islands, shell money is

used for bride price, blood money, the purchase of large objects,

the payment on fees and fines, and redemptive offerings to spirits

(57). Few details of the use of shell money are given for the

neighbouring Banks' Islands; he spends most of his time discussing

the odd tribal rule of being able to impose a loan on an unwilling

debtor at 100% interest, done to raise funds primarily for the

entrance into secret societies. The use of shell money in another

neighbouring island, Buin, is discussed by Richard C. Thurnwald in

his article, 'Pigs and Currency in Buin', in Tribal and Peasant

Economies (1967). There he writes that the shell money abuta is

used in Buin for blood money (231), gifts of friendship, payments

for injuries and adultery, payments to rainmakers, and marriage

payments, as well a general means of exchange (239-40)

v) Rossel Island

Finally we come to the shell currency of Rossel Island. The

primitive currency on this island is always discussed in isolation,

presumably due to the fact that the system there is particularly

different from any other system of shell currency in Oceania. On

Rossel Island, there are twenty two different forms of money, each

capable of being used for specific well-defined purpose. They can

be subdivided into nko and ndap, the latter being more valuable

than the former. Nko shells cannot be traded for each other, since

each buys different things and hence can be ordered in importance

(the economist Armstrong who first studied the system numbered the

nko shells 1 to 18, although the natives do not do so themselves

explicitly). However, an intricate credit system has arisen so

that a nko shell that is possessed can be loaned at interest in

order to obtain another that is wanted. This cannot be done for

ndap shells, however. Unfortunately, none of the three or four

sources that I checked seemed to have a very good description of

the system, and all appear to rely entirely on Armstrong's account

of it, so I'm not altogether sure what each of these shells are

used for. It appears that nko shells are more used for common

consumer goods, while ndap shells for more ceremonial exchanges,

such as bride-money, but I cannot figure out how I get a hold of the

right shell if I want to marry the well-rounded Wumashabee over

there, and I need shell number 20 to do it.

The Stones of Yap

Although I had wanted to spend a greater amount of time

explaining the operation of this rather original monetary system,

time constraints do not permit me to go into as much detail as I

had intended. If you are sufficiently interested, this is yet

another possible course of further investigation.

However, what have already discovered about this unique form

of money should, at least for the present, be sufficient to be

considered noteworthy. Einzig tells us that the primary function

of these stones is ornamental, as they bring considerable prestige

to the owner, and that they serve as a limited medium of exchange;

given their size and value, they are mostly used for larger

purchases. He also tells us that they are used as a standard of

deferred payment, for political payments between Yapese tribes, and

payment of levies. He claims, however, that 'there is absolutely

no practical non-monetary use for the stone money of Yap.'(Einzig,

37-40)

Although this is certainly the case at present, there are

claims that it is quite possible that there had once been some

practical non-monetary use for them. Quiggin (144) suggests that

they might possibly have been used to make stone club-heads.

Further, in his/her article 'Yapese Politics, Yapese Money, and the

Sawei Tribute Network before WW I', in The Journal of Pacific

History, M. L. Berg states that 'aragonite had long been mined on

Pelew' before the arrival of the Yapese (152), it seems credible to

assert that this material was useful to someone at some time in the

past. Further research would be useful in making these statements

less wishy-washy.

In his book entitled Yap : Political Leadership and Cultural

Change in an Island Society, Lingenfelter relates that thefts may

be fined in either stone money (fei) or shell money (gau) (115),

but states elsewhere that :

In cases of murder or adultery when the offender's life

is in serious danger, he may run to the house of the

chief and request refuge. [...] He takes shell money of

considerable value to the chief-of-young-men receives the

shell money. (116)

Given the importance of stone money on Yap, it seems a little

strange that this could only be done in shell money. Perhaps in

situations requiring haste shell money is more convenient. But

given the fact that there were, at one time, apparently two

distinct areas of the island vying for political power, one with

stone money and the other with shell money, it seems more than a

little likely that stone money was, at one time or another, a

generally accepted means of payment for fines and reparations.

I also looked at The Demysitification of Yap by David Labby,

but didn't find that it demystified anything and didn't provide a

succinct discussion of the stone money, so I put it down

Other Relevant and/or Interesting Stuff I Found

Jacques Melitz (Tulane), 'The Polanyi School of Anthropology on

Money : An Economist's View', in American Anthropologist (1970).

A clever article responding to Polani and Dalton, arguing that

according to their definition, not only primitive but also modern

money should be regarded as 'special-purpose' money. It's quite a

long article and so I didn't read it all, just enough to get the

general idea and figure out that it wasn't going to get me too far.

But I'd be interested in reading it if you'd like me too.

C. A. Gregory (Australian National University), 'Cowries and

Conquest : Towards a Subalternate Quality Theory of Money', in ??

(Post 1989).

Not convinced that the quantity theory of money is really

explaining what is going on in primitive countries. He seems to

have the idea that at the beginning, any primitive money is special

purpose money in the Polanyi School sense, but most exchanges are

non-monetary transactions (commodity for commodity). It is from

contact from foreign white traders that everybody became money and

power hungry, and whence from money originated; hence money is a

standard of value created by the state.

In the beginning we had had the forage and we foraged

things. [...] We had no cowry-money (akwa). If you

went to the market you took beans in order to exchange

them for sweet potatoes. You exchanged something

specific fot something else. Then the king brought the

cowry-money. (Oral history from a native relayed by

Gregory)

A. R. Burns, Money and Monetary Policy in Early Times (1965).

A book primarily dealing with post primitive (i.e. coined)

monies, so mainly off topic, but the first chapter entitled 'Before

the Introduction of Coins' is pretty interesting. There he

explains that the origin of all money is due to its value as a

commodity, and that it was from this basic principle that coinage

developed. I find his explanation convincing, but unable to

account for the stone money of Yap. Also the apparently most

useful text if you are interested in looking into the rise of token

coinage.

Not Particularly Relevant

John Connell, 'The Bougainville Connection', in Oceania (Dec 1977).

Discusses the 'is this stuff really money' controversy, and

decides for the affirmative. Also provides a lengthy discussion of

what is presently occurring with the trade of shell money on the

Islands of Bougainville, explaining that its use is declining

significantly and being replaced with western currency, although

moreso in some places than others. Particularly useful for finding

references (especially Einzig and Quiggin).

Francois R. Velde (FRB of Chicago), 'Lessons from the History of

Money', in Economic Perspectives (Post 1996).

Starts from a position that all money was originally commodity

money, and explain the transition to a purely fiat system. Not too

useful, except for the fact that he gives some good reason for why

the existence of a purely fiat system, unbacked by some sort of

government, would be unlikely.

R. F. Salisbury, From Stone to Steel (1962).

A field economist writing a book about technological

transitions in New Guinea. After quite a bit of digging, I finally

found that the most common means of exchange is nothing other than

food; not even at the shell trading stage.

Marshall Sahlins (University of Michigan), Primitive Economics,

(1972).

Despite its rather promising title, of very little value to

the present discussion. Entitling the first chapter 'The Original

Affluent Society', he appears to want to argue that primitive

tribes probably weren't anywhere near as badly off as we suspect;

unencumbered by material possessions as we are, they were not

subject to the social pressures of materialism that we are burdened

by, and hence were in a much more relevant sense free. Also

includes a discussion of what should be included within the rubric

of 'primitive money', but doesn't add a whole lot of clarity to the

problem. A good Marxist critique of capitalist materialism, but

not exactly what you are looking for.

M. I. Finley, The Ancient Economy (1973)

Deals with the economies of the Greco-Roman world, where

currency already existed. Looks interesting, but completely

irrelevant. Maybe useful for a term paper.

Time

internet searching - 2

primary document research -2

reading - 4.5

secondary document research - 3.5

reading - 10.5

reading/typing notes - 9.5

typing 5.5

tertiary document research - 2.5

reading - 6.5

reading/typing - 2

typing - 4

really annoying bullshit at the end - 2

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download