What do you think?
Rate this book
Stone Age Economics
Ambitiously tackling the nature of economic life and how to study it comparatively, Stone Age Economics includes six studies that reflect the author's ideas on revising traditional views of hunter-gatherer and so-called primitive societies, revealing them to be the original affluent society. When it was originally published in 1974, E. Evans-Pritchard of the Times Literary Supplement noted that this classic study of anthropological economics "is rich in factual evidence and in ideas, so rich that a brief review cannot do it justice; only another book could do that."
362 pages, Paperback
First published February 1, 1974
91 people are currently reading
3878 people want to read
About the author
Marshall Sahlins
52 books148 followersMarshall David Sahlins was an American cultural anthropologist best known for his ethnographic work in the Pacific and for his contributions to anthropological theory. He was the Charles F. Grey Distinguished Service Professor Emeritus of Anthropology and of Social Sciences at the University of Chicago.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 54 reviews
Read
January 25, 2019I do not know what weird wanderings led me to this book. I was going to say that I'm not an anthropologist, but that seemed more than usually stupid, degree or no who doesn't study and learn about our fellows, who isn't taught something by them everyday?
So what's it about? The stone age appears to be pretty much over (apart from here and there) and so it's economics can hardly be relevant. But in a way the economics of the stone-age turn out to be oddly central and still inescapable in our present because economic, social and political theories all have their myths and just so stories that explain why the life we lead is the way it is and where we came from, and this little book aims to overthrow all that by discussing how actual stone-age economies worked.
The first essay in the book "The Original Affluent Society" is something anybody could have a go at reading. A director could even make a nice documentary film about its subject which is the lives of surviving stone-age hunter gatherers in Africa and Australia. The key finding is that even restricted to fairly desert areas they barely have to work to feed and support themselves. An average of a few hours of work a day are sufficient to meet all their needs. The pace of work is slow. People take naps. People sleep a lot. In short Eden was a reality for our most distant ancestors. Our world by contrast has starvation, poverty and infinite needs that can leave us knowing a dissatisfaction alien to the old stone-age. Something to think about. A finding repeated here, , with the added benefit that the stone age economic system produced a richer ecology in the human gut - however eat porcupine at your own risk.
There are all kind of implications to this. For example here Neil Mc Gregor discusses the lion man sculpture in terms of a subsistence community having to make an immense sacrifice to enable a person to develop the skills necessary to make such a sculpture. From which we learn that McGregor or the people whose books he has read haven't read or have forgotten this essay. In a stone age society leisure time is abundant. One meets subsistence needs quickly. The tricky bit is living long enough to have the time to develop the skill to make a lion man at a time when average life expectancy is in the 30s, having the spare time to sit by the fire and do carving an entirely natural consequence of Sahlins' "The Original Affluent Society".
The argument is developed in "The Domestic Mode of Production". The striking fact that emerges from looking at stone-age agricultural societies is that people don't exploit the land they farm to its maximum but are generally content to work it at a comfortable level, ie a level comfortable to the workers. Again the pace of work is slow and irregular. People wander off for days or work for half a day before returning home but all the same easily support an extended family meeting their physiological, safety and belonging needs. If you want more esteem you have to produce a bit more to trade and self-actualisation I believe you have to work out for yourself in all societies. Reading this I can't help thinking of our favourite domestic economic unit -the nuclear family- with people working full-time (or trying too) and all the same desperately bobbing up and down on Maslow's hierarchy of needs.
Then we move into gifts and trade. Gifts are reciprocal and blend into trade, but also debt and obligation - in some cultures you can force people to trade by giving them a gift or by giving more yams or pots in exchange for your trade-friend's obsidian or pigs than is customary. It's not a point that Sahlins develops but you get the sense of debt as being in origin social and of course existing long before money came on the scene. Subsistence and networks of reciprocal gift giving come out as a pretty good survival strategy. The Earth itself becomes a common treasury.
But it is with the search for esteem that things move in another interesting direction. By the sweat of your brow you can make yourself into a Big Man (Big Women apparently don't exist, not even in the Amazon basin). In other cultures the Chief plays a similar role, giving gifts and receiving them back, storing food in communal treasuries to give out in feasts or during hard times. The Chief might be able to mobilise labour, the Chief is an ersatz father, a giver of gifts, a bull.
Of a sudden reading this I wasn't reading about stone age cultures but seeing perhaps how Old Kingdom Egypt emerged, were the Pharaoh was a father-figure, had a bull's tail as part of his regalia, if I remember correctly, received and redistributed food and mobilised labour to record his generosity. Instead of a pattern of social behaviour that was very distant, suddenly this was like iron age Europe where the Chiefs gave slaves and received wine in exchange from Mediterranean traders only to dole the wine out in feasts to their followers, or here was something very like Hrothgar giver of gold rings in his mead hall on the cusp of history.
From the idea of Stone Age Economics representing something distant and alien I had a sudden sense instead of how alien and recent our own way of life is.
Sahlins' makes use of Veblen's invidious comparison and conspicuous consumption, and in The Theory of the Leisure Class Veblen did tie together the behaviour of stone age and modern age Peoples. Sahlin's was aiming at something slightly different I think, learning to see economic behaviour as a part of social behaviour and belonging properly inside anthropology rather than as something free-standing.
Lots here to think over and plenty to re-read.
So what's it about? The stone age appears to be pretty much over (apart from here and there) and so it's economics can hardly be relevant. But in a way the economics of the stone-age turn out to be oddly central and still inescapable in our present because economic, social and political theories all have their myths and just so stories that explain why the life we lead is the way it is and where we came from, and this little book aims to overthrow all that by discussing how actual stone-age economies worked.
The first essay in the book "The Original Affluent Society" is something anybody could have a go at reading. A director could even make a nice documentary film about its subject which is the lives of surviving stone-age hunter gatherers in Africa and Australia. The key finding is that even restricted to fairly desert areas they barely have to work to feed and support themselves. An average of a few hours of work a day are sufficient to meet all their needs. The pace of work is slow. People take naps. People sleep a lot. In short Eden was a reality for our most distant ancestors. Our world by contrast has starvation, poverty and infinite needs that can leave us knowing a dissatisfaction alien to the old stone-age. Something to think about. A finding repeated here, , with the added benefit that the stone age economic system produced a richer ecology in the human gut - however eat porcupine at your own risk.
There are all kind of implications to this. For example here Neil Mc Gregor discusses the lion man sculpture in terms of a subsistence community having to make an immense sacrifice to enable a person to develop the skills necessary to make such a sculpture. From which we learn that McGregor or the people whose books he has read haven't read or have forgotten this essay. In a stone age society leisure time is abundant. One meets subsistence needs quickly. The tricky bit is living long enough to have the time to develop the skill to make a lion man at a time when average life expectancy is in the 30s, having the spare time to sit by the fire and do carving an entirely natural consequence of Sahlins' "The Original Affluent Society".
The argument is developed in "The Domestic Mode of Production". The striking fact that emerges from looking at stone-age agricultural societies is that people don't exploit the land they farm to its maximum but are generally content to work it at a comfortable level, ie a level comfortable to the workers. Again the pace of work is slow and irregular. People wander off for days or work for half a day before returning home but all the same easily support an extended family meeting their physiological, safety and belonging needs. If you want more esteem you have to produce a bit more to trade and self-actualisation I believe you have to work out for yourself in all societies. Reading this I can't help thinking of our favourite domestic economic unit -the nuclear family- with people working full-time (or trying too) and all the same desperately bobbing up and down on Maslow's hierarchy of needs.
Then we move into gifts and trade. Gifts are reciprocal and blend into trade, but also debt and obligation - in some cultures you can force people to trade by giving them a gift or by giving more yams or pots in exchange for your trade-friend's obsidian or pigs than is customary. It's not a point that Sahlins develops but you get the sense of debt as being in origin social and of course existing long before money came on the scene. Subsistence and networks of reciprocal gift giving come out as a pretty good survival strategy. The Earth itself becomes a common treasury.
But it is with the search for esteem that things move in another interesting direction. By the sweat of your brow you can make yourself into a Big Man (Big Women apparently don't exist, not even in the Amazon basin). In other cultures the Chief plays a similar role, giving gifts and receiving them back, storing food in communal treasuries to give out in feasts or during hard times. The Chief might be able to mobilise labour, the Chief is an ersatz father, a giver of gifts, a bull.
Of a sudden reading this I wasn't reading about stone age cultures but seeing perhaps how Old Kingdom Egypt emerged, were the Pharaoh was a father-figure, had a bull's tail as part of his regalia, if I remember correctly, received and redistributed food and mobilised labour to record his generosity. Instead of a pattern of social behaviour that was very distant, suddenly this was like iron age Europe where the Chiefs gave slaves and received wine in exchange from Mediterranean traders only to dole the wine out in feasts to their followers, or here was something very like Hrothgar giver of gold rings in his mead hall on the cusp of history.
From the idea of Stone Age Economics representing something distant and alien I had a sudden sense instead of how alien and recent our own way of life is.
Sahlins' makes use of Veblen's invidious comparison and conspicuous consumption, and in The Theory of the Leisure Class Veblen did tie together the behaviour of stone age and modern age Peoples. Sahlin's was aiming at something slightly different I think, learning to see economic behaviour as a part of social behaviour and belonging properly inside anthropology rather than as something free-standing.
Lots here to think over and plenty to re-read.
August 13, 2021
So this is uh, not a book on Stone Age economics. For the most part anyway. What it is though, is a gauntlet thrown down at the feet of contemporary economics. An effort, among other things, to dislodge its - at this point - utterly obstinate and totally ahistorical vision of the human, one whose basic behavior is everywhere the same, across time, space, and context (i.e. efficiency maximizing, rationally calculating beings). It's tempting to say 'yet another' gauntlet, were it not for the fact that this series of essays was published in '72, long before it was cool to point out just how much of a sham the basic tenets of 'classical' economics are. To the degree then, that it's 'contemporary' economics that remains the target here, that speaks less to the datedness of Sahlins' book than the intransigence of that ridiculous economic ideology, making this book all the more relevant today.
Yet if not Stone Age economics then what exactly? Largely - non-market economics, both of the present-day and of the paleolithic past. Economic behavior beyond the ken of markets: production among households for the sake of happy subsistence; sharing among tribe fellows, all the better for social leveling; gift-giving among clans, for the forging of deeply rooted bonds. Generosity and reciprocity, the anthropologist's stock-in-trade. If much of this sounds suspiciously idyllic, that's indeed part of the point. For among the orthodoxies challenged here is just the idea that those without 'market access' live lives "poor, nasty, brutish, and short". Most especially not 'poor', the adjective most shrilly flung about by those who champion "the market" as the single bulwark standing between us and utter impoverishment. Against this does Sahlins hold up - and demonstrate - nothing less than the affluence of 'primitive man' (and woman!), who, wanting for little, spent a great deal of time loafing about and dwelling in plenty.
It's not that Sahlins is (I don't think) any kind of primitivist, pining for the good 'ol days of foraging and fishing. But what's most certainly at stake here is the re-ignition of possibility in the present by recourse to the past (although not only the past). Which explains, I think, the otherwise curious scantiness of Stone Age economics in Stone Age Economics: we read instead of circuits of exchange among turn of the century Melenesian tribes; Maori proverbs, as related by Sahlins' fieldwork colleagues; the sleeping habits of Arnhem Land hunters, collected long after Australian colonial settlement. But the point, I imagine, is this: these 'affluent societies', long thought to be exactly the opposite and consigned to a pre-history before the advent of market society, are with us now, here, in the present. Not a stage to be leapt over in the pursuit of an ever more pristine modernity, but a set of living examples of a world configured otherwise.
More forceful still is the insistence that these are all, indeed, economies. Economies organized along lines other than that of an ever-threatening scarcity and ever-acquisitive accumulation; by way of distinctions of physical distance (I'll share with my family, but not that that bloke from the other island); of internal hierarchies where the most powerful are the most generous on pain loss of position (let's be primitivists like that); of distinctions among types of goods (we'll trade stuff, but not food - food, too precious, gets shared). Distinctions and differences erased by the homogenizing force of capital in which every commodity is just that - a commodity: capitalism's 'flat ontology'. If today, we're quick to learn that the personal is the political, Sahlins' lesson, still to be digested, is that the economic is the social, no less than the cultural. And that, we can work with. That we can change. We know, because Sahlins documented it.
Yet if not Stone Age economics then what exactly? Largely - non-market economics, both of the present-day and of the paleolithic past. Economic behavior beyond the ken of markets: production among households for the sake of happy subsistence; sharing among tribe fellows, all the better for social leveling; gift-giving among clans, for the forging of deeply rooted bonds. Generosity and reciprocity, the anthropologist's stock-in-trade. If much of this sounds suspiciously idyllic, that's indeed part of the point. For among the orthodoxies challenged here is just the idea that those without 'market access' live lives "poor, nasty, brutish, and short". Most especially not 'poor', the adjective most shrilly flung about by those who champion "the market" as the single bulwark standing between us and utter impoverishment. Against this does Sahlins hold up - and demonstrate - nothing less than the affluence of 'primitive man' (and woman!), who, wanting for little, spent a great deal of time loafing about and dwelling in plenty.
It's not that Sahlins is (I don't think) any kind of primitivist, pining for the good 'ol days of foraging and fishing. But what's most certainly at stake here is the re-ignition of possibility in the present by recourse to the past (although not only the past). Which explains, I think, the otherwise curious scantiness of Stone Age economics in Stone Age Economics: we read instead of circuits of exchange among turn of the century Melenesian tribes; Maori proverbs, as related by Sahlins' fieldwork colleagues; the sleeping habits of Arnhem Land hunters, collected long after Australian colonial settlement. But the point, I imagine, is this: these 'affluent societies', long thought to be exactly the opposite and consigned to a pre-history before the advent of market society, are with us now, here, in the present. Not a stage to be leapt over in the pursuit of an ever more pristine modernity, but a set of living examples of a world configured otherwise.
More forceful still is the insistence that these are all, indeed, economies. Economies organized along lines other than that of an ever-threatening scarcity and ever-acquisitive accumulation; by way of distinctions of physical distance (I'll share with my family, but not that that bloke from the other island); of internal hierarchies where the most powerful are the most generous on pain loss of position (let's be primitivists like that); of distinctions among types of goods (we'll trade stuff, but not food - food, too precious, gets shared). Distinctions and differences erased by the homogenizing force of capital in which every commodity is just that - a commodity: capitalism's 'flat ontology'. If today, we're quick to learn that the personal is the political, Sahlins' lesson, still to be digested, is that the economic is the social, no less than the cultural. And that, we can work with. That we can change. We know, because Sahlins documented it.
July 15, 2009
Combines anthropology with economic theory, showing in passing how modern the supposed universals of economics actually are. Much of the book focuses on exploding the myth of the unhappy, overworked people of the Paleolithic. They were happy, took lots of naps, worked about 3-5 hours a day, had few (if any) wants or unmet needs. Spent much of their time dancing, eating, and chatting. Sounds like Eden . . .
September 16, 2010
Stone Age Economics was a revolutionary work in cultural anthropology, debunking commonly held myths about "natural man" held at least since Thomas Hobbes and probably since the dawn of civilization. No informed anthropologists now question its basic thesis regarding the early economic expressions of our inherently social nature; some actually suggest it does not go far enough in viewing the life of nomadic cultures on their own terms. That may be so, but Stone Age Economics is to cultural anthropology much like The Origin of Species is to evolution.
December 18, 2020
Marshall published “the Original Affluent Society” back in Paris in 1968, so he’s been an influencer on the anti-civ scene for decades. Back then he was pondering publicly whether economic progress existed, stating “life in the Paleolithic was in no sense a struggle for existence”. Sahlins’ work led to new movements like Primitivism, and Degrowth. Even the Unabomber wrote a critique on Sahlins. Fellow worker Karl Polanyi’s work at Columbia was also on studying “how sharing, gift, and redistributive economies worked in the past.” Sahlins saw how in Hawaii how Kings who overstepped their bounds were killed. In the absence of state power, there was a limit to how much a person could extract from others.
A favorite Maori dish is apparently rat, and an actual Maori proverb is “Broil your rat with its fur on, lest you be disturbed by someone.” I’m sure pillows with that written on them are big sellers in New Zealand gift shops.
Common to non-state thinking is “a man who possesses provisions must share them with those who do not possess them.” “This habit of share and share alike is easily understandable in a community where everyone is likely to find himself in difficulties from time to time, for it is scarcity and not sufficiency that makes people generous.” – Evans-Pritchard 1940 “A bushman will go to any lengths to avoid making other Bushmen jealous of him, and for this reason the few possessions the Bushmen have are constantly circling among members of their groups. For without very rigid co-operation Bushmen could not survive the famines and droughts the Kalahari offers them” -Thomas 1959 [To the Towa-Tututni], “Food was only edible, not saleable” – Drucker 1937 The !Kung term for selfish schmuck, was “far hearted.” “No bushman wants prominence. It’s bad manners for a bushman to refuse another’s request. A return of the same value will have to be made”. Among the Buin Buin people, “mamoko” is the privilege of deliberate overpayment w/o obligation to increase social prestige. With the Kaoka, you get your reputation by giving away your wealth. Social leaders are those who give away the most.
In all these cultures, generosity is the highest cultural value. Deliberately sell your pig for less to another and you would gain prestige with the Lesu people. This is the same for the Plains Cree where you had to help others in difficulty. In the Andamans, even though food is private property, people with food are expected to give it to those who have none. In fact, each man and woman tried to outdo others in generosity. – Radcliffe-Brown 1948 With the Blackfoot, rich men were expected to pay more for things than others. Generosity was considered “a responsibility of the wealthy.” In Tahiti, “poverty never makes a man contemptible; but to be affluent and covetous is the greatest shame and reproach”.
It was great for me to read page after page, repeated again and again, the story of the people around the world who still embody the same old pre-state story that existed BEFORE civilization and the birth of agriculture. For Daniel Quinn fans, it’s as though you are dropped of Leaver Land for a few hours. An excellent book - really glad I finally read it.
A favorite Maori dish is apparently rat, and an actual Maori proverb is “Broil your rat with its fur on, lest you be disturbed by someone.” I’m sure pillows with that written on them are big sellers in New Zealand gift shops.
Common to non-state thinking is “a man who possesses provisions must share them with those who do not possess them.” “This habit of share and share alike is easily understandable in a community where everyone is likely to find himself in difficulties from time to time, for it is scarcity and not sufficiency that makes people generous.” – Evans-Pritchard 1940 “A bushman will go to any lengths to avoid making other Bushmen jealous of him, and for this reason the few possessions the Bushmen have are constantly circling among members of their groups. For without very rigid co-operation Bushmen could not survive the famines and droughts the Kalahari offers them” -Thomas 1959 [To the Towa-Tututni], “Food was only edible, not saleable” – Drucker 1937 The !Kung term for selfish schmuck, was “far hearted.” “No bushman wants prominence. It’s bad manners for a bushman to refuse another’s request. A return of the same value will have to be made”. Among the Buin Buin people, “mamoko” is the privilege of deliberate overpayment w/o obligation to increase social prestige. With the Kaoka, you get your reputation by giving away your wealth. Social leaders are those who give away the most.
In all these cultures, generosity is the highest cultural value. Deliberately sell your pig for less to another and you would gain prestige with the Lesu people. This is the same for the Plains Cree where you had to help others in difficulty. In the Andamans, even though food is private property, people with food are expected to give it to those who have none. In fact, each man and woman tried to outdo others in generosity. – Radcliffe-Brown 1948 With the Blackfoot, rich men were expected to pay more for things than others. Generosity was considered “a responsibility of the wealthy.” In Tahiti, “poverty never makes a man contemptible; but to be affluent and covetous is the greatest shame and reproach”.
It was great for me to read page after page, repeated again and again, the story of the people around the world who still embody the same old pre-state story that existed BEFORE civilization and the birth of agriculture. For Daniel Quinn fans, it’s as though you are dropped of Leaver Land for a few hours. An excellent book - really glad I finally read it.
November 15, 2021
i think this book has a horrible title to be honest. bad ring to it but also it's really not about the paleolithic or neolithic but about present-day hunter-gatherer and small-scale horticultural societies and their internal relations. admittedly this does provide some insight into the historical development of the 'stone age' and the theoretical problems of e.g. the hobbesian state of nature and 'primitive communism'. anyway it's a really good and penetrating series of essays about things ranging from ecological symbiosis to the origins of token money.
it's refreshing to read an anthropologist with a complex and wide-ranging engagement with ethnographic literature who also manages to keep the ~marxian 'big picture' in view. seeing him drop a C-M-C' every now and then makes me more comfortable with the sociocultural analysis. also insightful about the conditions that prevail for these 'primitive economies' being set by centuries of imperialism and millennia of marginalization by state societies - e.g. gift economies that prevail among highland new guineans simply cannot be sustained in borneo because in the latter case all rice produced in excess of domestic consumption becomes a market export to more settled and modernized neighbors, leading to a sort of generalized competition. lots of little gems of insight. anyway just read the book
it's refreshing to read an anthropologist with a complex and wide-ranging engagement with ethnographic literature who also manages to keep the ~marxian 'big picture' in view. seeing him drop a C-M-C' every now and then makes me more comfortable with the sociocultural analysis. also insightful about the conditions that prevail for these 'primitive economies' being set by centuries of imperialism and millennia of marginalization by state societies - e.g. gift economies that prevail among highland new guineans simply cannot be sustained in borneo because in the latter case all rice produced in excess of domestic consumption becomes a market export to more settled and modernized neighbors, leading to a sort of generalized competition. lots of little gems of insight. anyway just read the book
October 20, 2014
I had wanted to read this book for a long time, and when the price dropped for the e-reader version I decided to buy it. I was in no way disappointed. Even though the book can be taken as a polemic against all economic and philosophical myths of human nature, Stone Age Economics has a charming grace to it. Having culled through a massive assortment of ethnographic texts, most of which dealing with the material conditions of 'primitive' peoples, Sahlins provides an astute empirical analysis on the way we were. Overwhelming evidence justifies his claim that primitive life was/is not about facing starvation with mindless drudgery while secretly wishing to accumulate and to optimize energy flows. Thankfully, people in their innermost natures are better than that. The truth of the matter is that primitive folk spend a lot of time between hunts or fishing jaunts sleeping, socializing, engaging in folk practices of art and gossip. Not generally faced with starvation (when the world was less populated, the living was easy), people nevertheless partook of a kind of brinkmanship: not calculating how to maximize/optimize, but deciding collectively as a band on when to get back to work, whether hunting, fishing, or relocating to greener pastures. If only things could be so democratically controlled in the modern world.
Most of the ethnographic anecdotes are pretty poignant and droll, but the compound effect of so many similar scenarios can produce a slight annoyance. The book has a thick appendix with the raw data of numerous ethnographers. Maybe I will get to that some day. But the core arguments of the book are well worth a close read. One more thing, the book is a little dated by now. Women are seldom featured as the focal point of what are now called gatherer-hunter societies. And a focus on primitive people as the fitting object of cultural anthropology is certainly old school. Yet the book will continue to be a classic in the field of anthropology for the duration, and should also be read by economists and philosophers of all stripes.
Most of the ethnographic anecdotes are pretty poignant and droll, but the compound effect of so many similar scenarios can produce a slight annoyance. The book has a thick appendix with the raw data of numerous ethnographers. Maybe I will get to that some day. But the core arguments of the book are well worth a close read. One more thing, the book is a little dated by now. Women are seldom featured as the focal point of what are now called gatherer-hunter societies. And a focus on primitive people as the fitting object of cultural anthropology is certainly old school. Yet the book will continue to be a classic in the field of anthropology for the duration, and should also be read by economists and philosophers of all stripes.
December 24, 2020
Starts out fascinating with a chapter/essay on primitive tribes as the "original affluent society." In this best section of the book, Sahlins reframes the entire notion of affluence, turning from our modern ability to obtain whatever material good we want to the primitive flip side: simply not wanting much, and thus easily having all of your desires fulfilled (in less than 3 hours a day, on average, taboot!). Talk about leisure.
Unfortunately, the rest of the book gets way too academic, talking about production rates and domestic modes of production and kinship distances and other not-very-interesting things. For an economics student, this would probably all be fascinating. I am not such a person. Hidden gems among the rest of the rather dry tome are Sahlin´s discussion of "Warre" in Hobbes' Leviathan and his idea of gift-giving among chiefs as somewhat akin to slave-making (putting people in your debt through your generosity). Both of those found in Chapter 4.
@pointblaek
Unfortunately, the rest of the book gets way too academic, talking about production rates and domestic modes of production and kinship distances and other not-very-interesting things. For an economics student, this would probably all be fascinating. I am not such a person. Hidden gems among the rest of the rather dry tome are Sahlin´s discussion of "Warre" in Hobbes' Leviathan and his idea of gift-giving among chiefs as somewhat akin to slave-making (putting people in your debt through your generosity). Both of those found in Chapter 4.
@pointblaek
January 2, 2013
This was an utterly life-changing and paradigm-shifting book for me--on par with Jared Diamond's Gun's Germs and Steel, but more rigorous and scholarly in its execution. For the light reader, I recommend the first two chapters. The work delves into more technical scientific detail in subsequent chapters. I'm not sure why Sahlin's work has not changed the world yet. It certainly changed me.
May 7, 2023
Sahlins brings all the data to the table in order to demonstrate that economic relationships cannot be understood isolated from social relationships. It is a must read for anyone interested in understading economics from anthropological point of view with a deep critique of the traditional way of understanding the economy only in formal market relations.
November 15, 2024
Selon Sahlins , les premier peuples primitifs étudié par l’auteur ( le mot primitif pour l’auteur se veut : sans état, sans économie de marché, sans propriété ) on instauré des mode opérationnels par rapport à leur économie qui ont été jugé ou évaluer d’une lunette idéologique bourgeoise et eurocentrique. L’hégémonie de la vision évolutionniste et de l’économie de marché occidental a complètement fait bifurquer et vicié le fondement de l’analyse anthropologique de ces premiers peuples étudié par l’auteur. L’économie primitive ce veut une économie domestique, encré dans la famille qui a comme prémisse de contenter les besoins primaires matériel sans avoir un désir d’accumulation où de surproduction comme notre système économique capitaliste néolibéral contemporain. Et la décision d’entreprendre ce type d’économie est prise de pleine conscience rationnelle et a été institutionnalisée par ces premiers peuples eux-mêmes. Donc en découle une société d’abondance, avec des heures de travails beaucoup moins important de ce que nous connaissons dans nos vie quotidienne contemporaine, ce qui laisse une grande place au temps libre et à l’oisiveté. Ces sociétés avait un rapport d’échange de matérialité basé sur le don , le contre-don , la réciprocité et la rétribution. L’action d’échange est encré dans la valeur d’usage et dans la relation sociale elle-même. Ce qui est intrinsèquement plus résilient et horizontal que voudrais nous faire croire les anthropologues si bourgeois qui affirme que ces être humains étais incapable de sortir du sous-développement technique et constamment guetté par la famine. J’ai adorer, tellement inspirant de voir que les êtres humains s’organise sans état, sans hiérarchies et sans propriété depuis des millénaires. Regarder en arrière pour voir plus clair en avant. Très inspiré de la grille d’analyse d’Alexandre Chayanov. Je le recommande.
April 29, 2012
'…on evidence largely from these two groups [the Bushmen and the native Australians]. A good case can be made that hunters and gatherers work less than we do; and, rather than a continuous travail, the food quest is intermittent, leisure abundant, and there is a greater amount of sleep in the daytime per capita per year than in any other condition of society. ' [one study showed ~26 hrs/wk, another ~35/wk, a 3rd 15 but excluding cooking and preparation time; dependents are part of the calculations. Calorie intake are from 104% to 116% of American daily standard.]
'Speaking to unique developments of the market economy, to its institutionalization of scarcity, Karl Polanyi said that "Our humiliating enslavement to the material, which all human culture is designed to mitigate, was deliberately made more rigorous." '
'The world's most primitive people have few possessions, but they are not poor. Poverty is not a certain small amount of goods, nor is it just a relation between means and ends; above all it is a relation between people. Poverty is a social status. As such it is the invention of civilization.'
'Speaking to unique developments of the market economy, to its institutionalization of scarcity, Karl Polanyi said that "Our humiliating enslavement to the material, which all human culture is designed to mitigate, was deliberately made more rigorous." '
'The world's most primitive people have few possessions, but they are not poor. Poverty is not a certain small amount of goods, nor is it just a relation between means and ends; above all it is a relation between people. Poverty is a social status. As such it is the invention of civilization.'
September 16, 2010
HI Kirk,
Yes, this was a transforming book for me. I think you nailed it when you say Sahlins really highlights the social basis of economic work in stone age societies. What we are really always doing first is being Social, he says. Economy is a by-product of a primary need then? But then he follows with what i think of as, 'And that as moderns we work so much more than we 'used to' in a sense despite our advances in technology.' THIS leaves a reader with the concomitant question, with more work, hence more economy - Do we have more social reality somehow as a result? One might respond, yes! we do, but what does this mean, is the question and how do we know it?
A quote from the book:
"One-third to one-half of humanity are said to go to bed hungry every night. In the Old Stone Age the fraction must have been much smaller. This is the era of hunger unprecedented. Now, in the time of the greatest technical power, is starvation an institution. Reverse another venerable formula: the amount of hunger increases relatively and absolutely with the evolution of culture."
Yes, this was a transforming book for me. I think you nailed it when you say Sahlins really highlights the social basis of economic work in stone age societies. What we are really always doing first is being Social, he says. Economy is a by-product of a primary need then? But then he follows with what i think of as, 'And that as moderns we work so much more than we 'used to' in a sense despite our advances in technology.' THIS leaves a reader with the concomitant question, with more work, hence more economy - Do we have more social reality somehow as a result? One might respond, yes! we do, but what does this mean, is the question and how do we know it?
A quote from the book:
"One-third to one-half of humanity are said to go to bed hungry every night. In the Old Stone Age the fraction must have been much smaller. This is the era of hunger unprecedented. Now, in the time of the greatest technical power, is starvation an institution. Reverse another venerable formula: the amount of hunger increases relatively and absolutely with the evolution of culture."
January 22, 2019
Une thèse centrale de l'ouvrage consiste à étayer à l'aide de statistiques et d'observations de première main cette raison pour laquelle les chasseurs cueilleurs nomades peuvent être considérés (et se considèrent eux-mêmes) à l'abri du besoin alors qu'ils n'ont que le strict nécessaire pour chasser et se loger, et rien qui ne puisse être fabriqué à n'importe quel moment par n'importe quel membre du groupe : ils estiment vivre au milieu d'une abondance qui n'est pas à produire, avoir un nombre déterminé ou fini de besoins, et avoir les moyens adéquats pour les satisfaire. Nous sommes dans une dynamique inverse : besoins infinis, moyens inadéquats de les satisfaire, rareté produite par la volonté paniquée de l'éviter, abondance qui croît en même temps et en proportion du sentiment de manque et d'insatisfaction.
March 23, 2009
Not only an interesting read about the economy and trade of different tribes all over the world, but also a great insight into the mind of ancient people. It is often easy to think that an average stone-age man or woman had to do a lot of hard work in order to obtain all the necessities but Sahlins' essays really show the ingenuity, logic and rationalism of these stone age people. Of all the many fine examples the author has described, my favourite has to be the trading system of the New Guinea coastal villages where every village had its fixed position in the trading network which worked like clockwork. Extremely enjoyable although at times I found the more concrete examples of different tribes and their lifestyle more interesting than the more theoretical parts.
August 16, 2011
If not the first, then one of the first books to suggest that hunter/gatherer societies enjoy more leisure time than other cultures, and are not subsisting hand-to-mouth. Unfortunately, I got bogged down in the terminology and equations about a third of the way through the book, but what I did read related directly to our mass consumption of goods these days: when you're a mobile society (hunter-gatherer), you can take few possessions with you and so you don't accumulate goods. The more settled the group, the more goods accumulate and become symbols of status, thus requiring more work time by the individual to accumulate more of these status symbols.
to-keep-reference
August 6, 2018"Pobreza no es una pequeña cantidad de bienes, ni tampoco la relación entre medios y fines; sobre todo es una relación entre personas. La pobreza es un estatus social. [...] Ha crecido [...] como una odiosa distinción entre clases..."
Citado en Desigualdad Pág.33
Citado en Desigualdad Pág.33
September 4, 2017
Lettura estremamente utile per riconsiderare molti pregiudizi legati ai mercati contemporanei, tramite un confronto con economie "primitive". In particolare, fondamentali considerazioni - soprattutto nella prima parte di libro - sui temi dell'opulenza e della scarsità, sul rapporto tra lavoro e riposo, sul tema fondamentale dello sfruttamento delle risorse del territorio.
July 20, 2025
Marsall Sahlins bu kitabında avcı-toplayıcı grupların iç dinamiklerini, modern kapitalist görüşle ele almanın ne derece saçma olduğunu vurguluyor. Sahlins "İlkel" olarak tanımlanan bu toplulukların yoksulluk içinde olduğu görüşüne karşı çıkar. Bu toplulukların yoksulluktan ziyade bir bolluk içinde yaşadığı, yoksulluk fikrinin günümüz iktisadı görüşlerinin sonucunda ortaya çıkan basma kalıp bir fikir olduğunu söyler. Kitabın 46. sayfasında bu durum şu şekilde açıklanmıştır: "Çok büyük teknik güce eriştiğimiz bu çağda, açlık kurumsallaşmıştır." Yoksulluk fikri günümüz kapitalist görüşünde metaların eksikliğiyle tanımlanmaktadır. Sahlins'e göre bu eksiklik yoksulluğu tanımlamak için yeterli değil. Bu duruma ilişkin kitabın 47. sayfasında şöyle karşıt bir argüman sunulmaktadır: "Dünyanın en ilkel halklarının pek az şeyi vardır, ama yoksul değillerdir. Yoksulluk, malların belirli ölçüde az miktarda olması anlamına gelmediği gibi araçlar ve amaçlar arasındaki bir ilişkiden ibaret değildi; yoksulluk her şeyden önce insanlar arasındaki bir ilişkidir. Yoksulluk, toplumsal bir statüdür ve bu niteliğiyle uygarlığın bir icadıdır."
Sürekli büyümeye ve tüketmeye muhtaç kapitalizm karşısında ilkel toplumların sınırlı ihtiyaçlarına karşın sınırsız kaynaklara sahiptir. Bu sayede ilkel topluluklar ihtiyaçları kadar üretir ve aşırı çalışmazlar. Avustralya Yerlileri ve !Kung Bushmanları üzerinde yapılmış çalışmalarda bu durum gün gün saat saat incelenerek detaylı bir biçimde anlatılmış.
David Grabear'ın Borç kitabında bahsi geçen kişiler arasındaki ekonomik ilişkinin bir çıkara değil karşılığa dayandığı fikrine bu kitapta da yer verilmiş.
Kitap pek çok yönüyle antropolojik ve ekonomik açıdan bilinen gerçekleri altüst eden ve bunlara farklı bir bakış açısı getiren bir eser.
In this book, Marshall Sahlins emphasizes the absurdity of approaching the internal dynamics of hunter-gatherer groups through a modern capitalist lens. Sahlins challenges the notion that these communities, described as "primitive," are impoverished. He argues that these communities live in abundance rather than poverty, and that the idea of poverty is a stereotype born of contemporary economic views. This is explained on page 46 of the book as follows: "In this era of immense technical power, hunger has become institutionalized." In today's capitalist view, the idea of poverty is defined by a lack of commodities. According to Sahlins, this lack is insufficient to define poverty. A counterargument is presented on page 47 of the book: "The world's most primitive peoples have very little, but they are not poor. Poverty did not mean a certain scarcity of goods, nor was it simply a relationship between means and ends; poverty was, above all, a relationship between people. Poverty is a social status, and as such, an invention of civilization."
In the face of capitalism, which is driven by constant growth and consumption, primitive societies possess unlimited resources despite their limited needs. This allows primitive societies to produce only what they need and avoid overwork. Studies on Australian Indigenous peoples and the !Kung Bushman have detailed this phenomenon, examining it day by day, hour by hour.
The idea that the economic relationship between individuals, discussed in David Grabear's book "Debt," is based not on self-interest but on reciprocity, is also addressed in this book.
The book is a work that overturns, in many ways, conventional anthropological and economic realities and offers a new perspective on them.
Sürekli büyümeye ve tüketmeye muhtaç kapitalizm karşısında ilkel toplumların sınırlı ihtiyaçlarına karşın sınırsız kaynaklara sahiptir. Bu sayede ilkel topluluklar ihtiyaçları kadar üretir ve aşırı çalışmazlar. Avustralya Yerlileri ve !Kung Bushmanları üzerinde yapılmış çalışmalarda bu durum gün gün saat saat incelenerek detaylı bir biçimde anlatılmış.
David Grabear'ın Borç kitabında bahsi geçen kişiler arasındaki ekonomik ilişkinin bir çıkara değil karşılığa dayandığı fikrine bu kitapta da yer verilmiş.
Kitap pek çok yönüyle antropolojik ve ekonomik açıdan bilinen gerçekleri altüst eden ve bunlara farklı bir bakış açısı getiren bir eser.
In this book, Marshall Sahlins emphasizes the absurdity of approaching the internal dynamics of hunter-gatherer groups through a modern capitalist lens. Sahlins challenges the notion that these communities, described as "primitive," are impoverished. He argues that these communities live in abundance rather than poverty, and that the idea of poverty is a stereotype born of contemporary economic views. This is explained on page 46 of the book as follows: "In this era of immense technical power, hunger has become institutionalized." In today's capitalist view, the idea of poverty is defined by a lack of commodities. According to Sahlins, this lack is insufficient to define poverty. A counterargument is presented on page 47 of the book: "The world's most primitive peoples have very little, but they are not poor. Poverty did not mean a certain scarcity of goods, nor was it simply a relationship between means and ends; poverty was, above all, a relationship between people. Poverty is a social status, and as such, an invention of civilization."
In the face of capitalism, which is driven by constant growth and consumption, primitive societies possess unlimited resources despite their limited needs. This allows primitive societies to produce only what they need and avoid overwork. Studies on Australian Indigenous peoples and the !Kung Bushman have detailed this phenomenon, examining it day by day, hour by hour.
The idea that the economic relationship between individuals, discussed in David Grabear's book "Debt," is based not on self-interest but on reciprocity, is also addressed in this book.
The book is a work that overturns, in many ways, conventional anthropological and economic realities and offers a new perspective on them.
February 4, 2024
I first picked up this book for free at a local university that was giving them away. I was acutely aware of how long ago this book was published compared to when I picked it up a few months ago, but I was drawn by its premise: an anthropological perspective of primitive economies. I did go into reading this knowing that some of the theories presented by the author may be outdated, so I was pleasantly surprised to find many of the theories the author presents about primitive economies- their production cycles, the role of reciprocity in their exchange, how kinship ties determines exchange values- were sufficiently backed up by the authors own research with contemporary forms of primitive economies. That being said, I do wish there was more evidence presented from earlier accounts of primitive economies, even if just orally. The author does mitigate this a bit by presenting other ethnographic sources from the late 19th century to the early 20th century, but this would have been after the industrial revolution had occurred and sped up development of certain colonial projects that would absolutely have an impact on tribal economies. It would also be obtuse for me not to recognize the inherent ethnocentrism present in any academic essay that attempts to find a universally applicable theory of economic exchange for all tribal societies, but it seems as though the author was well aware of this issue as well, so I won't harp on it too much.
I also was surprised at how much the book strayed from orthodox economic theories. The author even brings the theory of supply and demand in question when analyzing tribal economies, and whether it makes sense to apply supply/demand where ‘the competitive mechanisms by which supply and demand are understood to determine price in the marketplace do not exist’. The author doesn't fully discredit these theories in relation to tribal economies, even capitulating to some of them, but definitely leans more heavily on a Marxist analysis of exchange when it comes to these economies. This was probably the most advantageous way to analyze these economies, given how diametrically opposed tribal economies are set up compared to centralized bourgeois economies and that Marx already had done some analysis on primitive economies himself. While I believed the overall argument was set up from success, and is very successful in many aspects, I also felt that the author was somewhat insecure in presenting as impartial throughout the essays. There are many instances where the author apologizes for oversimplification and lack of background in this-or-that field that it makes the reader less confident in their argument. While I can appreciate the open mindness, I think a small disclaimer paragraph in the beginning or something similar would have sufficed in this regard. I also wasn't a big fan of how the author would wrap up their conclusions for each essay either. It felt rushed, like the author couldn't be bothered to piece together a satisfying conclusion. One even ended saying a conclusion wasn't really necessary and that the reader can glean over the points that were made on their own. This may be true for some, but I personally think a short conclusion would have helped in defining the overall point of the essay. Overall, though, I thought the arguments (sans conclusions) were well written and convincing, as well as unafraid to enter controversial territory in the realm of economics.
I also was surprised at how much the book strayed from orthodox economic theories. The author even brings the theory of supply and demand in question when analyzing tribal economies, and whether it makes sense to apply supply/demand where ‘the competitive mechanisms by which supply and demand are understood to determine price in the marketplace do not exist’. The author doesn't fully discredit these theories in relation to tribal economies, even capitulating to some of them, but definitely leans more heavily on a Marxist analysis of exchange when it comes to these economies. This was probably the most advantageous way to analyze these economies, given how diametrically opposed tribal economies are set up compared to centralized bourgeois economies and that Marx already had done some analysis on primitive economies himself. While I believed the overall argument was set up from success, and is very successful in many aspects, I also felt that the author was somewhat insecure in presenting as impartial throughout the essays. There are many instances where the author apologizes for oversimplification and lack of background in this-or-that field that it makes the reader less confident in their argument. While I can appreciate the open mindness, I think a small disclaimer paragraph in the beginning or something similar would have sufficed in this regard. I also wasn't a big fan of how the author would wrap up their conclusions for each essay either. It felt rushed, like the author couldn't be bothered to piece together a satisfying conclusion. One even ended saying a conclusion wasn't really necessary and that the reader can glean over the points that were made on their own. This may be true for some, but I personally think a short conclusion would have helped in defining the overall point of the essay. Overall, though, I thought the arguments (sans conclusions) were well written and convincing, as well as unafraid to enter controversial territory in the realm of economics.
April 15, 2020
Stone Age Economics on kokoelma Marshall Sahlinsin esseitä vuodelta 1972 ja yksi talousantropologian ehdottomista klassikoista. Sahlisin tavoite on luoda antropologinen teoria primitiivisten (eli valtiottomien [laajasti ymmärrätteynä]) yhteisöjen talousjärjestelmistä. Sahlinsin hallitseva metanarratiivi on, että primitiivisissä yhteisöissä talous on vain osa moraalijärjestelmää.
Kirjan ensimmäinen teksti on myös sen kuuluisin: "The Original Affluent Society". Tässä kuuluisassa esseesä Sahlisin argumentoi, että niukkuus oli käytännössä olematonta kivikautisissa metsästäjä-keräilijäyhteisöissä. "Töitäkin" tehtiin vain muutama tunti päivässä. Materiaa näillä yhteisöillä oli luonnollisesti huomattavasti nykykulutusyhteiskuntaa vähemmän, mutta niin oli tarpeitakin; Sahlins vertaa tätä nykypäivän zen-ajatteluun.
Kaksi seuraavaa esseetä tarkastelevat tuotantoa näiden "kotitalouksien", joilla Sahlisin tarkoittaa siis metsästäjä-keräilijöiden lisäksi esimerkiksi matalasti organisoituneita kaskiviljelijöitä ja puutarhaviljelijöitä, parissa. Sahlisin mukaan tälläisen tuotannon määrittävä piirre on "alituottaminen" eli tehdään vähemmän kuin resursseilla voitaisiin. Tämän hän linkittää hobbesilaiseen anarkiaan, joka ilman valtion pakkovaltaa vallitsee: resurssien liian tehokas käyttäminen johtaisia konfliktiin yksilöiden välillä. Tämän takia esimerkiksi maan yksityisomistus on hyvin vieras konsepti monille yhteisöille, maakonfliktien ratkaisu kun voisi nopeasti saada hyvin ikäviä seurauksia. Tuotantoa voidaan lisätä kuitenkin myös ilman laki -tai valtiovaltaa ja tästä Sahlins nostaa esimerkiksi suhteiden moraalisuuteen perustuvat polynesialaiset heimopäälikkökunnat.
Loput kolme esseetä Sahlins käsittelee erilaista vaihtoa näissä yhteisöissä. Erityisesti niissä käsittellään lahjataloutta, joka on Sahlisin mukaan tapa luoda luottamusta yhteisöissä, joissa ei ole velvoittavaa lakijärjestelmää. Molemminpuolinen vaihto vahvistaa turvallisen moraalijärjestyksen. Tämä järjestys on Sahlisin mukaan näissä vahvasti perhe -ja klaanikeskeisissä yhteisöissä sisäpiiristä: epäluottamus ulkopuolisia kohtaan on vahvaa ja näiden kanssa vaihto ei nojaa lahjoihin vaan jonkinlaiseen kauppaan. Viimeisessä esseessä Sahlins pyrkiikin ratkaisemaan miten kauppatavarat saavat arvonsa primitiivisessä kaupassa. Ratkaisu liittyy Sahlinsin mukaan kyllä kysyntään ja tarjontaan, mutta sen markkinamekaniikaksi sitä ei voi kutsua hyvällä tahdollakaan. Kyse on kuten kivikauden taloudessa muutenkin, moraalisen suhdejärjestelmän arvosta: mitä parempi kumppani, sen parempaa kauppaa.
Kirjana Stone Age Economics on ehkä hieman puuduttavaa luettavaa, erityisesti niiltä osin, jossa Sahlins (tieteen kannalta tarpeellisesti) tarkastelee yksittäisiä esimerkkejä vaihdosta, työtunneista tai kaupasta. Tämä on kuitenkin aika hyvä johdatus siihen, mistä talousantropologiassa on kyse.
Kirjan ensimmäinen teksti on myös sen kuuluisin: "The Original Affluent Society". Tässä kuuluisassa esseesä Sahlisin argumentoi, että niukkuus oli käytännössä olematonta kivikautisissa metsästäjä-keräilijäyhteisöissä. "Töitäkin" tehtiin vain muutama tunti päivässä. Materiaa näillä yhteisöillä oli luonnollisesti huomattavasti nykykulutusyhteiskuntaa vähemmän, mutta niin oli tarpeitakin; Sahlins vertaa tätä nykypäivän zen-ajatteluun.
Kaksi seuraavaa esseetä tarkastelevat tuotantoa näiden "kotitalouksien", joilla Sahlisin tarkoittaa siis metsästäjä-keräilijöiden lisäksi esimerkiksi matalasti organisoituneita kaskiviljelijöitä ja puutarhaviljelijöitä, parissa. Sahlisin mukaan tälläisen tuotannon määrittävä piirre on "alituottaminen" eli tehdään vähemmän kuin resursseilla voitaisiin. Tämän hän linkittää hobbesilaiseen anarkiaan, joka ilman valtion pakkovaltaa vallitsee: resurssien liian tehokas käyttäminen johtaisia konfliktiin yksilöiden välillä. Tämän takia esimerkiksi maan yksityisomistus on hyvin vieras konsepti monille yhteisöille, maakonfliktien ratkaisu kun voisi nopeasti saada hyvin ikäviä seurauksia. Tuotantoa voidaan lisätä kuitenkin myös ilman laki -tai valtiovaltaa ja tästä Sahlins nostaa esimerkiksi suhteiden moraalisuuteen perustuvat polynesialaiset heimopäälikkökunnat.
Loput kolme esseetä Sahlins käsittelee erilaista vaihtoa näissä yhteisöissä. Erityisesti niissä käsittellään lahjataloutta, joka on Sahlisin mukaan tapa luoda luottamusta yhteisöissä, joissa ei ole velvoittavaa lakijärjestelmää. Molemminpuolinen vaihto vahvistaa turvallisen moraalijärjestyksen. Tämä järjestys on Sahlisin mukaan näissä vahvasti perhe -ja klaanikeskeisissä yhteisöissä sisäpiiristä: epäluottamus ulkopuolisia kohtaan on vahvaa ja näiden kanssa vaihto ei nojaa lahjoihin vaan jonkinlaiseen kauppaan. Viimeisessä esseessä Sahlins pyrkiikin ratkaisemaan miten kauppatavarat saavat arvonsa primitiivisessä kaupassa. Ratkaisu liittyy Sahlinsin mukaan kyllä kysyntään ja tarjontaan, mutta sen markkinamekaniikaksi sitä ei voi kutsua hyvällä tahdollakaan. Kyse on kuten kivikauden taloudessa muutenkin, moraalisen suhdejärjestelmän arvosta: mitä parempi kumppani, sen parempaa kauppaa.
Kirjana Stone Age Economics on ehkä hieman puuduttavaa luettavaa, erityisesti niiltä osin, jossa Sahlins (tieteen kannalta tarpeellisesti) tarkastelee yksittäisiä esimerkkejä vaihdosta, työtunneista tai kaupasta. Tämä on kuitenkin aika hyvä johdatus siihen, mistä talousantropologiassa on kyse.
November 23, 2024
An impressive exploration of economic anthropology, offering critiques of mainstream economic theories. Through his iconic essays like "The Original Affluent Society," "The Domestic Mode of Production," and discussions on gift economies, reciprocity and kinship, Sahlins redefines how we view pre-modern societies with details from tribes of Australia, Pasific or North America.
Sahlins challenges the common Western notion that hunter-gatherers lived in poverty and a constant struggle for survival. He argues that these societies were actually wealthy not because of material abundance but because of their limited needs and sustainable use of resources. Unlike modern capitalist economies driven by scarcity and endless consumption, hunter-gatherers achieved sufficiency by aligning their desires with what their environment naturally provided. Their economic practices, such as consuming resources immediately rather than hoarding them, reflect a trust in abundance rather than a fear of lack. He challenges the idea that hunter-gatherers were overworked, presenting evidence that they enjoyed significant leisure time compared to industrial workers. Additionally, he emphasizes their efficient subsistence strategies brought by harmony with nature, contrasting these with the overwork and dissatisfaction often found in industrialized societies.
The “domestic mode of production” may at first glance contradictory to the idea of affluence because of its perceived underproductivity. However, Sahlins explains how household-based economies focused on sufficiency rather than surplus, organizing labor around family needs rather than external pressures. This system ensured equitable distribution and limited exploitation. By balancing production with leisure and social obligations, these societies provide a striking contrast to the relentless productivity demands of industrial capitalism. These insights further support Sahlins’ argument that pre-modern economies were rooted in sustainability and communal well-being, challenging modern ideas of progress and efficiency.
After the first three chapters on production and consumption, the next three focus on exchange and distribution in pre-modern societies, emphasizing their cultural and social significance. We explore how gift economies build social bonds through reciprocity; forms of exchange that reflect relationships and moral obligations; and how trade maintained alliances and political ties rather than serving purely economic goals. These chapters show how deeply material exchanges were rooted in cultural and social values, contrasting with the profit-driven logic of modern economies. Yet, despite this stark contrast, we can see traces of similar social and cultural dynamics in our modern-day gift preferences, hosting habits, and even consumption patterns.
Sahlins challenges the common Western notion that hunter-gatherers lived in poverty and a constant struggle for survival. He argues that these societies were actually wealthy not because of material abundance but because of their limited needs and sustainable use of resources. Unlike modern capitalist economies driven by scarcity and endless consumption, hunter-gatherers achieved sufficiency by aligning their desires with what their environment naturally provided. Their economic practices, such as consuming resources immediately rather than hoarding them, reflect a trust in abundance rather than a fear of lack. He challenges the idea that hunter-gatherers were overworked, presenting evidence that they enjoyed significant leisure time compared to industrial workers. Additionally, he emphasizes their efficient subsistence strategies brought by harmony with nature, contrasting these with the overwork and dissatisfaction often found in industrialized societies.
The “domestic mode of production” may at first glance contradictory to the idea of affluence because of its perceived underproductivity. However, Sahlins explains how household-based economies focused on sufficiency rather than surplus, organizing labor around family needs rather than external pressures. This system ensured equitable distribution and limited exploitation. By balancing production with leisure and social obligations, these societies provide a striking contrast to the relentless productivity demands of industrial capitalism. These insights further support Sahlins’ argument that pre-modern economies were rooted in sustainability and communal well-being, challenging modern ideas of progress and efficiency.
After the first three chapters on production and consumption, the next three focus on exchange and distribution in pre-modern societies, emphasizing their cultural and social significance. We explore how gift economies build social bonds through reciprocity; forms of exchange that reflect relationships and moral obligations; and how trade maintained alliances and political ties rather than serving purely economic goals. These chapters show how deeply material exchanges were rooted in cultural and social values, contrasting with the profit-driven logic of modern economies. Yet, despite this stark contrast, we can see traces of similar social and cultural dynamics in our modern-day gift preferences, hosting habits, and even consumption patterns.
August 9, 2025
In opposition to Galbraithan idea of infinite needs and wants, and finite resources, if we approach the Zen path of human affluence, defined rather than matters of gold, by the amount of self-agency, the Hunter Gatherers were indeed an affluent society. If we agree to Hannah Arendt's definition of the upper classes as defined by " the freedom to concern oneself with 'higher values' - of politics, philosophy, arts, that is 'not being limited by the daily bread', the 'noble savage' societies indeed were more affluent.
"Destutt de Tracy, "fish-blooded bourgeois doctrinaire" though he might have been, at least compelled Marx's agreement on the observation that "in poor nations the people are
comfortable," whereas in rich nations "they are generally poor." " comfortable," whereas in rich nations "they are generally poor."
This is not to deny that a preagricultural economy operates under serious constraints, but only to insist, on the evidence from modern hunters and gatherers, that a successful accomodation is usually made. After taking up the evidence, I shall return in the end to the real difficulties of hunting-gathering economy, none of which are correctly specified in current formulas of paleolithic poverty. "
"Destutt de Tracy, "fish-blooded bourgeois doctrinaire" though he might have been, at least compelled Marx's agreement on the observation that "in poor nations the people are
comfortable," whereas in rich nations "they are generally poor." " comfortable," whereas in rich nations "they are generally poor."
This is not to deny that a preagricultural economy operates under serious constraints, but only to insist, on the evidence from modern hunters and gatherers, that a successful accomodation is usually made. After taking up the evidence, I shall return in the end to the real difficulties of hunting-gathering economy, none of which are correctly specified in current formulas of paleolithic poverty. "
July 26, 2021
Evolutionary anthropology. Most successful species are those which remain most generalized.
In relation to their needs, most hunter gatherers are rich.
There is something wrong with our desires, or at least, what we believe our desires to be.
Human proclivity to prefer leisure to greater wealth lasted a very long time. What then led many of us to change our mind.
All societies made up of there pieces of exchange: of goods (economics), of women (kinship), and words (language). (Levi Strauss)
To Fuegians (in Terra del Fuego), owning less utensils is an indication of self confidence.
The Fish Creek group maintained a full time Craftsman, a man 35 or 40 years old, whose true specialty however seems to be loafing.
Hadza men seem much more concerned with games of chance than with chances of game. They refused to take agriculture, mainly on grounds that this involve too much work
Why should we (Bushmen) plant, when there are too many mongomongo nuts in the world?
Dominant form of production is under production.
In relation to their needs, most hunter gatherers are rich.
There is something wrong with our desires, or at least, what we believe our desires to be.
Human proclivity to prefer leisure to greater wealth lasted a very long time. What then led many of us to change our mind.
All societies made up of there pieces of exchange: of goods (economics), of women (kinship), and words (language). (Levi Strauss)
To Fuegians (in Terra del Fuego), owning less utensils is an indication of self confidence.
The Fish Creek group maintained a full time Craftsman, a man 35 or 40 years old, whose true specialty however seems to be loafing.
Hadza men seem much more concerned with games of chance than with chances of game. They refused to take agriculture, mainly on grounds that this involve too much work
Why should we (Bushmen) plant, when there are too many mongomongo nuts in the world?
Dominant form of production is under production.
December 6, 2024
How did economics work before the ancient Swamp Arabs invented money? Sahlins' book along with Marcel Mauss's 1923 book "The Gift" are the basic texts on this topic. I have yet to find one that talks about what the ancient Swamp Arabs did exactly, but since they left no records, anything we would say would have to be inferred from other details in the archaeological record. That said, with Sahlins one gets a solid understanding of how various groups assigned value to different things, how reciprocity expectations worked, and how disputes were resolved. He also provides a refreshing sense of just how violent life was before hard currency enabled markets to encompass much larger populations and territories.
Anyone reading Sahlins will also want to get one of the several books on the history of money that include photos and a discussion of the clay tokens that the ancient Swamp Arabs invented some 9,500 years ago. The British Museum has a nice collection of those tokens and their book is a good one.
Anyone reading Sahlins will also want to get one of the several books on the history of money that include photos and a discussion of the clay tokens that the ancient Swamp Arabs invented some 9,500 years ago. The British Museum has a nice collection of those tokens and their book is a good one.
February 24, 2021
This is a very technical and old book. Probably only really of use to specialists in Anthropology. I read it selectively and found it very interesting for its comments on economics and hunters and gatherers, mostly for what it reveals about us.
Basically our entire economic system (in capitalism) is based on the idea of scarcity and how that influences behaviour, wants, needs, and prices. The entire classic course on economics is centred around this premise -- limited resources to satisfy unlimited wants and needs.
Scarcity is entirely meaningless to hunter/gatherer societies, according to Sahlins. Before the need for agriculture after the neolithic revolution, all homo sapiens were "uneconomic." Abundant leisure, more sleep, self-confidence and faith in mother earth all characterized our existence during this phase. Yes, we had to keep on the move for food and water, but those were are only needs and thus our only wants too.
Why did we give all that up?
Basically our entire economic system (in capitalism) is based on the idea of scarcity and how that influences behaviour, wants, needs, and prices. The entire classic course on economics is centred around this premise -- limited resources to satisfy unlimited wants and needs.
Scarcity is entirely meaningless to hunter/gatherer societies, according to Sahlins. Before the need for agriculture after the neolithic revolution, all homo sapiens were "uneconomic." Abundant leisure, more sleep, self-confidence and faith in mother earth all characterized our existence during this phase. Yes, we had to keep on the move for food and water, but those were are only needs and thus our only wants too.
Why did we give all that up?
December 25, 2021
I do not remember how I came across this book but surely the tittle caught my attention. Stone Age Economics is an old academic book and its feels that way, for someone who is studying economics or anthropology in colleague will be a 5 starts; but for an amateur like me in this field was difficult to go through and sometimes I had to selectively read the topics that interested me.
The first 2 essays are very interesting but the rest was difficult to follow; at the end I found some interesting concepts like: the use of marriage, how humans start the path to wealth, the need to socialize and exchange goods.
I share a podcast that add context to the book and its concepts. https://anchor.fm/anthropologyarchive...
The first 2 essays are very interesting but the rest was difficult to follow; at the end I found some interesting concepts like: the use of marriage, how humans start the path to wealth, the need to socialize and exchange goods.
I share a podcast that add context to the book and its concepts. https://anchor.fm/anthropologyarchive...
April 15, 2021
The 2017 edition with foreword by David Graeber is the copy I have. I highly recommend this book for anyone wanting to learn more about economics. The concepts Sahlins developed have been discussed and debated since it was first published in the 1970s. Most of these concepts I teach in my introduction to Anthropology courses, even if Sahlins is not given mention. For a full discussion of this book, and some context about it, check out this episode of the podcast "From the Archives": https://anchor.fm/anthropologyarchive....
July 10, 2022
Eh a big meh, probably too advanced for me, though the pitch was interesting I prefer to have the ideas and premises of the book explained to me by another source than to read them directly, the writing was boring, nothing more than functionally dry, the more I read the less engaged I was and often the quotes are doubled as the author gives them and explains them again before or after which makes you read twice the same idea... Eh I guess it's a good scientific book nothing more and still we're modern slaves working way too much if anything this book comforted this idea.
July 1, 2023
Don't remember, how this book appeared on my "to read list". It's not a book with the consistent narrative, but rather a collection of essays. The first 3, on affluent society and domestic mode of production ("Production for use is discontinuous and irregular [...]) were the most interesting for me. The rest is about the nature of reciprocity, read it not very thoroughly.
I liked the thought, that it is not a good idea to consider modern hunters as an evolutionary baseline, cause the existing sample of hunters is not very representative.
I liked the thought, that it is not a good idea to consider modern hunters as an evolutionary baseline, cause the existing sample of hunters is not very representative.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 54 reviews