Keith Hudson:
> Hi Pete,
>
> Thank you for your description of wampum -- most grateful. It is somewhat
> reminiscent of the collection and use of cowrie shells from the west
> African coast (and which acceptable as currency by the banks of Amsterdam
> in the 17th century).
>
I don't think that what Pete is describing in the following is wampum,
which, I'm pretty sure is associated with the Iroquoian people of the upper
St. Lawrence and eastern Great Lakes (e.g. Ontario, Quebec, New York State,
etc.). If he is referring to the people of the Canadian and American west
coast (British Columbia, Washington, Oregon), what we are dealing with is
highly sophisticated cultures - the totem pole carvers who lived in
permanent communities. From what I recall of these people (Haida, Nootka,
Kwatkiutl, Makah, etc.) I don't think they were especially egalatarian.
They took slaves, and potlaches, while a method of redistributing wealth,
were also a way of shaming rivals by demonstrating that you were so rich and
powerful that you could give huge quantities of property away. They may
have had relatively portable money in the form of shells, though I'm not
aware of this. However, they had a less portable form of "money" known as
"coppers", which were ornately decorated, shield like copper plates. As
"money", coppers were likely used as a store of value and a signifier of
wealth, rather than a medium of exchange.
Ed Weick
>
> At 15:16 11/04/02 -0700, you wrote:
> >
> >On Thu, 11 Apr 2002, Keith Hudson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >[...]
> >
> >>(Incidentally, I'd welcome specific information about wampum if there
are
> >>knowledgeable FWers. As I understand it, denominations of wampum
currency
> >>consisted of shells of specific sizes and colours. In other words, it
was
> >>not to be found lying around, as some detractors would have it. As with
> >>gold, much time and effort had to be expended in "mining" it and
> >>therefore it had scarcity value.)
> >
> >OK: I think I saw this in Nat Geo, or possibly Sci Am, about five or ten
> >years ago. The tubular shells which were woven into plates and belts come
> >from a shelled worm, probably related to the teredo, which lives in
> >relatively deep water in inlets off the west coast of Vancouver Island.
> >It sits vertcally patially buried in the soft bottom, and filter feeds.
> >The worms were harvested with tools rather like a sparcely bundled
> >witches broom, attached to a very long pole - about forty feet -
> >the trunk of a forest sapling. Being the west coast, these trees
> >would grow rapidly tall and thin to reach the light, so they would
> >only be a couple of inches diameter. At times of lowest tide, the
> >boats would go out over the worm beds, and the tools would be lowered
> >til they reached the bottom, where they would be jambed down, lodging
> >the shells among the bristles. Each probe would yield around ten(?)
> >shells. The beds were probably 50 - 100 feet offshore, and the
> >process could only be done in calm weather. The shells were traded
> >eastward at least into the prairies. There was lots more information,
> >but I don't remember much of it. Note that the folks in that part
> >of the world where the shells were harvested were not heavily into a
> >trading economy, internally, in that they regularly held ceremonies
> >("potlatches") where successful citizens demonstrated their power by
> >giving away just about everything they had, including great quantities of
> >stuff of very high quality made expressly for the purpose. The result
> >was a very egalitarian society, as far as material goods were concerned.
> >Wealth was more an issue of social influence.
> >
> >[...]
> >
> >>On the radio this morning an astrophysicist was saying that we are now
> >>discovering so many planetary systems elsewhere in our galaxy that the
> >>number of planets with lifeforms must be at least a billion. If this is
> >>so, then I can only deduce that at least one of them has been observing
> >>us for a long time! But, so far, they have been kind enough not to
> >>interfere.
> >
> >It is not a matter of kindness. This idea has been around since Fermi's
> >paradox [the universe has been around for a very long time, and
> >if there were the occasional intelligent life, the expansion of
> >organisms suggests that by now at least a couple ought to have
> >come by our neck of the woods, so why haven't we seen any? The four
> >possible answers: 1) we're the only intelligent lifeform - given
> >the size of the known universe, probability of this is not significantly
> >different from zero; 2)we're among the very first, it just hasn't
> >happened yet - probability a bit better than option 1, but not by
> >much: our planet has had its organic environment hit by several
> >severe setbacks, including a period of meteoric bombardment that
> >left the surface molten, and a period of total glaciation that eliminated
> >all but the hardiest bacteria, not to mention that our star was only
> >formed more than half way through the possible star-forming epoch,
> >so it is a relative latecomer; 3) there are insurmountable difficulties
> >which prohibit interstellar travel - probability impossible to assess,
> >but nothing of the sort is currently detectable; 4) there's lots
> >of folks out there, but they choose to stay hidden - probability
> >impossible to assess, but unless there are other possibilities
> >not yet though of, the probability must be 1 minus the total of
> >the others, which at the moment makes it look potentially pretty
> >large.)
> >
> >Why stay hidden? Because there is no good reason to reveal yourselves
> >to a planet full of hyperactive ambitious barbarian savages who
> >slaughter each other regularly and vigourously, and clearly
> >wouldn't be safe to invite into the interstellar community.
> >Any stellar voyaging society has been around for a _long_ time,
> >and has learned to live peacefully, not using the tremendous
> >energies at their disposal for destructive purposes, and they have
> >all the time in the world to wait out the 5000 generation quarantine
> >period to see whether we kill each other off or evolve the requisite
> >level of serenity to consider contact. If you had the choice, would
> >you let us out of the playpen, particularly when you can observe
> >us, and harvest any useful ideas we come up with, without us even
> >knowing?
> > -Pete Vincent
> >
> >
> >
> >
> __________________________________________________________
> "Writers used to write because they had something to say; now they write
in
> order to discover if they have something to say." John D. Barrow
> _________________________________________________
> Keith Hudson, Bath, England; e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> _________________________________________________
>
