Re: The origin of personal property
Paul Crowley (Paul@crowleyp.demon.co.uk)
Thu, 22 Aug 96 19:11:29 GMT
In article <rfoyDwFxK3.KLy@netcom.com> rfoy@netcom.com "Richard Foy" writes:
> >> Paul Crowley <Paul@crowleyp.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >> >I can't see personal property developing without fixed home
> >> >bases. It would be much easier when these also acquired some
> >> >kind of accomodation or shelter.
> This seems to me to be inconsistant with nomadic small scale cultures
> of the recent past, at least from what I know of them.
But where did these nomadic small scale cultures come from?
If "they had always been there" or if they were the primitive
form, you would have a point. However, since it is generally
agreed that Hss went through a population bottleneck, all of us
had the same ancestors. Was that ancestor population nomadic or
static? Was it (a) we all had static ancestors and some
subsequently adopted a nomadic way of life or (b) we all had
nomadic ancestors and some later adopted a static form of life.
I'd say the evidence is in favour of static ancestors. For
example, the number and range of human parasites indicate fixed
home bases. Actually, I can't conceive of a nomadic hominid
form of life without fire, tools, shelter and advanced weapons.
Furthermore, a static society would make the development of all
these much easier - as well as other vital institutions such as
language.
Paul.
|