In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Europeans and Algonquians maintained different motivations and tactics in their political and socioeconomic dealings with one another. In the course of discussing their differences, this analysis has endeavored to show how socioeconomic violations were one of a handful of likely catalysts for con®ict. Exchange was not the cause of aggression between the Algonquians and Europeans at Ajacan, Roanoke, and Jamestown; it was a cause, one that was showcased symbolically in Algonquian violence and substantiated in the chronological details of the early colonial records. In addition, anthropological models of exchange isolated cultural exchange norms for these contact-period natives, colonists , and missionaries. Previously discussed categories of exchange form, exchange-partner relationship, and exchange-item alienation helped to de¤ne the nature and practice of each system. Elite Euro-Algonquian Exchange When engaging European settlers, Carolina and Chesapeake Algonquian leaders followed a gift economy.Nearly every economiccriterion Marcel Mauss identi ¤ed in his model was evident in elite Algonquian exchange practices. These natives regularly initiated exchanges that maintained a super¤cial somethingfor -nothing form, even though they were actually something-for-nothing now in exchange for something-for-nothing later. They also kept transactions between individuals of like status, made successful attempts at acquiring debt as opposed to material wealth, emphasized interpersonal bonds over the utility of the goods, put a premium on accruing debt as opposed to obtaining immediate material pro¤t, and accused colonists of gift-exchange violations. 6 Conclusion Something-for-Nothing Exchanges Smith wrote often of the offerings made to him by elite Algonquians, boasting that he personally had “receaved contribution from 35 of their kings” (Smith et al. 1986, 1:176–177). His use of the word “contribution” emphasized the something-for-nothing form of these transactions. Smith’s keen appreciation of gift economics often enabled him to accomplish the goals of the settlers by acquiring material goods at the lowest exchange price and appease Algonquian protocol by exhibiting the trust inherent to gift exchange. Smith also lured the Mamanatowick into making the indigenous exchange policy explicit by haggling with the Algonquian leader. When Smith asked for the native exchange value of a single English hatchet in January of 1608, an annoyed Chief Powhatan bristled at the request. He responded that the colonists should make something-for-nothing offers to him. Then, and only then, would they be compensated . Smith reported the details, noting that, “Not being agreed to trade for corne, hee [Chief Powhatan] desired to see all our Hatchets and Copper together, for which he would give us corne; with that auncient tricke the Chickahomaniens had oft acquainted me: his offer I refused, offering ¤rst to see what hee would give for one piece. He seeming to despise the nature of a Merchant, did scorne to sell, but we freely should give him, and he liberally would requite us” (Italics added; Smith et al. 1986, 1:71). This historical passage included multiple gift-related insights that merit discussion . Powhatan declared that he did not agree to trade and that exchange with him consisted of mutual gifts. He mandated separate and reciprocal something-for-nothing offerings as opposed to an immediate something-forsomething trade. Smith meanwhile demonstrated a European tendency to embrace commodity economics through his offer “¤rst to see what hee would give for one piece.” The passage is a clear example of the contrast between the distinct exchange systems. In the process of demanding gift exchange from the English, Chief Powhatan also condemned the Chickahominies and their merchant practices. The Mamanatowick’s instincts and insults are substantiated in the historical records , which af¤rmed that the Chickahominies were indeed economically distinct from the surrounding tribes. Embodying the de¤nition of a merchant—a person who buys and sells goods for a pro¤t—the Chickahominies engaged in commodity exchange. Except for instances when the English used violent means to coerce the natives, the Chickahominies never initiated gift giving with the colonists. According to existing historical records, the Chickahominies were the only Chesapeake tribe that repeatedly exchanged items with Eu108 / Conclusion ropean colonists that were predominantly commodities. In fact, contemporary primary sources indicated that the Chickahominies and the English engaged in trade twice as often as gift exchange. This ¤nding is especially distinct considering that gifts made up over three-quarters of the total transactions in this study (Mallios 1998). Exchange between Individuals of Similar Rank Elite Algonquians repeatedly attempted to ensure that reciprocal gift exchange with the Europeans occurred between members of like...

Share