Positioning Exchange in the Evolution of Human Society

Abstract

Evolutionary model have long tied economic development to social evolution. Subsistence insecurity is thus a primary reason for making chiefdoms and redistribution economies (Earle, 1994:419-420). Recent studies, however, show that chiefdoms redistribute beyond subsistence needs, and the nature of why exchange exists is unknown. The subsistence economy is based around food, making it tough to document archaeologically. We see that the exchange of technology was more important, particularly with utilitarian tools and related raw materials (especially obsidian and high-quality chert) (Earle, 1994: 422). Much of this trade centred on mobility and the use of non-local materials during the seasonal round. Political organization, as reflected in the Poverty Point mounds and earthworks, may show the beginnings of greater concentrations of goods (Ex: 71,000 kg of non-local chert found in one of these earthworks), and greater social control (Earle, 1994: 423-6). But this is not the whole story, for political economy is fundamentally different from the conservative logic of the subsistence economy. Here we see the other sphere revolve around maximizing (through staple financing and wealth finance) family wealth as a buffer against risk. This buffer would then expand and become institutionalized to chiefdoms (Earle, 1994: 426-9). Prestige-goods exchange is successful as long as we focus on the chieftain's ability to control goods production: 1. attach to craft specialists 2. own production resources 3. own the technology of transport (Earle, 1994: 430-1) The mortuary context for wealth is also important. The key to the status of the dead is how they tie into the fortunes of the living, which is why mortuary offerings increased from the Middle Woodland to the Late Woodland with the rise of political complexity (Earle, 1994:432). As a social relationships are given a physical reality through materialization, these socio-political ways are thus institutionalized. Hopewell was based on natural rare and exotic object exchange that was unstable, decentralized and tough to control, which is why it had more regional variability than the Mississippian with its craft control (Earle, 1994:433-4).