Basic Concepts: Sociopolitical Typology

Band-Tribe-Chiefdom-State

Sociopolitical Typology

•  Categorization of a culture by the ways in which the members of a culture interact via power relationships

•  A way of categorizing cultures by their level or type of social and political complexity; proposed by Elman Service –  Band –  Tribe –  Chiefdom –  State

Sociopolitical Organization: An Interest of Early Anthropologists

•  Influenced by colonization in India and Africa (e.g., British colonialists)

•  They asked “How are people ruled without a state?” •  At home in Europe, they had been experiencing Victorian

Europe and the appearance of the modern nation-state •  Interested in, e.g., the idea of acephalous societies

(societies ‘without heads/leaders’

Band

•  Small group of politically independent, though related, households

•  Social relationships based on kinship •  Least complex form of political organization

–  Perhaps the oldest form as well: implications for biological anthropology

•  Associated with foraging forms of subsistence •  Decisions made through consensus

–  The disgruntled members leave

Band •  No fixed, formal, guaranteed leadership roles;

rather one or a few group members are informally recognized for their prowess and competence, and are thus ascribed more respect by group members –  These people are typically male, but females have

power as well (often the most successful hunter and most senior woman)

Band •  Generally consists of a small group bonded by kinship and marriage,

no larger than 100 people •  Membership is fluid •  Formal social institutions are few or non-existent. •  Often egalitarian (not always), with some sex- and age-based

differences in status •  Informal leadership, if any •  Prestige based on ability •  The older members of the band generally are looked to for guidance

and advice •  No written laws and none of the specialized coercive roles, e.g.,

police, seen typically in more complex societies. •  Conflict resolution generally through social means

Band •  Many known band societies hunt and gather to obtain

their food. •  All bands are foragers, but not all foragers are bands

(e.g., pacific-living indigenous Americans had a different form of sociopolitical complexity, even though they gathered all their foods, e.g., shellfish and acorns)

•  Bands' customs are almost always transmitted orally. •  Religion is generally based on family tradition, individual

experience, or counsel from a shaman.

Band •  In his 1972 study, “The Notion of the Tribe,” Morton Fried

defined bands as “small, mobile, and fluid social formations with weak leadership that do not generate surpluses, pay no taxes and support no standing army.”

•  With the spread of the modern nation-state to all corners of the globe, there are very few true band societies left.

Band •  Some examples include:

–  the Aka foragers of Central Africa (rainforest) –  the !Kung (also called the Ju/’hoansi or Dobe Ju/’hoansi) of

southern Africa –  some Inuit (“Eskimo”) groups in Arctic region –  the Shoshone of the Great Basin in North America –  some groups of Indigenous Australians

Aka

Aka

Aka

Aka

Aka

Aka

Aka

Aka

Forestmushrooms

Aka

Aka

Aka

Aka (and Washingtonian)

!Kung •  The !Kung of South Africa, for example are politically organized as a

band. •  They live in a dry desert environment •  Bands are uncentralized and are made up of equals. •  However they do have a leader that settles disputes and fulfills

ceremonial roles. The !Kung leader is known as the "headman." •  Despite having a headman, bands still consider their members

equals, and because of this, bands are considered to be egalitarian societies.

•  They have a small population, usually only being made up of less than 100 members.

•  Their main way of subsistence is food-foraging. This economic system requires a band to be mobile, and they maintain a constant rotation of seasonal territories.

!Kung

!Kung

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrK-XVCwGnI

Inuit

Atanarjuat‐‐greatmovie!

Band vs. Tribe I •  Bands are distinguished from tribes in that tribes are

generally larger, consisting of many families. •  Tribes have more solid social categories that entail

specific rights and responsibilities, such as a clear leader, clear gender-based roles, etc.

•  Tribes are also more permanent than bands; a band can cease to exist if only a small group walks out.

•  Some tribes can be in fact sub-divided into bands.

Tribe •  Consists of one or more autonomous communities or villages which

may then form alliances •  May range across a broad territory •  Members integrated through lineages, clans, age grades, or other

associations, and territory –  Tribes trade less autonomy for greater security (e.g., food and warfare)

•  Associated with horticulture or herding subsistence strategies –  greater food production…

•  Greater population density •  Associated with a need for alliances, which may function for

–  defense or raiding –  pooling of resources –  capitalizing on a on a windfall (e.g., seasonally-available fish may be

cooperatively gathered by allied villages)

•  Communities engaging in allied activities return to autonomous communities after the activity

Tribe •  Members of a tribe typically share a name and a territory (perhaps divided in

some places for horticulture by a particular family, e.g., manioc or tobacco gardens with the Yanomamo)

•  Tribes are relatively sedentary, though may move seasonally to accommodate livestock (e.g., Nuer following water), or periodically to accommodate horticulture (e.g., Yanomamo moving shabanos when they need a fresh garden patch or when the shabano deteriorates significantly; see Chagnon text)

•  Members of a village work together in endeavors like trade, house construction, warfare, and ceremonial activities

•  Group decisions are typically made by consensus, but –  the opinions of headmen and elders are usually respected –  And these ‘leaders’ may influence consensus through oratory or

demonstrated competence –  Decisions enforced through

•  withdrawal of cooperation •  gossip •  criticism •  beliefs that anti-social actions cause disease -- witchcraft

Band vs. Tribe II •  Bands are relatively nomadic, staying in one place, a “camp,” for

roughly days to weeks at a time •  A tribe is more sedentary, staying in more permanent structures for

roughly months to years •  Bands rely mostly on wild hunted and gathered foods (though may

trade gathered foods for domesticated foods with neighbors, e.g., the Aka)

•  Tribes rely mostly on domesticated plants and animals, in some cases they may maintain food-foraging techniques to balance out their diet, e.g., Yanomamo hunting and fishing, and Nuer fishing

•  Examples…

Nuer

Nuer

Buildingabarn

Nuer

Nuer

Yanomamö

Nuer and Yanomamö are both tribes, but they have different subsistence

practices.

Whereas the Nuer are pastoralists (domestic cattle herders), the Yanomamö are hunter-

horticulturalists (domesticated plants and some wild plants and animals). However, both

sometimes rely on fish (from the Nile area and Amazonian rivers, respectively)

Chiefdom •  Robert L. Carneiro: "An autonomous political unit

comprising a NUMBER of villages or communities under the permanent control of a paramount chief" (Carneiro 1981: 45)

•  A regional polity in which one or more local groups are organized under a single ruling individual – the CHIEF – who is at the head of a ranked hierarchy of people

Chiefdom •  Chiefdoms are characterized by pervasive inequality of

people and centralization of authority: CLASSES (‘rulers’ and ‘ruled,’ which we do not see in tribes or bands).

•  At least two inherited social classes (elite and commoner) are present (Ancient Hawaiian chiefdoms had even more social classes), though social class can often be changed by extraordinary behavior during an individual's life.

•  Generally, a single lineage/family of the elite class will be the ruling elite of the chiefdom, with the greatest influence, power, and prestige.

•  Kinship is typically an organizing principle, while marriage, age, and gender can affect one's social status and role as well

Chiefdom

•  Nobles are clearly distinct from commoners and do not usually engage in any form of agricultural production: a clear ranked society

•  The higher members of society consume most of the goods that are passed up the hierarchy as a tribute.

•  Reciprocal obligations are fulfilled by the nobles carrying out rituals that only they can perform.

•  Chiefs may also make symbolic redistributions of food and other goods.

The Chief •  Chief is high-ranking •  A true authority figure with a formal office •  A semi-sacred position •  Others’ statuses are determined by closeness to chief •  Recognized hierarchy linked to chief--hierarchy means

people are ranked or graduated •  Office of chief often hereditary (passed to son of sister’s

son) •  Can be partially based on talents

Nana Osei Tutu II The King of Ashanti (Africa)

Photo credit: G. F. Kojo Arthur

Centre for Indigenous Knowledge Systems Copyright© PT Sangga Sarana Persada, 1997-2000 Designed by Sangga Web Team

SriSultanHamengkubuwonoX(Indonesia)

The Chief

•  Chiefs must amass personal wealth to add to power (tax), then redistribute it as well…

•  He collects and redistributes surplus and labor •  How does he redistribute it?

–  To people who work for him politically and economically, helping him maintain power

–  To those who work cooperatively to benefit the group, e.g., irrigations, a temple, a palace

–  To warfare/military (to benefit whom?…) –  To those in need –  Ultimately,…it’s entirely up to him

Potlatch •  The potlatch is a festival or ceremony practiced among Indigenous

peoples of the Pacific Northwest Coast. At these gatherings a family or hereditary leader hosts guests and hold a feast.

•  The main purpose of the potlatch is the re-distribution and reciprocity of wealth; marked by distribution of wealth, dance performances, and other ceremonies.

•  Before the arrival of the Europeans, gifts included storable food (oolichan [candle fish] oil or dried food), canoes, and, among the very wealthy, slaves. The influx of manufactured trade goods such as blankets and sheet copper into the Pacific Northwest caused inflation in the potlatch in the late 1800s and early 1900s.

•  Some groups used the potlatch as an arena in which highly competitive contests of status took place.

•  In rare cases, goods were actually destroyed after being received

Potlatch •  Potlatching was made illegal in Canada and US in the late 1800s,

largely at the urging of missionaries and government agents who considered it a custom that was seen as wasteful, not part of "civilized" values.

•  The potlatch was seen as a key target in assimilation policies and agendas. Missionary William Duncan wrote in 1875 that the potlatch was “by far the most formidable of all obstacles in the way of Indians becoming Christians, or even civilized.”

•  Sustaining the customs and culture of their ancestors, indigenous people now openly hold potlatch to commit to the restoring of their ancestors' ways and reclaim their birthright.

•  In Papua New Guinea, a potlatch is called a MOKA (see the film “Ongka’s Big Moka”)

Potlatch

Tlingit (Alaskan coast indigenous culture; matrilineal; hunter-gatherers)

Chiefdom •  Chiefdoms have been shown by anthropologists and

archaeologists to be a relatively unstable form of social organization; it is hard to keep these groups together based, as they often are, on the personal qualities of the chief.

•  Chiefdoms are prone to cycles of collapse and renewal, in which tribal units band together, expand in power, fragment through some form of social stress, and band together again.

Chiefdom: Hawai’I (wiki it)

State

•  The most formal of political organizations and is one of the hallmarks of “civilization”

•  There are rules and people follow them

•  Political power is centralized in a government which may legitimately use force to regulate the affairs of its citizens

Maya state map

The Inca

The Nacirema

Trends From Band to State

•  more wealth (surplus) •  more people (population density) •  more sedentism •  more inequality and ranking •  less reliance on kinship •  more internal conflict? •  increased power and responsibility to leaders •  increased burden to citizens to support political

organization •  increased use of formal, legal structures for ruling

Warning •  By the mid-19th century, many anthropologists and other scholars

were using the terms “band-tribe-chiefdom-state” to denote particular stages in unilineal cultural evolution.

•  That is, younger cultures exist as bands, then change over time (“evolve”) into more complex categories of sociopolitical complexity

•  Although unilineal cultural evolution is no longer a credible theory, these terms continue to be used as a sort of technical shorthand in college courses, documentaries, and popular reference works.

“Evolutionary” Perspectives on Sociopolitical Categories

•  “Cultural Evolutionism” refers to ways in which cultures changs over time (this is NOT biological evolution; 2 issues: –  Is there a consistent pattern of change (i.e., stages of cultural evolution

from band to state)? –  The derogatory interpretation that the smaller, “less-complex” cultures have

“failed” to “progress”; and, why did they “fail” to become “civilized? •  Answer: maybe they WANT to live that way and civilization is NOT preferable to

their ways of life!!! •  Early colonialists felt there was a progression from simple/nasty/brutish/primitive

ways of living, and that small-scale societies should, like them, prefer to be civilized

•  But, is civilization really preferable? Many hunter-gatherers prefer their lifestyle, and avoid domesticating plants and animals (e.g., the Aka vs. the Ngandu)

“Evolutionary” Perspectives on Sociopolitical Categories

•  “Cultural Evolutionism” refers to ways in which culture changes over time (this is NOT biological evolution; 2 issues: –  Is there a consistent pattern of change (i.e., stages of cultural

evolution from band to state)? –  The derogatory interpretation that the smaller, “less-complex”

cultures have “failed” to “progress”; and, why did they “fail” to become “civilized?

•  Answer: maybe they WANT to live that way and “civilization” is NOT preferable to their ways of life!

•  Early colonialists felt there was a progression from simple/nasty/brutish/primitive Hobbesian ways of living, and that small-scale societies should, like them, prefer to be civilized

•  But, is civilization really preferable?

“Evolutionary” Perspectives on Sociopolitical Categories

•  But should we entirely throw out the idea that cultures change over time? •  What is factual is that cultures do change over time; whether there is a

pattern to this change is still debated among academics, •  We know states appeared more recently in time than bands; and we know

there are some associations between sociopolitical complexity and other factors like subsistence pattern

•  Note: this is an *EMPIRICAL question: “Is there a pattern, or is it totally random?” And, clearly, there are some patterns out there. (Empirical means we can figure out whether something is true via observation, e.g., experience and/or experiment)

•  What anthropologists DO all agree on is that we cannot attach value judgments to the patterns we see: Don’t be ethnocentric in the effort to identify patterns!

“Evolutionary” Perspectives on Sociopolitical Categories

•  One solution some anthropologists have proposed to separate these issues: Replace “evolutionary” or “sequential” perspective with contrast between uncentralized and centralized political systems

Bands and Tribes: Uncentralized political systems

•  Associated with: –  subsistence level economies such as foraging –  small, homogeneous populations –  little social stratification –  relatively autonomous groups –  often relatively mobile without strict territorial

boundaries –  formal leader or organization beyond kinship rare

Chiefdom & State: Centralized political systems

•  Associated with: –  intensive agricultural or industrialization

•  technology becomes more complicated •  labor specialization increases

–  large, diverse population –  less mobility –  opportunity for control of resources appears –  appearance of coercive force –  male leaders more frequent –  political authority is concentrated in a single individual

(chiefdoms) or a body of individuals (the state)

B-T-C-S summary

•  Band: no ‘official’ leader, though elders and skilled people are respected; nomadic; hunting and gathering, egalitarian; move camps: Hadza, Aka; !Kung, Inuit; very important for bioanthro (cross- and sub-disciplinary) because this is probably the way we lived while for most of the past two million years.

•  Tribe: a “headman” (e.g., Didihewa in your text) with authority only within a single community; horticulture/pastoral and hunting; sedentary; headman has to work hard to earn his position, e.g., Yanomamö

•  Chiefdom: a clear “chief” with authority over multiple communities; leadership can be earned but is often inherited; hierarchy/stratification; social classes (important); inherited chiefdomship: Hawaiian, many central highland Papua New Guinean groups; (CAN subsist via foraging--like indigenous North Americans of the Pacific on acorns and shellfish--but generally tend to have farmed land--the surplus of which go to the chief, who redistributes that surplus to his benefit); TAX ; politically unstable, in general

•  State: Highly stratified with multiple social CLASSES; multiple, often formalized, social roles, including a bureaucracy to run it all; authority, including a monopoly over the use of force (often for suppressing WITHIN-state conflict--civil wars), over a large territory: Maya, Inca, and Nacirema are examples. Extra state factor: industrialization