The self-centred importance of gift-giving

The self-centred importance of gift-giving Written by: Linda Leestemaker The self-centred importance of gift-giving Linda Leestemaker, s1579053 1043THEORY-1415ARCH: Archaeological theory (2014-2015) Dr. J.A.C. Vroom Classical and Mediterranean Archaeology, Universiteit Leiden, Faculteit der Archeologie Amsterdam, 24/12/2014, Version 1 Language: English (Br.) Word Count: 1.597 words Content The self-centred importance of gift-giving Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 5 Gift-giving: between man and beast ........................................................................................................ 5 Vampire bats............................................................................................................................................ 5 The exchange of gifts to create bonds ..................................................................................................... 6 Gifts in archaeology ................................................................................................................................ 6 Persians ................................................................................................................................................... 6 Archaic Greece ........................................................................................................................................ 7 Beowulf .................................................................................................................................................... 7 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................... 7 Bibliography ............................................................................................................................................ 8 The self-centred importance of gift-giving Introduction Gift-giving has been an important aspect in cultures of mankind all around the world. It was a rule of hospitality in the ancient civilizations of Greece and can also be found in the Beowulf. Gift-exchange also left its remains in the archaeological remains. Professor Raymond Corbey stated in his lecture that gift-giving is a point which both culturalists and Darwinists use as proof of mankind being similar, or ‘above’ animals. However, the importance of gift-giving is not whether mankind is another species of animals or not. Gift-giving should be seen as an opportunity to create bonds instead of being an ethical or biological procedure. It is purely ‘selfcentred’. Gift-giving: between man and beast Culturalists have used the practice of gift-giving as a way of explaining how human behaviour is not animal-like. Mauss argued that the practice of gift-giving was the heart of the ethical life of humans, and because of this ethical background humans are the only ones who use gift-exchange in a group or society, instead of it being a happening between individuals (Corbey&Mol 2011, 374; Bazelmans 1999, 22-23). According to Mauss, the use of gift-exchange between groups of people is a procedure that is ethically and morally superior, serving a higher purpose. He also stated that humans around the world use this superior motive (Bazelmans 1999, 24-26), and that it can be proven that gift-exchange was a form of hospitality in the Mediterranean states, but also in northern societies as Denmark (Heany&Donoghue 2002, 27), and in the Caribbean where Columbus exchanged gifts with the Caribbean tribes when he discovered America (Mol 2014). It also ‘crossed’ time, as Tacitus describes the phenomenon of Germanic chiefs giving honour and gifts to retainers who have proved themselves, while the same practice is also shown in several passages of the Beowulf. The texts of Tacitus are several centuries older than the Beowulf, which means that gift-exchange has been used for hundreds of years (Corbey&Mol 2011, 378). These examples show that gift-exchange and gift-giving was common practice among mankind from different cultures. However, concluding that this behaviour is only to be found among humans is incorrect. As stated before, Mauss argues that only humans use the ritual of gift-giving in society, and that they are the only ones who use rituals and courtesies to exchange among each other, which explains ethical superior thinking (Bazelmans 1999, 22-24). Vampire bats “Thus the king acted with due custom. I was paid and recompensed completely, […]” (Heany&Donoghue 2002, 55). The claim that only human-beings create bonds through the form of granting goods or rituals can easily be proven wrong. Humans are not the only species that uses tools, language, or social structures to form a group (Knappett 2011, 4-5), and the use of rituals to form bonds have also been seen in other animals, for example the vampire bat. The vampire bats in Costa Rica need blood to survive, but only have a 50% change of getting blood each night. When a bat is almost starving, there is a ritual in which it can receive blood from another member of its group (Corbey 2014). The ritual is rather similar to the exchange of rituals performed by humans. The bat which needs blood finds another bat with which it has associations (a family member or a roostmate), it starts grooming this bat as form of social behaviour. Through grooming, the wellfed bat gets rid of flees and lice and in exchange the hungry bat gets to drink some blood to survive (Wilkinson 1986, 1881-1885). Vampire bats also show behaviour very comparable to human behaviour when it comes to the impact of sharing within society. When an individual bat refuses to share blood with a bat that groomed him/her, it is punished by the others and chased away or being refused blood him/herself (Wilkinson 1986, 1887). The exchange of gifts to create bonds The behaviour of the vampire bat is purely based on a self-centred thought: to survive you have to do something in exchange, and because of that it created a ritual. Mauss indicates that humans need rituals to create a bond between the ones giving and receiving, although he argues that this bond is still based on a superior morality (Bazelmans 1999, 22-24). In Beowulf, this bond is shown after Grendel and his mother have been defeated and king Hrothgar rewards Beowulf with the proper gifts. After this, Beowulf pleads: “Here we have been welcomed and thoroughly entertained. You have treated us well. If there is any favour on earth I can perform beyond the deed of arms I have done already, anything that would merit your affections more, I shall act, my lord, with alacrity” (Heany&Donoghue 2002, 47). If Hrothgar had not respected the unwritten laws of gift-giving, Beowulf might have turned on him, but by honouring his duty to give the gifts and feasts Hrothgar gained himself an ally. Ethical and moral superiority would state against self-centred behaviour, but the ritual of gift-giving and creating bonds is often purely based on the proverb: ‘saving your own skin’ as it is a logic move to settle feuds and create fruitful bonds. This behaviour is based on the instinct of surviving with as less possible damage, an instinct that is similar in mankind and animals and mostly revolves around oneself (Bazelmans 1999, 16; Corbey&Mol 2011, 374-376). Gifts in archaeology “There haven’t been many moments, I am for sure, when men exchanged four such treasures at so friendly a sitting” (Heany&Donoghue 2002, 27). Finding archaeological remains of gift-giving in ancient history is relatively easy as most cultures used gift-giving in some way. I will now highlight three case studies that show the importance of bonds created by gift-giving that left their marks in the archaeological remains. Persians The importance of gift-giving is shown in the remains of what might be the Treasury of Persepolis, which was excavated in 1930. This ‘Treasury’ was the place where the Persian kings collected gifts bestowed upon them by their citizens, in exchange for protection, and by visiting parties (Cahill 1985, 87-88; Cahill 1985, 387). Inside the excavated building, lots of archaeological remains were found as well as the Treasury Tablets on which great amounts of silver were recorded. Among the findings were seals, texts from Arachosia, Egyptian plates, sculptures from Greece, Babylonian jewellery, temple-objects from Mesopotamia and weapons (Cahill 1985, 380-385). The objects from Greece and Mesopotamia prove that some of these objects came to Persia as gifts from non-Persian societies as parts of possible visits and negotiations, possibly to avert war in which a society could be destroyed/enslaved (Cahill1985, 389) Archaic Greece In Archaic Greece, the tradition of gift-exchange was more of an individual process, unlike the Persians who used the tradition during ceremonies in which whole societies took part. Gift-exchange was a fundamental part of Greek life as it was bestowed upon them by the ancient law of Xenos. Hospitality was therefore protected by the god Zeus (Louden 2011, 30-33): not baring gifts as a chief would result in soldiers abandoning the army, not honouring the gods results in punishment, and not giving gifts to hosts during guest-friendship arrangements could start a war (Morris 1986, 78). Guest-friendship arrangements show the perfect example of gift-exchange: visitors brought gifts and the hosts traded those gifts with hospitality, nourishment and entertainment (Morris 1986, 9). During excavations in Karphi, Crete, the residence of a local chief was found, with some metal scraps in the archaeological remains. Since the other houses did not have any metal tools, archaeologists concluded that the remains must be of gifts left by visitors, who honoured Zeus’ law and thanked their host by bestowing present upon him (Morris 1986, 10). Except for the gifts buried with the dead and a handful of examples, most of the moments of giftexchange cannot be conclusively identified in the archaeological remains of Greece (Morris 1986, 710). Beowulf “[…] it was the best example of a gem-studded sword in the Geat treasury. This he laid on Beowulf’s lap and then rewarded him with land as well, […]” (Heany&Donoghue 2002, 56). In Beowulf, Beowulf is honoured by receiving a sword from king Hygelac. The sword was a rare and very valuable weapon only worn by the most heroic warriors and therefore only a handful of wellpreserved swords are found in the archaeological remains of the northern regions, like the intact one complete with scabbard from the Sutton Hoo excavation (Webster 1998, 219-220). By honouring a warrior with a sword, a king would gain an ally for life as the warrior could never repay this gesture. The Beowulf brings on a different sense of the use of gift-giving as well, “[…] pagans have their own moral code, […]” (Frank 1982, 169), keeping this in mind, how can Mauss conclude that the Beowulf is morally superior? Early medieval Scandinavian societies still mostly operated by natural or pagan laws, instead of morals and ethical statements that are now common sense (Frank 1982, 170-171). Conclusion Gift-exchange creates bonds which are needed to gain protection from a king (the Treasury of Persopolis), food needed for survival (the vampire bats), to save someone from punishment by the gods or war (Archaic Greece), and to receive loyalty (Beowulf). While culturalists see gift-giving as a form of ethically and morally superior behaviour, placing mankind above animals, my argument states that gift-giving is not based on ethics or morals. Giftgiving is a based purely on self-interest. Self-centred behaviour is shown in humans and animals alike. Therefore I am inclined to side with the Darwinists on the case of mankind’s equality to animals. Bibliography: • • • • • • • • • • • • Bazelmans, J., 1999. By Weapons Made Worthy, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press Cahill, N., 1985. The Treasury at Persepolis: Gift-Giving at the City of the Persians, American Journal of Archaelogy 89(3), 373-389 Corbey, R., 09/12/2014, ‘By weapons made worthy’: Morality and identity in Beowulf reconsidered, Leiden University Corbey, R. and Mol, A., 2011. “By Weapons made Worthy”: A Darwinian Perspective on Beowulf, in Slingerland, E. and Collard, M., 2011. Creating Consilience: Evolution, Cognitive Science and the Humanities, New York: Oxford University Press, 372-384 Frank, R., 1982. The Beowulf Poet’s Sense of History, in S. Heany en D. Donoghue, Beowulf: A Verse Translation. New York: Norton Critical Edition, 167-181 Heany, S. and Donoghue, D., 2002. Beowulf: A Verse Translation. New York: Norton Critical Edition Knappett, C., 2011. An Archaeology of Interaction: Network Perspectives on Material Culture and Society, New York: Oxford University Press Louden, B., 2011. Homer’s Odyssey and the Near East, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Mol, A., 02/12/2014. Connecting the dots: Network approaches in archaeology. Leiden University Morris, I., 1986. Gift and Commodity in Archaic Greece, Man, New Series 21(1), 1-17 Webster, L., 1998. Archaeology and Beowulf, in S. Heany en D. Donoghue, Beowulf: A Verse Translation. New York: Norton Critical Edition, 212-236 Wilkinson, G.S., 1986. Social grooming in the common vampire bat, Desmodus Rotundus, Animal Behaviour 34(6), 1880-1889