Nomadism also subjects pastoralist communities to strict rules of portability. If you are constantly on the move, you cannot afford to accumulate large material surpluses. Such rules limit variations in accumulated material goods between pastoralist households (though they may also encourage a taste for portable goods of high value such as silks or jewelry). So, by and large, nomadism implies a high degree of self-sufficiency and inhibits the appearance of an extensive division of labor. Inequalities of wealth and rank certainly exist, and have probably existed in most pastoralist societies, but except in periods of military conquest, they are normally too slight to generate the stable, hereditary hierarchies that are usually implied by the use of the term class. Inequalities of gender have also existed in pastoralist societies, but they seem to have been softened by the absence of steep hierarchies of wealth in most communities, and also by the requirement that women acquire most of the skills of men, including, often, their military skills.
According to paragraph 4, the fact that pastoralist communities are subject to “strict rules of portability” encourages such communities to
- A.relocate less frequently than they would otherwise
- B.have households that are more or less equal in wealth
- C.become self-sufficient in the manufacture of silk and jewelry
- D.share large material surpluses with neighboring communities
여기서 답은 뭘까요?