232* CEREMONIAL INSTITUTIONS. 



requirement was commonly observed. Of course, if a propitiatory 

 gift, at first offered without expectation of a return, came eventually 

 to be offered with expectation of an equivalent return, bargaining and 

 barter would inevitably arise. 



A clear illustration furnished by a primitive people still extant oc 

 curs in the account of the Audamanese given by Mr. E. 11. Man in 

 the Journal of the Anthropological Institute, vol. xi. pp. 285-6. Say 

 ing of this people that &quot;it is customary for each family to supply 

 itself witli the chief necessaries in the shape of weapons and food,&quot; 

 Mr. Man tells us that 



&quot; They set no fixed value on their various properties, and rarely make or pro 

 cure anything for the express purpose of bartering with it. ... These trans 

 actions [exchanges] they are pleased to consider as presentations ; but it is 

 tacitly understood that no present is to be accepted unless an equivalent is 

 rendered, and, as the opinions of donor and recipient are liable to differ as to 

 the respective value of the articles in question, a quarrel is not unfrequently 

 the result.&quot; 



These facts, joined with the facts given in Chapter iv., go far to 

 prove that savages (who invent nothing, but even in the making of 

 implements develop this or that kind by unobtrusive modifications), 

 were led unawares, and not aforethought, into the practice of barter. 



That in the course of social evolution, presents precede fixed sal 

 aries, illustrated in 375 by the fact, among others, that in the East 

 the attendants of a man of power are supported chiefly by propitiatory 

 gifts from those who come to get favours from him, is further illus 

 trated by the fact that the great man himself similarly remunerates 

 them if need be. 



&quot; Should he desire to retain any of them whose income does not prove suffi 

 cient, he himself makes presents to them, or favours them in their business 

 by means of his influence, but never pays them wages.&quot; Van Lennep, Bible 

 Lands and Customs, ii. 592. 



Which last fact, joined with the others before named of like kind, im 

 ply that exchange of services for payments, did not begin as such : 

 services being at first given from fear, or loyalty, or the desire for 

 protection ; and any return made for these services, beyond the pro 

 tection, not being consciously regarded as equivalent payment, but 

 as a mark of approval or good will. The fact that the exchange of 

 service for fixed payment developed out of this practice, harmonizes 

 with, and confirms, the conclusion that the exchange of commodities 

 had an analogous origin. 



