The Theory Of Property Essay Research Paper — страница 2

  • Просмотров 316
  • Скачиваний 5
  • Размер файла 20
    Кб

the loosely organized tribes, and the tenant houses were owned by all the occupants. As intensive agriculture and pastoralism had not yet been invented the need to own land was not great either. As people died their most valuable possessions were either buried with the corpse or given to the next of kin. This process assured the first rule of inheritance which keeps all property in the gen and does not allow anyone from remote gens to inherit. The Lower Barbaric, the Middle Barbaric, and the Upper Barbaric sub- periods comprise the second ethnical period. In the Lower Barbaric period belts, picture writing, stockades for village defense, shields, war clubs, air guns for shooting, the mortar and pestle and pipes were invented. These objects were more intricate and specialized than

those found in the Savage period and the need for acquiring them also grew slightly. Ties to property began to form, but for Morgan these objects had not yet reached the plane of desirability he feels was necessary to institute change in the social structures of society. These objects still, however, remained attached to the blood lines in which they originated and any attempt to detach them from these lines met with considerable opposition. In the Mid-Barbaric period the progress continued. Better and better tools as well as vessels were being made to do more and more specialized tasks and to hold newly discovered materials and beverages. “When the great discovery was made that the wild horse, cow, sheep, ass, sow and goat might be tamed…to produce a source of permanent

subsistence” (p. 544) the need for land began to grow. This land, though, was commonly “owned” by the tribe while often some was divided with allotments for government, religion, and gentes. This is the first attempt at subdividing a land originally owned by the common people for while there was no single ownership, the owning bodies began to shrink. People did want to own objects and land, but they wanted it for the gen or for their group, not for themselves. It is in this time that the second rule of inheritance was present where inheritance was more specified for the agnatic kindred within the gen. As time progressed into the Upper barbaric stage, settled agriculture, small scale industry, local trade, and foreign commerce led to property “in masses.” Slavery was

invented as a means to raise production, but it was the increased abundance of subsistence methods through field agriculture that developed which led to the never-ending struggle for land. Ownership began to take two forms: the state and the individual. “In the land of Solon…lands in general were owned by individuals, who already learned to mortgage them.” (p.551) It is in this time that Morgan notes the marked difference of inheritance from being passed along matrilineal lines to patrilineal lines. There were so many houses, lands, flocks and herds as well as exchangeable goods that inheritance became crucial for the Greeks. Fathers adopted any practice they could to allow their sons to inherit the land and property worked on by themselves. The assertions that the

immediate family, especially sons, deserved to inherit the property associated with their father had more validity now that modes of subsistence became more labor intensive and required more work from the sons for the family. This is the third and final rule of inheritance; children should inherit from their parents. As methods for domestication of animals improved it was discovered that they held the most value as they could reproduce themselves and allow the owner to gain in both prestige and monetary wealth. The fact that the Greek leader Solon permitted a person to will his property to whomever he chose while he was still alive markedly shows the presence of individual ownership during this period. Somewhere between the Upper Barbaric period and the period known as

civilization the position of Aristocracy arose. It arose out of the fact that property along with ownership of slaves, the growth of the gap between owners and non-owners as well as the emergence of official social and governmental positions all contributed to a “wealth” which distinguished the ‘haves” from the “have-nots.” It is this social change which Morgan mostly feels describes the effects of property on social institutions. For Morgan the emergence of property created by technological innovations in agriculture, industry and pastoralism spurs the need to have more than others. This is the “end and aim” (p.561) that Morgan feels is the ultimate shame of modern civilization. The future for Morgan holds only the destruction of a society bent on acquiring more