associations, and hence the explanations will differ markedly. Primitive people have in general two theories of the human soul. The idea of transmigration of souls, and the idea of an independent life of the soul after the death of the body. The idea of transmigration is illustrated by the belief that the soul of the dead person is reincarnated in the body of the next born child. An Indian will sometimes bury a dead child under the spot where two paths cross, in the hope that the soul of the dead child, lingering near, may enter the body of some woman who passes that way and be born in the body of her next child. There is also the belief that animals are often entered by the souls of departed men. Hence there arise restrictions as to the killing of certain animals. The doctrine of the independent life of the soul after death takes two forms: the continuous notion, and the retributive notion. In accordance with the former it is believed that the soul of the human being continues after death the activities which it was accustomed to during its existence in the body. Hence there are buried with the dead warrior, his spears, arms, utensils, and personal belongings, and in some cases his favorite wife and his slaves are sacrificed on the funeral pile. The retributive notion is less widespread and of a later origin. According to this it is believed that the condition of the after life depends upon conduct and action during the worldly existence in the flesh. In addition to these beliefs we find among primitive peoples the system of worshiping ancestors. The spirits of the recent dead are believed to take particular interest in the affairs of the living. Ancestor-worship involves the question of the benevolent or malevolent influence of these spirits. Hence there have arisen elab orate rites and ceremonies connected with this system which aim at propitiating the souls of powerful ancestors in order that these spirits may be favorably inclined and advance the material prosperity of the living.58 The economic life of primitive peoples presents many striking contrasts to the systematized economic activities of civilized men. Savages live from day to day, from hand to mouth, satisfying their immediate pleasures and making little provision for future needs. Compared with the careful methods of the modern business man we would say that the untrained native lacked foresight. The savage does not seem able to sustain protracted labor. He does not appear to possess the power of continuous application which has made the prosperity of modern peoples. The routine and drudgery of agriculture is too great a burden for the Indian. Under it he often sickens and dies. The Indian is nervously more unstable than the average civilized man. He is more frequently subject to hysteria and becomes easily intoxicated. As the activities of primitive peoples are largely those of war, hunting, magical and religious ceremonies, there is little control of conduct by economic motives. The scale of values of modern men are foreign to the savage. His sense of values is undeveloped by comparison with the finely sensitized value concept which we are accustomed to recognize. This difference is not primarily due to any mental defect inherent in the savage, but is almost entirely due to different traditional associations. Because we are familiar with a highly developed system under which we can procure what we want at store or market in exchange for money, we think that 58 Giddings, Descriptive and Hist. Soc., pp. 464-465; and Hozumi, Ancestor-Worship and Japanese Law, pp. 9-11, 12-14. primitive men must have similar usages. But the first discoverers of the Australian natives found that they had no conception of exchange. Ornaments offered them had no power whatever to arouse their interest; gifts pressed upon them were found later strewn about in the woods where they had been cast in neglect. The same experiences were had with the Indian tribes of Brazil. Yet there was from tribe to tribe a brisk trade in pots, stone hatchets, hammocks, cotton threads, necklaces of mussel-shells, and many other products. Direct observation showed that the explanation of this riddle was in fact simple enough,-the transfer insues by way of presents, and also, according to circumstances, by way of robbery, spoils of war, tribute, fine, compensation, and winnings in gaming. As to sustenance, almost a community of goods prevails among members of the same tribes. It is looked upon as a theft if a herd of cattle is slaughtered and not shared with one's neighbor, or if one is eating and neglects to invite a passer-by. Any one can enter a hut at will and demand food, and he is never refused. If there is a poor harvest, whole communities visit their neighbors and look to them for support. There exists a universal custom of loaning articles of use and implements. There is no private property in land. Consequently within the tribe where all households produce similar commodities and, in case of need, assist each other, and where the surplus stores can only be utilized for consumption, there is no occasion for direct barter from family to family.59 From tribe to tribe there prevail rules of hospitality which require that the stranger on arriving receive a present. After a certain interval he reciprocates and at 59 Bücher, Carl-—Industrial Evolution, 1901, pp. 59-82, his departure still another present is handed to him. This custom of reciprocal gifts of hospitality permits rare products of a land or artistic creations of a tribe to circulate from people to people, and to cover great distances. Thus the early transfer of goods was through gift-making to strangers and others. But even before this there was the giving of presents with a view to propitiate. Evil spirits, powerful chiefs, and objects of reverence, might be appeased by gifts of useful articles. Hence the giving of presents was not in response to altruistic or unselfish motives but purely with a view to diverting or directing away from self some impending danger. The transition from this form of propitiation to exchange for its own sake is easy, but the fiction of present-giving is long retained.60 In the course of time, production of articles of food and wear is no longer followed directly by consumption, but there is interposed the process of exchange for the sake of exchanging what is not wanted for what is desired. This exchange creates from tribe to tribe its own contrivances for facilitating matters. The most important of these are markets and money. Markets are held among Negroes, East Indians, and Polynesians in open places, often in the midst of the primeval forests, on the tribal borders. The market is a neutral district between the bordering territories of the two tribes. It is a sacred place within which all hostilities must cease. Presents were first exchanged here, perhaps to keep up friendly relations; in time there was a growth of sentiment that members of tribes should be unmolested while 60 Giddings, Principles, p. 280. 01 Bücher, op. cit.; and Seligman, E. R. A.-Principles of Economics, 1908, pp. 67-80. making exchanges in this district. Of course the object of this exchange is to procure articles which cannot be produced in one's own tribe at all, or at least in as large quantities. This leads each tribe to produce more than it requires of those products which are desired by other tribes, because in exchange for these it is easiest to obtain that which one does not possess one's self, but which others manufacture in surplus quantities. In this way the idea of value originated and developed in complexity until among modern nations we have many grades in our scale of values. In the course of time it always happens that some one commodity has been exchanged so much more frequently than any other that men can always be sure that with it they can purchase any other commodity they desire. Whatever this specially well-known and highly-valued commodity may be-whether oxen or grain, beads or shells-it is a true medium of exchange, it is a true money. But it is seldom that true money is found in primitive society; exchange is usually mere barter, the transfer of goods in kind. It has taken many centuries of constant transfer and exchange of goods before one particular commodity was recognized as a universal medium of exchange,―money. 62 Because the system of exchange and trade is in such a rudimentary stage of development among primitive peoples, modern concepts of price and competition are unknown. There is no competition in the economic sense, for that implies price and differing quality in goods. Price is a concept which is dependent upon a money economy, for price is the amount of money a given quantity of goods will exchange for. Without money there could obviously be no concept of price; and as we have seen, 62 Giddings, op. cit., p. 316. |