Trade through barter involved not only exchange of commodities but also exchange of culture. The process of exchange involves communication, movement of people and exhibition of culture. However, studies have often neglected the cultural aspect of economy. This paper thus attempts to study the different modes of exchange in traditional Naga society and how exchange of goods and services also led to cross cultural exchange. It discusses how values of different commodities were determined according to their needs and socio-cultural significance.

The concept of barter according to Paul Einzing developed between various communities before it existed within a community who was specialised only in one culture. It was the differences between tribal cultures that provided the scope for barter. Furthermore, barter initially was in the form of exchange of gifts and that the giver often expected something in return (Einzig 346-48). Karl Marx was also of the view that exchange of commodities originated on the borders of primitive communities where they came into contact with other communities. Thus began barter and penetrated into the interior of the community and not the other way round. Marx emphasised on the use-value and exchange value of a commodity wherein the first commodities of exchange were those which had use-value. These commodities itself became the first money/medium of exchange among different communities e.g. slaves, cattle, metals, etc. Gradually, commodities developed into exchange values with the expansion and increase in exchanges and growth of diverse commodities (Marx 54).

Neolithic economy was a self-sufficient, simple food producing community. They were economically independent, but that did not mean isolation. Even though trade was not an integral part of a community in the Neolithic culture, there was contact and exchange of articles. This intercourse was crucial to human progress and provided channels for diffusion of ideas from one society to another which in turn led to diffusion of culture itself (Childe 74).Thus, barter played an important role in early hunting-gathering societies as people could establish contacts beyond their cultural and linguistic sphere. Cultural diffusion, therefore, to a great extent started during the prehistoric times. It stimulated introduction of foreign goods into local groups and ‘with the objects often went concepts and alternative ways of dealing with all sorts of problems both practical and ideological’ (Chapman 33-43).

Some aspects of barter which were not regarded as part of a commercial exchange was simply involvement of display of articles wherein the producer takes into account his effort; time and sentiment in producing it, as such assess and anticipate getting another commodity of similar value in return. There was no ‘intermediate translation of real values into monetary units for comparison’. Exchanges were also made between tangible and non-tangible through debt. This was usually concerning exchange of service or labour. Further, markets acted as educational centres as traders from different areas display their trade goods and learn by "viewing the exhibits "and talking with “exhibitor”(Punke 221-229) thus leading to exchange of ideas.

Oral sources, ethnographic accounts and even some of the texts of medieval Assam, known as Buranjis informed about the means and mode of exchanges practiced by the Nagas. According to Robert Reid the different inhabitants of excluded areas of Assam including Naga Hills was ‘very primitive’, ‘degraded’, ‘backward type’ etc. (Robert Reid 18-19). B.C. Allen’s work dealt with the socio-economic and cultural history of Naga Hills and Manipur. He stated that there was not much trade among the Nagas except in beads and shells (B.C Allen 59). Rowney reported that the Nagas were carrying on a most profitable business with the tea gardens and those engaged ‘have already been partially humanized’ (H.B Rowney 169).  Chubala Sanglir has worked on early Naga trade focusing on intra-inter-tribal trade as well as trade relations with its neighbours. She emphasized on articles of value, medium of exchange, slavery and items of exchange (Chubala Sanglir 410-421). S.K Bose has studied the traditional medium of exchange jabili and laya used by the Ao Nagas. He discussed about the trade relations maintained by Aos and Lothas with the Ahoms and how they acted as intermediaries of trade between the plains and Nagas in the interior as well as barriers to other Naga tribes in order to monopolize trade (S.K Bose 146).

As Naga society was primarily an agrarian society, it depended on agriculture for sustenance. Though the Nagas often claim to have self-sufficient economy, no society can achieve complete self-sufficiency. They produced both items for consumption as well as surplus production. This was what Marshal Sahlins called the production for use and production for exchange. He states that, “The households of primitive communities are not usually self-sufficient, producing all they need and needing all they produce. Certainly there is exchange. Even aside from the presents given and received under inescapable social obligations, the people may work for a frankly utilitarian trade, thus indirectly getting what they need” (Sahlins 82-83).The Burmese people living on the fringes of Indo-Burma border came to trade with the Konyak Nagas whenever there was failure of crops or inability to cultivate or harvest due to border tensions or disputes. These people brought cane and bamboo handicrafts in exchange for rice.

The Nagas have had trade contacts with Burma, Assam and Manipur even prior to the coming of the British. The Ao Nagas obtained salt from Assam, while the Konyak Nagas bartered salt with the plains for other commodities(Field study).The Lotha Nagas went to Golaghat to exchange cotton for cattle, dry fish, iron, etc.The Angami Nagas procured weapons, spears and hoes from Manipur (Butler 156). Trade with Burma was done by all the districts which share an international boundary with Burma namely- Mon, Tuensang, Kiphire and Phek districts. The main items of exchange between Burmese and Nagas were gong (laya), salt, beads, dao belt decorated with beads, iron, mithun, cow, beeswax and earthen pots of various shapes and sizes. Some of the villages which acted as an entrepot in their area with neighbouring Burma villages were Longwa, Mimi and Pangsha.

Apart from different trade items, the Nagas also used indigenous currencies. Chabili was an indigenous currency used by the Ao Nagas. It was a spear shaped metal, measuring about 20-25 cm and was made out of obsolete daos. A bundle of 100 chabili was called noklang (Mills 343). The Ao Nagas were probably the first Naga community to introduce metal currency. Another item used as currency was laya or gong. It was a round brass disc used mainly by the Konyaks, Khiamniungians, Changs, Sangtams etc. Haimendorf narrates about an incident wherein some Konyak Nagas bought a slave boy for 20 layas, one pig and a lump of salt (Haimendorf 125). Modern laya made of brass was said to be darker in colour and imported from Assam and was worth Rs.2 each; old laya- made of alloy of brass and tin, was more valuable and equivalent to Rs.4 or 5 (Mills 102).While laya was procured from Assam and Burma, chabili was introduced by the community and not by any sovereign authority (Bose 19).These indigenous currencies were not only a medium of exchange but possession of it was linked to status and accumulation of wealth. Besides acting as a medium of exchange, gongs were also used as a musical instrument during festivals, as an alarm bell during wartime, death or emergencies. Small gongs were worn on traditional attire by the male folk of the eastern Nagas.  However, the significance of chabili was limited because of its circulation only among the Ao Nagas and few neighbouring Lotha and Sema villages (Hutton58; Mills, Lothas).

Besides metal gongs and chabili, other valuable items were conch shells, carnelian beads, mithun, etc. The Nagas used conch shells (Turbinellapyrum), cowries (Moneta moneta) and Indo-Pacific glass beads which were of marine origin and traded by sea from the southeast Indian coast while the carnelian beads was from western India (Kanungo 155). Cowries and conch shells were used both as a currency as well as for adornment. Angami traders from Khonoma village were known for their trade in shells and beads and went as far as Calcutta, Burma, Sylhet to procure them. This trade network in items procured from outside suggests communication connectivity and cultural influence. Items like mithun and salt had both use value and exchange value. Mithun and salt was consumed as well as used as a medium for exchange. Mithun holds an all-in-all socio-religious-politico-economic significance in Naga society. It was needed to perform rituals, for feasting during auspicious occasions, as war indemnity, to barter slaves and so on. The demand and value of a commodity thus depended on the cultural value associated with it.

Time and distance were also two important factors for determination of price and value of a commodity. While some items were exchanged outright without bargaining, some items needed to be haggled as the time spent and resources used in order to prepare that item were taken into consideration. The exchange value of a particular commodity also depended on their demand and availability. Arrangements were made among individuals (or villages) according to their needs and wants. There was regular exchange between various villages wherein some villages were not favourable for growing some particular crops or unavailability of a particular item and the other facing shortage. Those items procured from long distance trade were harder to get, as such more expensive and thus valued more. Possession of such rare items also began to be associated with one’s prestige and wealth. Prices of some commodities also became cheaper or costlier in relation to another commodity as one travelled from one region to another.

Since there was no standardized measurement in barter system, the exchange value as well as medium of exchange also differed from tribe to tribe. The price and value of the products were determined by the two parties. The Naga chiefs did not issue any regulations regarding weights and measures in their area. However, some kind of standardization was prevalent within the ambit of one’s own tribe.  For instance, for the Angamis 1 male slave = 1 cow and 3conch shells, whereas for Phoms a slave boy of 10 years = 3 cows and 2 mithun (Hutton, Angami 154). Barter rate of a female slave was higher than a male slave i.e, a female slave = 3cows, 4-5 conch shells (Elwin 290); For the Ao Nagas 1 slave =50 chabilis; 1mithun=100 chabilis (Hindustantimes 2015).

Payment in barter economy was not only made in kind, but also on credit or in the form of services. Some items were exchanged on credit when one party was facing shortage or when an item was brought from another place/long distance. The Nagas often bartered their basic necessities and/or agricultural produce on credit when there was shortage or failure of crops. Usually, if one borrowed one basket of millet, maize or rice, one had to repay it twice the amount irrespective of the time gap between borrowing and repaying (Ghosh 100). Among the Sema Nagas, they follow 3:5 ratio, i.e.; the interest for three baskets of rice was five baskets (Field study). In the case of inability to pay debt, voluntary slavery was also resorted (Sanglir 158). The Nagas also exchanged a day’s labour in the field for a lump of indigenous salt or rice. In barter system, both party needed to have something to exchange and regardless of the quantity the equivalent was important. If a product of lesser value was exchanged for a superior item, more quantity of the lesser value will be added in order to equate it with the other item. However, in practice not all commodities can be exchanged or traded for another item. Liquidity of a commodity varied. Some items were too valuable for another. Large brass gongs were usually exchanged for mithuns, buffaloes, slaves etc. Whereas salt had universal utility and bartered for variety of items.

Communication played a vital role in socio-economic transactions. Intra and inter regional trade involved interaction and communication with traders beyond one’s linguistic zone. However, linguistic fragmentation did not hamper mobility as there were multilingual traders and interpreters (Cederlöf and Schendel 20). Sometimes commodities were also exchanged by communicating through signs and actions although those who were proficient in speaking different languages and/or dialects were at an advantage. The Nagas traded with different linguistic groups and even among them, different tribes spoke different dialects. In the case of Assam, Katokis were appointed as interpreters between Naga traders and the Ahoms. The influence of language through trade was evident from the pidgin language Nagamese which evolved mainly out of the trade necessities between the Assamese and the Nagas. Communication through exchange of goods led to creation of this new lingua franca. As for trade with Burma, the Naga villagers from neighbouring Burma villages acted as interpreters for negotiation. The Pochury Nagas and the neighbouring Burma villages spoke a similar dialect called Mokhungri (Field study) as such there was regular trade exchange among them and Naga traders frequented Leshi (Burma) which was one of the main trade centre.

All these different mode of exchange had its own limitations and inconveniences. In addition, trade through barter got affected whenever one party no longer supplied an item of exchange. This may arise due to deficit of surplus production or due to strained relation among trading villages. The landscape of a village/ region played an important role in the availability of resources as well as in marketing surplus products through different trade routes. In order to have access to different trade routes it was also important to maintain good political relation with others. The Nagas were known for raiding other territories for different reasons. Those who caused trouble in the plains were banned or had very limited trade contacts whereas those friendly Nagas benefitted from the regular commercial contacts. Exchange of goods, therefore, necessitated maintaining relations with one another. Sometimes hostile villages maintained their ties for the sake of economic purpose. Exploitation of one party by the other was also inevitable.

Transition from barter to money economy began during the colonial period. With the introduction of metal or money currency, the indigenous currencies and modes of exchanges gradually lost its significance. The use of chabili depreciated. However, metal gong and cowries did not lose their cultural value as well as their use value. They were no longer used as a medium of exchange but gongs retained its utility and cowries continued to be adorned in traditional attires. Nevertheless, traditional mode of exchange continued alongside the circulation of metal currency. During 1884-85 it was reported that over Rs.22,000 were spent on beads by the Angami Nagas which were used partly for adornment, but more for barter with pigs, fowls and dogs in exchange. Cotton which was earlier bartered for other commodities by the Lothas with the plains were now sold for Rs.2.8 per maund (Administrative Report 1885-86).The introduction of money currency created flexibility, standardization of rates and facilitated wider commercial transaction.

Thus, exchange through the different mechanism of trade also led to diffusion of culture. The uses of metal gong, cowries and beads as a medium of exchange were evidences of Nagas having a wide trade network even before the colonial period and introduction of money currency. It also suggests the Nagas exposure to other culture and their influence. Besides other factors, the cultural value associated with a commodity became the main factor that determined the exchange value and demand of a commodity. While items of utility necessitated frequent trade contacts among the different Naga tribes and villages in close vicinities, trade of valued items promoted long distance trade networks and communication far beyond the Naga region. Trade was facilitated by routes and connectivity. Here connectivity meant both trade route as well as human connectivity. This enhanced movement of people along with goods and services and cross cultural exchanges in the process of bartering. The concept of barter itself was perhaps introduced by one community to the other so also the money economy. In the process of haggling, people not only traded their goods but also exchanged ideas as well.

1. Allen, B.C (2002), Gazetteer of Naga Hills and Manipur, Mittal Publications, New Delhi.

2. Bose, S.K (2018), The Ao Nagas and their Primitive Medium of Exchange, Banglar Puratattva Prakashana, Kolkata.

3. Butler,John (1855), Travels in the Province of Assam, Smith, Elder and Co., London.

4. Chapman, Anne (Jul. - Sep., 1980), Barter as a Universal Mode of Exchange, L'Homme, T. 20, No. 3.

5. Childe, Gordon (1936), Man Makes Himself, the New American Library, London.

6. Cederlöf, Gunnel and Willem van Schendel (ed) (2022), Flows and Frictions in Trans-Himalayan Spaces: Histories of Networking and Border Crossing, AUP, Amsterdam.

7. Einzig, Paul (1949), Primitive Money in its Ethnological, Historical and Economic Aspects, Eyre & Spottiswoode Ltd., London.

8. Elwin,Verrier (1969), Nagas in the 19th Century, OUP, London.

9. Ghosh, B. B. (1981), Nagaland District Gazetteers, Tuensang District, Government of Nagaland, Kohima.

10. Haimendorf, Christoph von Furer (1939), The Naked Nagas, Methuen & Co.Ltd, London.

11. Hutton, J.H (1921),The Sema Nagas, Macmillan and Co., London.

12. -----(1921), The Angami Nagas, Macmillan and Co.,London.

13. Kanungo, Alok Kumar (2006),“Naga Ornaments and the Indian Ocean”, Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association Bulletin 26.

14. Marx, Karl (1904) A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, Translated by N.I Stone, Charles H Kerr & Company,Chicago.

15. Mills, J.P (1973), The Ao Nagas, OUP, Bombay.

16. ---- (1922), The Lotha Nagas, OUP, Bombay.

17. Punke, Harold H. (July, 1975), “Trade and Culture”, Journal of Thought,Vol. 10, No. 3.

18. Reid, Robert (Jan. - Feb., 1944), “The Excluded Areas of Assam”, The Geographical Journal, Vol. 103, No. 1/2, pp. 18-29.

19. Rowney, H.B (1974), The Wild Tribes of India, B.R Publishing Corporation.

20. Sahlins, Marshall (1972), Stone Age Economics, Aldine. Atherton, Inc., Illanois.

21. Sanglir, Chubala (2014), “Socio-Economic Implications of Early Naga Trade: Intra-Inter Tribal Trade and External Relations” in Tiatoshi Jamir and Manjali Hazarika (eds.), Emerging Perspectives in the Archeology of Northeast India, Research India Press, New Delhi.

22. ----(2023), “Emergence and Nature of Slavery among the Nagas”, in Amrendra Kumar Thakur (ed.), Slavery and Servitude in Pre-colonial Northeast India, Eastern Book House, Guwahati.

23. https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/the-10-gram-naga-spear-which-could-buy-you-slaves-and-cows/story. Dec 2, 2015.

24. Naga Hills General Administrative Report for 1885-86.