Abstract
Hypothesis Summary: When modern markets first collided with native societies at the start of the sixteenth century, reactions from native societies varied. Here I present a hypothesis ─ and cross-cultural evidence ─ to explain why some societies careered to the market while others moved away from it. The equality between trading partners in first market transactions arose from the quiddities of the resource coveted by Europeans. Natural resources with random variation over time and space (e.g., animal wildlife) which required local knowledge and skills to procure, forced Europeans of any nationality, of any background, of any culture, of any military might, anywhere, anytime to prostate themselves at the feet of locals of any culture in mutually beneficial contracts to explore. Europeans had to renegotiate the contracts every time they wanted a fresh supply of the resource. I call this unapologetically natural resource primordialism. No mincing words. The culture of locals and competition between European traders could shift the bargaining power from the properties of the natural resource to native societies or to Europeans. Native peoples seared in a tradition of warfare, adroit at forming alliances before the arrival of modern markets, had the psychological sinew to stand up to European traders, while rivalry between foreign traders made it easier for local people to drive a hard bargain. When Europeans with their superior military might focused their gaze on fixed, visible resources, such as large deposits of precious minerals, lands for permanent settlement, or cultivated crops, natives had little bargaining power in market transactions. They lost.