I am getting downright annoyed by this made-up BS that ancient tribes had no private property. I know this is wrong both from praxeological and historical readings, but I can’t find anything right now specifically related to the subject. Does anyone know of articles, citations and so forth I could get online (or at least references to print) with regards to private property in ancient and tribal societies?
I need some clarity on definitions:
-
Ancient Society: Like Summer, Jericho, etc? What are the dates you wish to incorporate?
-
Tribes: As in small groups of non-city dwelling people who don’t use irrigation?
-
Are you completely uninterested in city dwelling in this question?
-
Does size of tribe matter?
-
Can just reference to the 12 tribes of Israel refute any nonsense about no private property, or are you looking for another meaning?
Well, I’ll give you the econ side of it: if they have any economic integration beyond a primitive household economy they must have real prices in capital factors of production, therefore there must be private property. Naturally these are hampered and not extensively developed in ancient and tribal societies, but virtually every society on Earth down to south american tribes must have had some kind of private property. It’s also a historical fact that they do, I just can’t find any actual sources on the info.
Basically I am talking about tribal and neo-tribal (IE, modern south american jungle tribes) peoples as well as pre-classical peoples.
Someone is claiming that private property is the creation of the modern state and ancient tribes had community property, and I’m saying that you have to be smoking Progressive crack to believe that because it doesn’t make any sense.
so you want tribes that are primitive, apart from that their economies are not primitive…?
Of the Americas I can speak nothing about. On Ancient Near East / Mediterranean culture of the Bronze age and early Iron Age, there is defiantly forms of proprietorship. Just a cursory glance at the Pentateuch, Code of Hamurabi, Avestas (Zoroastrian text), Gilgamesh, Iliad and Odyssey shows that. The Avesta and Pentateuch have laws protecting private property. There is honestly a plethora of quotes and sources that can be gathered. If you want citation from these or other sources of that era (as I am still unlcear if this is the time era and definition you are referring to) I will site them. There really isn’t much to contest if you are referring to the people of the Med/Near East before 500BC.
As far as economic theory of the Ancient world there are 2 leading views among scholars; the substansivist school and the Formalist school of thought that you can read about.
As far as a modern book recommendation that delves in great detail on ancient trade and infrastructure:
I can not recommend this book enough.
This in and of itself is confusing me, as the way I define it the modern state is a VERY modern invention that is nothing but progressive crack. What is the modern state? I would not recognize Rome, Persia, Sassnids, Caliphites, Classic Greek City-States, Byzantium, The Han Dynasty etc as very modern (all classical/ post classical civs) in terms of political infrastructure.
If some lefty is arguing the concept of property/societal organization with ancient people in the time era I referred, the question is BEYOND frustrating for me. I don’t even know where to begin or how to present arguments, it is honestly arguing with nonsense of the most unlearned (and unwilling to learn) ad hoc variety of positions. Every time I get frustrated with a libertarian view of history, all I have to do is think how infinitely much more awful and polemic the left truly is.
EDIT: last paragraph
I am also inclined to believe that the concept of property (of the private type) has been around since ancient times. By virtue of the sources that Dondoolee cited, I definitely have my inclinations that the evidence favors the presence of private property since the smack beginning.
In the case of the Pentateuch (The one I am most familiar with), and how peoples in the Ancient Near East relied on oral communication, which is quite likely how the record of Abraham in the Pentateuch was passed down until it was written in the formation of the Pentateuch (As is the case of practically every piece of ancient literature in our possession these days). Abraham himself amassed a great deal of wealth, and it ultimately belonged to him (Huge amounts of cattle and many servants are marks of wealth in the ANE). With Abraham at least, since he predates with no doubt the writing of the Pentateuch, is definitely a case and point that favors the conception of the presence of private property since the smack beginning of human societies. And lets not forget the little dispute he had with Lot when allotting land for their livestock as well, even if it was for temporary use (As is the case of the nomadic lifestyle, one that continues even nowadays). 
I don’t know much about Native American, South American, or African tribal societies, but I can assure you that pre-Christian European tribes/people/culture had private property. It’s really irritating to read something, especially from a libertarian author, that dismisses “pagan” tribes for not having private property, and/or equating modern day environmentalist groups with pagan culture in some way.
Also, it’s a big misconception to assume that a “tribe” is a small group of people or village with no actual structure. I generally find myself wanting to rephrase by what I mean by “tribal” when I’m talking to others who probably think I mean a primitive way of living.
I’ve actually wanted to post something along the lines of this on this forum for a while. It’s a large misconception and I can assure you that pre-Christian European people did have private property. I’ll go through some of my books to bring up examples on this now.
As stated before me, live stock was a sign of wealth, and like any economizing individual the people of ancient societies would take part in trade to further benifit themselves.
As far as Runes, the O rune had the meaning of homeland or property. The E rune, horse. The R rune, chariot or wagon.
In the Elder Futhark the F rune had the meaning of cattle as also “wealth, dynamic power”. In the Younger Futhark it had the meaning of livestock, gold, and wealth.
(The esoteric meanings of this were different, and the Runes had slightly different meaning variations to different tribes - as Elder Futhark, Young Futhark, etc.)
I can’t find the exact meaning of the word in one of my books, but the Celts had a word for mortgage that was along the lines of life and death, but was ultimately private ownership of land on your life.
Privatization, Viking Style: Model or Misfortune?
The Vikings took part in more peaceful trade and settling than battle. Another large misconception about Vikings and the culture it surrounds is that they were brutal murderers.
How interesting what you stated Bert. =) Even the presence of such concepts in the ancient languages of ancient Europeans definately reinforces the evidence.
But indeed, it be a foolish thing to conceive that the Viking raids that occurred throughout Europe, constitute the entire representation of the entirety of the social fabric of the Scandinavian peoples.
Yo, just to make a paranthesis (and to not deride from the topic). Many of these northerners contributed to the develepment of the the European Feudalism that was to become dominant in the 1000 years no? I do recall that there were Northern warlords, who maintained retinues of armed men (Huskarls), and they’re usual source of income was a share of the plunder no?
This may be of some interest Andius.
Whoah, that is actually pretty pimptastic. I definately likes, thank you. [:D]
But to avoid confusion, the proper way to read the cone graph. Law and Magic is what took precedence in the mind of the ancient Scandinavian, especially over strength and goods and love? Just asking some clarification.
Those scans were taken from Northern Magic by Edred Thorsson (Stephen Flowers writes under the name of Thorrson for his more “esoteric” line of work).
I was told that Flowers was really just regurgitating what Georges Dumezil had theorized on the European Tripartite Division of Social Classes. The graphs represent more of a heirarchy of order in society - “societies in which every aspect of life was integrated into a holistic system”. A modern day approach at this is Tyr: Myth, Culture, Tradition.
I almost forgot. Particularly when considering its place and time to your argument, The Muqaddimah by Ibn Khaldun is one of the most awesome reads of all time when it comes to sociology and history, if you haven’t read it yet. Much deals with sedentary (city dwelling) and Bedouin (more nomadic), and even within the nomadic culture it shows property ownership. Either way, large communal hippy living is nowhere to be found.
here it is free online:
Also, if you own a general giant Archaeology book, check ancient clay tablets that show administrative data (which almost always have a mark of ownership), as well as luxury items.
There is no question that the Scandinavian Sagas clearly describe stateless societies that nevertheless had developed quite complex systems of private property.
Long before there was anything resembling a King of Norway, the customs regulating the acquisition, custodianship, and distribution(as in the case of divorce for instance) of property were already considered to be ancient.
Feudalism, in the sense of a strict class hierarchy and that people were tied to the land came to Scandinavia in the wake of Christianity. Probably something akin to Feudalism would have developed on the peninsula independently, but mainland Europe was far further along the way at the time in that respect.
The chieftain/huskarl relationship was, as far as my readings of the Sagas tell me, a voluntary one. A young viking might go and join the retinue of a more established warrior, make some money either trading or raiding(the vikings actually did far more of the former than the latter, ranging as far afield as the Caspian Sea in the east), and then leave the retinue without consequences and strike out on his own, either saving up to buy his own farm, or become a shareholder in a shipping venture. Often these former henchmen would remain on good terms with their former employers, and there is no denying that the glue that held Viking society together were personal relationships of loyalty and kinship rather than strictly quid pro quo businessman/wage earner type of relationships.
Even if what they say is true why does it matter?? My response to people like that is ‘SO What’s your point?’
A small tribal grouping is not the same thing as a modern extended social order. And even if some tribal societies have or had communal property there is no reason to think it would work on a larger scale.
Freidrich Hayek in The Three Sources of Human Values points out that for a the small society to grow it must evolve towards a spontaniously ordered society and the instituions like private property rights that underpin them.
Every time I get frustrated with a libertarian view of history, all I have to do is think how infinitely much more awful and polemic the left truly is.
I know exactly what you mean. Aside from a Nazi (who was truly an Austrian school economist) libertarians are really the only good economists in the modern world, and while their historical analysis is heavily ideological at times it happens to be an ideology that is largely against the grain of State-historians, and thus is willing to give a more accurate analysis of past events than you get from most University courses.
Which in itself is kind of frustrating - as economists I have only minor complaints with libertarians, but as historians they are pretty obnoxious sometimes - and they are (as a class) the best historians in the world. Sad.
The point is that tribal societies did have private property, but again my main interest is pre-Christian Europe, and not North and South America or Africa.
Tribal society =/= communal ownership of property.
If a small society wants to grow that’s up to the small society. Again, this is about tribal society. The main question is: did they have private property? Yes.
To further elaborate, a lot of the customs that are found in Christianity and the church were stolen from pre-Christian tribes and cultures (whether or not you want to agree). Simple rites and procedures for rituals were incorporated into Christian religion from Norse religions during the Christianization of Europe. The Teutonic peoples of Europe had vast and complex institutions and were more advanced than people would probably assume.
I actually find this topic to be quite interesting, but as another poster has stated, I don’t see what relevance it would have to modern debates; unless you were trying to justify a particular social system/stance.
I have a few questions:
1.As I am not familiar with praxeology: why is the idea of communal property in ancient tribes wrong according to praxeology?
2.Pre-colonial Australian Aboriginal society is often described as a hunter-gatherer society, where there was communal property and private possessions. Does anyone have a reference which argues that this is not the case?