political organization 10

8/14/2019 Political Organization 10

1/20

1

IntroductionIf politics is defined broadly as competition for power over people and things,

then it is clear that all societies have some sort of political system. However,there can be a vast difference in what political organizations look like and howthey function in different kinds of societies. It may initially seem to the casualobserver that somesmall-scale societieshave no politicians or politicalorganizations at all, but they are present in very different forms than people inmodernlarge-scale societiesexpect. These unusual political systems are theprimary focus of this tutorial.

Political Roles and OfficesAll Societies recognize political leadershiprolesof some sort. These are rolesin which individuals generally have authority related to broad areas of concernfor their society. They usually are allowed to make decisions concerning thegroup as a whole. They are often expected to lead community discussionsand act as spokesmen in dealing with outsiders. They have power to controlor at least strongly influence the behavior of others within the society by theirpowers of persuasion and sometimes by controlling the means of violence,such as the police and the legal system. They usually play a central role indefining their society's goals and public policy. They often are allowed access

to and control over their society's important resources. However, this doesnot necessarily mean that they are richer than others. In fact, political leadersin some cultures are expected to essentially bankrupt themselves byperiodically giving their wealth to others. In so doing, they increase theirpolitical influence and power. This was often the case with the "big men" ofNew Guinea and the traditional leaders of Native American communities onVancouver Island in Western Canada who were described in theEconomicSystemstutorial as examples of key players in complexredistributivesystemsof small-scale societies.
http://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#small-scale_societyhttp://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#small-scale_societyhttp://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#small-scale_societyhttp://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#large-scale_societyhttp://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#large-scale_societyhttp://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#large-scale_societyhttp://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#rolehttp://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#rolehttp://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#rolehttp://anthro.palomar.edu/economy/econ_3.htmhttp://anthro.palomar.edu/economy/econ_3.htmhttp://anthro.palomar.edu/economy/econ_3.htmhttp://anthro.palomar.edu/economy/econ_3.htmhttp://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#redistributionhttp://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#redistributionhttp://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#redistributionhttp://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#redistributionhttp://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#redistributionhttp://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#redistributionhttp://anthro.palomar.edu/economy/econ_3.htmhttp://anthro.palomar.edu/economy/econ_3.htmhttp://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#rolehttp://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#large-scale_societyhttp://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#small-scale_society


2/20

2

When most people in the Western World think ofpolitical roles and offices, what probably comes to mindare presidents, prime ministers, governors, andlegislators. These are generally permanent politicaloffices that exist apart from the people who occupythem. In other words, the political positions continueafter the current office holders leave them. Anotherindividual then takes over in the same position. Thisoften is not the case inforagingsocieties. Theirpolitical roles are usually temporary and short term.For instance, a man may become a hunt leader withauthority to make decisions for his fellow hunters butonly as long as the hunt goes on. When it is over, his authority vanishes asdoes the hunt leader position because it no longer is needed.Large-scale societies have many different continuing political offices. Theyare organized intobureaucraciesof positions with different levels ofresponsibility, power, and authority that are generally ranked relative to eachother. In the United States, for instance, the President has greater authoritythan the Secretary of State, and he or she, in turn, is above ambassadors.Large bureaucracies with the clearest chains of command are usually militaryorganizations. Soldiers and officers are trained to know and accept theauthority of their superiors and to take responsibility for those under them.There is little ambiguity about the chain of command. This kind of clear

demarcation of authority is not present in all political systems. The UnitedStates has a federal government with only limited authority over the 50states. Each state has its own government that largely mirrors that of thenational government. From the very beginnings of the U.S. over 200 yearsago, there have been repeated disputes between state and federal authoritiesover political and legal jurisdiction. In fact, the American Civil War foughtbetween 1861 and 1865 was largely over this conflict. Even today, federaland state jurisdictions overlap at times, which results in disagreements. TheU.S. Supreme Court has made many important legal decisions to sort outthese disputes and no doubt will need to do so in the future as well.

U.S. President is a politicalrole that continues after thecurrent office holder leaves
http://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#foragershttp://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#foragershttp://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#foragershttp://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#bureaucracyhttp://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#bureaucracyhttp://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#bureaucracyhttp://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#bureaucracyhttp://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#foragers


3/20

3

Modern national governmentbureaucracies are often large,requiring considerable officespace. The Pentagon inWashington D.C. is wheremuch of the U.S. military

central bureaucracy works.With 17.5 miles of corridors,it is one of the world's biggestbuildings.

How Do Politicians Get Their

Positions?The process by which an individual legitimatelyacquires a political office or authority position occursin several different ways around the world. In somesocieties, succession is the result of inheritancethroughkinship-based ties. This usually meansinheritance from a deceased relative. This was thecommon pattern among elite families in large-scaleagriculture-based kingdoms and empires of the past.A king's son became the next king. However, rules ofsuccession by inheritance were sometimes

intentionally left somewhat vague to allow deviationwhen needed. For instance, if the eldest son of aruler is not up to the job, ambiguous inheritance rulescould allow him to be bypassed in favor of hisyounger, more competent brother or sister. Indemocratic societies of our time, politicians are usually elected to politicaloffices and inheritance is frowned upon as an unfair path to political power. Insmall-scale foraging societies, succession often results from personalachievement rather than election. An individual may become a leader withouta vote because it is generally understood in the community that he has proven

his ability more than others. There is no need for a vote or even muchdiscussion since everyone tacitly agrees. In many societies with hierarchiesof political positions, some or all lower level political offices are filled byappointment from above rather than election.These different mechanisms for legitimate succession to political office are notalways cleanly distinct from each other. For instance, succession by

Succession by inheritanceQueen Victoria inherited her

position as monarch of Britainfrom her uncle William IV onhis death in 1837 (he did nothave any legitimate children)
http://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#kinshiphttp://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#kinshiphttp://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#kinshiphttp://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#kinship


4/20

4

achievement and appointment from above may be combined. Military officersin modern democratic nations are generally appointed from above by superiorofficers who base their decision on the personal achievements andcapabilities of the person being promoted.In many societies, the prescribed method for succession to office may becircumvented through behind-the-scenes negotiations by power brokers usingcoercion, bribes, and promises of future rewards. Political deal-making isusually an integral part of most political systems, including those that areostensibly very democratic. It also is not uncommon around the world forindividuals or groups to seize power illegally and brutally eliminate competitionand dissenting voices.It is common for political leaders to be members of politicalfactions consisting of like-minded individuals. In large-scale societies, these

factions often form recognizable political parties. Whether they are membersof informal factions or established political parties, a common tool used bypoliticians around the world is apolitical symbol. This is an idea or physicalthing that is used as a tool for focusing the attention and emotions of people.It can be as simple as the phrase "a chicken in every pot and a car in everygarage" which was used by Herbert Hoover in his 1928 U.S. presidentialelection campaign. It can be a call for major change such as the replacementof a king with a legislature or conversion of "non-believers" to the "true-religion." It can be the idea that some otherethnic groupis responsible forsociety's problems. The last example is one of the most effective kinds ofpolitical symbols that the NAZI party used to gain power in Germany duringthe 1920's and early 1930's. They blamed Jews as the main reason forGermany's economic and military failures. Jews were the political symbol inthis case. A political symbol also can be a simple object such as a nationalflag. Soldiers have died to protect their nation's flag despite the fact that itwas only a piece of dyed cloth. For them, the symbolic meaning of their flagwas the important reality.
http://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#ethnic_grouphttp://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#ethnic_grouphttp://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#ethnic_grouphttp://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#ethnic_group


5/20

5

World War II poster that used theAmerican flag and bitter memoriesof the December 7, 1941 attackon Pearl Harbor by the Japanese

as very powerful political symbolsintended to encourage patriotismand increase enlistments in theU.S. military services

Levels of Political IntegrationIn the early 20th century, anthropologists developed several useful systemsfor classifying societies. These made it easier to understand patterns ofsimilarities and differences between cultures. Classification generally focusedon either the nature of the economy or the political system. Subsistencepatterndifferences have been the primary focus of economy-baseddistinctions. This resulted in the recognition of four principle categories ofsocieties--foraging,pastoralist,horticultural, andintensive agricultural. Someanthropologists further subdivided these categories. For instance, theintensive agriculture category was broken down into preindustrial andindustrial societies. In contrast to this economy-based approach, a politics

focused classification usually distinguishes societies based on the nature oftheir political institutions and how power is distributed. In 1962, the AmericanAnthropologist Elman Service observed in his seminal book, Primitive SocialOrganization, that as the size of a society's population and territory grow, itrequires new kinds of political leaders and organizations in order to solve theinevitable societal problems inherent in population growth and to avoidsplitting into separate societies. He referred to these different kinds of politicalsolutions as levels of political integration. He described four levels thathave been found around the world--band, tribe, chiefdom, and state. Whilethere are unique cultural variations of each of these levels, they are

substantially alike from one society to another. Subsequently, classifying asociety in terms of its level of political integration has proven to be anotheruseful tool in comprehending the wide range of human cultures and societiesfrom small foraging communities to modern nation states. The next twosections of this tutorial explore the nature of bands, tribes, chiefdoms, andstates.
http://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#subsistence_patternhttp://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#subsistence_patternhttp://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#subsistence_patternhttp://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#foragershttp://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#foragershttp://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#foragershttp://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#pastoralistshttp://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#pastoralistshttp://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#pastoralistshttp://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#horticulturalistshttp://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#horticulturalistshttp://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#horticulturalistshttp://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#intensive_agriculturehttp://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#intensive_agriculturehttp://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#intensive_agriculturehttp://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#intensive_agriculturehttp://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#horticulturalistshttp://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#pastoralistshttp://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#foragershttp://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#subsistence_patternhttp://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#subsistence_pattern


6/20

6

Bands and TribesThe simplest political systems are found in bands and tribes. To the casual

observer from the outside, these kinds of societies do not seem to haveleaders in the sense that we commonly expect. Political power is essentiallydiffused throughout the society. Subsequently, they have been referred to as

being acephalous (Greek for "without a head").Bands

Bands have been found primarily among foragers, especially self-sufficientpedestrian foragers. The total number of people within thesesocieties rarely exceeds a few dozen. Bands are essentially associations offamilies living together. They are loosely allied by marriage,descent,friendship, and common interest. The primary integrating mechanism forthese societies iskinship. Bands are extremely egalitarian--all families areessentially equal. There is no economic class differentiation. However, thereare often clear status differences based on gender and age.There is a horizontal status and power relationship in bands between alladults of the same gender. They are more or less equal as far as communitydecision making is concerned. However, some individuals in a band stand out

for their skills and knowledge. These often are the people who have the bestmemories, are the best hunters, most successful curers, most gifted speakers,or have some other special ability. Such people become informal leaders.Most often they are given authority by community consensus arrived atthrough casual discussion without the need for a formal vote. This is possiblebecause the entire society is small and everyone knows everyone elseintimately as a result of living and working together throughout their lives.Band leaders generally have temporary political power at best, and they donot have any significant authority relative to other adults. They can giveadvice and propose action, but they do not have the formal authority to force

others to accept their decisions.
http://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#pedestrian_foragershttp://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#pedestrian_foragershttp://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#pedestrian_foragershttp://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#descenthttp://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#descenthttp://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#descenthttp://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#kinshiphttp://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#kinshiphttp://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#kinshiphttp://anthro.palomar.edu/political/sounds/acephalous.mp3http://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#kinshiphttp://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#descenthttp://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#pedestrian_foragers


7/20

7

The principle goal of politics in most bands is making surethat people get along with each other. This is not easy givenhuman nature. There is always the potential for socialdisruption brought about by individuals failing to share food,sexual competition for the same mate, or other personalconflicts. Given the small size of bands and the fact thateveryone is involved in the lives of everyone else, quarrelsquickly become community problems that have the potentialfor splitting the band along family lines. In fact, bandfissioning apparently has been a common occurrence. As the number ofpeople in a society increases, the potential for disruptive interpersonalconflicts inevitably rises. Subsequently, the likelihood of families deciding toleave and form their own bands increases. Richard Lee has referred to this

process associal velocity. He observed that among the ju/'hoansi of

southwest Africa, fissioning often occurred before a community reached thefull carrying capacity of the environment. In other words, it was not foodscarcity but, rather, social discord that was the cause of the break-up.Typically, there is no leadership position in bands that has the authority toconclusively settle disputes, punish criminals, prevent families from leaving, orrepresent the entire community in dealings with outsiders. Decisions aremade by community consensus, but people who don't agree with theconsensus generally do not have to accept it. During the late 19th century,this highly democratic diffused political system of bands made it difficult for the

U.S. government to create binding treaties with some Native Americansocieties in the West. It was naively assumed by the federal government thatwhen "spokesmen" for a band agreed to a treaty that it legally bound allmembers of their society to its terms. From the perspective of the bandmembers, it really only obligated those specific individuals who agreed to thetreaty. If others in the band failed to follow the terms of the agreement, thefederal government assumed that they were going back on a legalagreement. This cultural misunderstanding on both sides was theconsequence of having radically different kinds of political systems as well asprofoundethnocentrism.Ethnographicaccounts suggest that the political power and status of womenin many pedestrian foraging bands was surprisingly high, especially comparedto pastoralist and agricultural societies. Since forager women in all but thecold polar regions usually provided most of the food calories consumed, theyperformed economically critical roles for their families and society as a whole.Men generally hunted for meat. This was often the most desirable but usually
http://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#social_velocityhttp://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#social_velocityhttp://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#social_velocityhttp://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#ethnocentrismhttp://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#ethnocentrismhttp://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#ethnocentrismhttp://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#ethnographyhttp://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#ethnographyhttp://anthro.palomar.edu/political/sounds/Ju_hoansi.mp3http://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#ethnographyhttp://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#ethnocentrismhttp://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#social_velocity


8/20

8

the least dependable food source. The central economic role for women inproviding vegetable foods, along with traditions of diffused political power inbands, allowed women to voice their opinions at important communitymeetings. Clearly, women in some types of foraging societies hadsignificantly less political clout. The status and authority of womeninaquaticandequestrian foragingsocieties was usually far lower than that ofmen. This may be due to the fact that men generally provided most of thefood in these societies that depended on meat as their principal source ofcalories. In addition, the passionate military focus of equestrian foragingsocieties put men in a position to dominate political decision making.No band level societies survive today with their traditional form of politicalorganization intact. However, they did until the last half of the 19th century inout-of-the-way regions of northern Siberia, the desert and sub-arctic regionsof North America and Greenland, the tropical lowlands of Central and SouthAmerica, the Australian desert interior and tropical north, as well as a fewisolated areas of Southeast Asia. While it is easy to think of these people andtheir traditional way of life in the past as oddities, it is important to keep inmind that the distant ancestors of all people on earth lived in bands at onetime. Before the end of the last ice age, around 10,000 years ago, it is likelythat very few societies had more complex levels of political integration.Membersof anInuitband innorthernCanadaduringthelate 19thcentury

TribesA tribe is a somewhat more complex type of acephalous society than a band.As the population size increases with a shift in subsistence pattern fromforaging to horticulture or pastoralism, it eventually reaches a point at whichkinship ties and friendship are no longer sufficient to hold society together.This is especially the case when there are hundreds of people and multiplecommunities. Tribes also are characteristic of some large equestrian and rich
http://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#aquatic_foraginghttp://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#aquatic_foraginghttp://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#aquatic_foraginghttp://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#equestrian_foraginghttp://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#equestrian_foraginghttp://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#equestrian_foraginghttp://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#aquatic_foraging


9/20

9

aquatic foraging societies. Regardless of the subsistence base, new forms ofsocietal integration become a necessity in tribes to settle disputes and preventthe society from disintegrating.The new integrative mechanisms of tribes are referred to by anthropologists

as pantribal associations or sodalities. These are groups that cross-cut thesociety by bringing together a limited number of people, typically at least onefrom each family. Pantribal associations often are in the form of councils,groups of elder men or women who are members of the sameage set, warriorsocieties, religious cults, or secret societies. While these groups have specificpurposes, they also serve to create order and a sense of unity for a tribe. Anequestrianforagingtribe of

Indians ontheplains ofwesternCanadaduring thelate 19thcentury

A temporary camp for part of the tribe A pantribal association of elder men in thetribe who met to discuss important issuesaffecting their tribe(the man kneeling second from the left in the frontrow is a non-Indian government agent)

In a number of tribal societies of New Guinea, all men traditionally livedtogether communally in a "big house," while women lived with their daughtersand young sons in their own individual houses close to the gardens wherethey farmed. Older boys went through an initiation ceremony in order tobecome a man, move into the "big house", and learn the religious secrets kept
http://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#age_setshttp://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#age_setshttp://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#age_setshttp://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#age_sets


10/20

10

by men. In these societies, men made the important political decisions. Thegroup of men living in the big house acted as the pantribal association thatcross-cut society. Even in New Guinea societies that did not have a traditionof "big houses", the important pantribal associations were most often made upof men as they are in most tribal societies. Subsequently, men had morepolitical power and prestige than women.Manysocietiesin NewGuineaweretraditionally dividedintosocialgroups

based ongenderand age

Men formed a pantribal association thatheldmost of the political power in their society

Women and young children were largelyexcluded from political decision making

Tribes commonly have village headmen who perform leadership roles, butthese individuals have relatively limited authority. Political power stemslargely from their senior position within kin groups and their ability to persuadeor harangue others into doing what they want. In New Guinea and many ofthe neighboring islands ofMelanesia, these leaders are called "big men." Inthe past, there often were competing "big men" who vied with each other forstatus and nominal authority over a number of villages. They worked foryears to accumulate pigs and other items of high value in order to give themaway in large, very public formal ceremonies. This functioned to not onlyenhance their status and political influence but to alsoredistributewealthwithin their societies. A similar ritualized economic redistribution was

orchestrated by the leading men among the Kwakiutl and some other richfishing societies on the northwest coast of North America. Their principle goalwas also to increase their status and power.
http://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#Melanesiahttp://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#Melanesiahttp://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#Melanesiahttp://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#redistributionhttp://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#redistributionhttp://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#redistributionhttp://anthro.palomar.edu/political/sounds/Kwakiutl.mp3http://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#redistributionhttp://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#Melanesia


11/20

11

"Big man" officiatingat a pig give-away

ceremony in PapuaNew Guinea

Like bands, most tribal societies are still essentially egalitarian in that no onefamily or residential group is politically or economically superior to others. Allfamilies are basically alike, including those of the headmen. They are for themost part self-sufficient in regards to food and other basic necessities.

However, tribes differ from bands in the way that they are integrated. Theyare also larger societies.Tribal societies have suffered the same consequence of contact with thelarge-scale societies. There no longer are any tribes that have been able tomaintain their traditional political systems unaltered by outside influences.

The next section of this tutorial describes societies that eventually departedfrom the age-old egalitarian systems of bands and tribes and developedchiefdoms and states. These were political systems that had progressively

more centralization of power.

NOTE: Native American societies have been commonly referred to as tribes.They have been lumped into this category without regard to their actual levelof political integration. In western North America and the sub-arctic north,they most often had bands. This was especially true in the desert regionswhere population densities were low. Tribes were common among theagricultural peoples of the Southwest (Pueblo Indians). In the eastern

woodlands, tribes and more complex chiefdoms were widespread. During the20th century, Native American societies throughout the U.S. changed theirpolitical systems to what are now usually referred to as "tribes." However,these new political systems generally reflect more the European concept ofrepresentative democracies with written charters, elected tribal chairmen, andcouncils. The same kinds of political changes occurred among the indigenouspopulations of Canada, but there they are referred to as "first nations."


12/20

12

Chiefdoms and States

Some horticultural societies of the past developed more intensive agriculturalsubsistence patterns when their populations grew into the thousands. As thisinterrelated economic and populational transition occurred, they were forcedto create a new level of political integration in order to maintain unity andorder. This was the chiefdom and ultimately the state. This marks thebeginning of centralized, fulltime leadership and nonegalitarian societies.Before examining the nature of chiefdoms and states, it is important to keep inmind that the political systems in many societies do not clearly fit eithercategory completely. They are essentially in transition from tribes to

chiefdoms or from chiefdoms to states.

ChiefdomsChiefdoms are similar tobandsandtribesin being mostlyclassless societies. However, chiefdoms differ in having amore or less permanent, fulltime leader with real authorityto make major decisions for their societies. These leadersare usually referred to by anthropologists as chiefs.Sometimes there is an advisory council as well, but thereis nobureaucracyof professional administrators. Thegovernment is essentially just the chief. Some of the moreadvanced chiefdoms in Africa are an exception in that theyhave a paramount chief and lesser chiefs who perform

administrative functions. The Baganda and

Bunyoro of Uganda are examples of this. Thechiefdoms of ancient Hawaii and elsewhere inPolynesiawere similar in havingseveral levels of chiefs. Chiefdoms also are known historically from Europe,Asia, the southeastern United States, the Caribbean islands, Panama,

Colombia, and the Amazon Basin of Brazil.Seniority in kin groups is usually the primary basis for individual status withinchiefdoms. The chief is at the top of the kinship hierarchy. Other people arecommonly ranked in terms of their genealogical distance from the chief.Subsequently, there is a keen interest in maintaining records ofdescentfromimportant family ancestors.

Fanti chief from Ghanain ceremonial regalia
http://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#bandhttp://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#bandhttp://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#bandhttp://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#tribehttp://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#tribehttp://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#tribehttp://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#bureaucracyhttp://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#bureaucracyhttp://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#bureaucracyhttp://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#Polynesiahttp://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#Polynesiahttp://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#descenthttp://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#descenthttp://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#descenthttp://anthro.palomar.edu/political/sounds/Bunyoro.mp3http://anthro.palomar.edu/political/sounds/Baganda.mp3http://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#descenthttp://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#Polynesiahttp://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#bureaucracyhttp://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#tribehttp://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#band


13/20

13

Chiefs and their families generally have a higher standard of living thanordinary people. What makes this possible is that chiefs usually perform asociety-wide economicredistributionfunction that, in some cases, is cloakedin the guise of ritual gift giving. This essentially siphons off surplus agriculturalproducts from farmers and then redistributes them throughout the society. Inthe process, a small amount is held back in order to support the chief's morelavish lifestyle. The ritualized redistribution of surplus food and othercommodities in chiefdoms is, in a sense, the rudimentary beginnings of ataxation system. It is probably tolerated by people because of the economicadvantages that it can provide in addition to social stability. The largerterritorial size of chiefdoms often encompasses diverse environmental zoneswith somewhat different products. The redistribution of surpluses can serveas a method of providing security in times of crop failures as well as greaterfood variety for the populace as a whole. For instance, a farmer may give upsome of his crop but get different kinds of food in return along with enhancedstatus.The larger populations of chiefdoms generally means that the people haveless in common than do those in the smaller societies of bands and tribes.Disputes inevitably arise that cannot be settled by informal means based onkinship and friendship. A chief usually functions as an arbitrator and judge inthese cases. In some of the kingdoms of West Africa, the paramount chiefsstill today "license" official truth testers to deal with contradictory testimony inlegal cases. They often use an ordeal to determine the truth. In the hot knife

ordeal, only someone telling the truth is thought to not be burned when a redhot knife blade is stroked across his leg.An important advantage that chiefdoms have over band and tribal levelsocieties when conflicts arise between them is that chiefdoms are usuallymore effective in warfare. This is due to the fact that chiefdoms have twoimportant advantages. They have larger populations so they can assemblelarger military forces. In addition, the chief can provide centralized directionwhich potentially allows more decisive action. Some chiefdoms in Western

South America had in excess of 100,000 people. The Chibcha of

Colombia was one of them. They became a militarily powerful force in themountain regions that made up their homeland.Once functioning, the position of the chief usually becomes essential to thefunctioning of society. Chiefdoms cannot go back to a tribal level unless theirpopulation drops significantly.
http://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#redistributionhttp://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#redistributionhttp://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#redistributionhttp://anthro.palomar.edu/political/sounds/Chibcha.mp3http://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#redistribution


14/20

14

StatesState level political systems first appeared in societies with large-scaleintensive agriculture. They began as chiefdoms and then evolved into more

centralized, authoritarian kingdoms when their populations grew into tens ofthousands of people. While chiefdoms are societies in which everyone isranked relative to the chief, states are socially stratified into largely distinctclasses in terms of wealth, power, and prestige.Around 5,500 years ago, the early kingdoms of Ancient Egypt andMesopotamia (now Iraq) developed such state levels of political integration.Shortly thereafter, states evolved in the Indian subcontinent and China. By4,500 years ago, states were developing in Mesoamerica and the centralAndean mountain region of western South America. The early states in these

six regions became the well known ancient civilizations.

Regions of ancient state political systems that evolved into complex civilizationsWhile these six centers of early civilization had major cultural and historicaldifferences, they created remarkably similar political solutions for dealing with

the problems of feeding and controlling large complex societies. These newpolitical systems had a pyramid of authority with a small hereditary elite classat the top headed by a king and royal family. At the bottom were thecommoners who were the bulk of society. They were mostly the foodproducing farmers upon whom the entire society ultimately depended. Inbetween was a small middle class consisting of two groups. First, there wereprofessional craftsmen and traders who mainly produced or acquired luxury


15/20

15

items for the elite. Second, there were professional bureaucrats whoadministered the state religion and government on a daily basis.

Pyramid of power in ancient states

As independent kingdoms within each of the geographic regions of the ancientcivilization competed for land, water, and other important resources, warfarebecame more frequent and larger in scale. Professional armies were created

along with more efficient weapons. In theOld World, these included horsedrawn chariots, war ships, and metal swords, arrow, and spear tips. Theconsequence of these wars of conquest was powerful kingdoms destroyingand annexing weaker ones. Eventually the victors ruled enormous multi-city,multi-cultural, and multi-language empires with millions of people living overvast areas. These super-states required even more centralization of authorityand larger permanent armies.Professionalarmies

have alwaysbeenimportant toolsofrule in ancientandmodern states

Ancient Egyptian army in battle Modern national armyAll of the ancient civilizations were preindustrial agricultural societies with themajority of their populations living in hamlets and small villages. Most of these

essentially rural societies only had one or a few small cities of about 5,000-50,000 people. These urban areas were primarily centers for the elite rulingclass along with the state government bureaucracy and the majority of thefulltime craft specialists and traders who worked for them. In addition, citieswere the locations of major temples of the state religions. At the top of thereligious, political, and military hierarchies were key members of the rulingelite. There was not the separation of church and state that is characteristic of
http://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#Old_Worldhttp://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#Old_Worldhttp://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#Old_Worldhttp://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#Old_World


16/20

16

the U. S. and many other large nation states today. For instance, a princecould serve as an army general, a province governor, and a head priest at thesame time. This was not viewed as a conflict ofinterest.Ancient states were far from being egalitarian. Therewere a few rich, politically powerful people and manymore comparatively poor commoners who had littlepolitical influence and almost no possibility of acquiringit. As single-city kingdoms became multi-city empireswith vast territories, the political systems generallybecame more rigid. Not uncommonly, the ruler becamea god-king with absolute authority. The Pharaohs ofEgypt are a prime example of this. They were thoughtto be not just mortals but god-kings. As living gods,their authority was absolute.Most ancient states had slavery. The conquest of competitor states usuallyprovided most of them. Slaves were not always at the bottom of the pyramidof power in these societies. In Egypt and Mesopotamia, women slaves wereoften integrated into the households of wealthy, powerful men as servants andconcubines. Slave children fathered by their owner sometimes acquiredfreedom and far higher status, wealth, and power than that of commoners.

NOTE: It is a common misconception that slavery no longer exists in theworld today. Despite the fact that it is now illegal in all nations, the institutionof slavery continues in the third world and even in modern industrializednations in various forms. Millions of people are still being bought and sold,forced to work, physically constrained, and threatened with abuse if they don'tcomply with the wishes of their owners. At least 20 million people are "bondlaborers" who must work long hours at unpleasant jobs for the person to

whom they are financially indebted. In India and some other parts of SouthAsia, people often work their entire lives and fail to pay off their debt. It ispassed on to the next generation. Their children continue as de facto slavesunder this system without a realistic hope of escape. There is massivetrafficking of Eastern European, African, and South Asian women and childrenwho are tricked into emigrating "to better their lives" only to end up as unpaidservants or prostitutes. More traditional forms of slavery have also continued

Ancient Egyptians believedtheir pharaohs were gods


17/20

17

into the 21st century. In Sudan and some other parts of Africa, people arekidnapped from their homes to become life-long slaves, transported to othercountries, bought, sold, inherited, and even given as gifts. Astonishingly, theprice of these African slaves is now significantly cheaper than it was in theUnited States prior to the Civil War of the 1860's.To learn more about slavery today, visit the following websites:21st-CenturySlaves,Anti-slavery International, andiAbolish. For a map showing thenumber of slaves coming into and going out of each country in the world see:"The Social Psychology of Modern Slavery" by Kevin Bales, ScientificAmerican, April 2002.

Why Did We Give Up Bands?The transition from acephalous bands and tribes to chiefdoms and finallystates mostly began after the end of the last ice age, 8,000-10,000 years ago.Archaeologists and historians have wondered why this occurred. After all, ourancestors had lived for hundreds of thousands of years as foragers. Theymost likely had band and tribal level societies over this vast amount of time. Itwould seem illogical to give up a successful egalitarian way of life for social,political, and economic inequality. A persuasive explanation is that thispolitical and social transition was unavoidable given economic choices thatwere being made by our ancestors in response to major environmentalchanges and growing population pressure.The dramatically altered climate at the end of the last ice age was largelyresponsible for the disappearance of many large mammal species thathumans hunted at the time. In some regions, the animals became extinct andin others they were reduced in numbers to the point that they were no longer adependable source of food. Human over-exploitation may have been acontributing factor as well. At the same time, vast lowland areas were being

flooded by sea levels rising 300-400 feet as a consequence of massivecontinental glaciers melting. These changes did not occur over night. Theclimate had been warming for several thousand years. Unfortunately for ourancestors, all of these changes were occurring at the same time that thehuman population was growing.

Our ancestors were faced with a dilemma. Where could food be found to feedthe ever larger number of mouths? In the arid river valleys that were to
http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0309/feature1/http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0309/feature1/http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0309/feature1/http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0309/feature1/http://www.antislavery.org/http://www.antislavery.org/http://www.antislavery.org/http://www.iabolish.com/index.htmlhttp://www.iabolish.com/index.htmlhttp://www.iabolish.com/index.htmlhttp://www.iabolish.com/index.htmlhttp://www.antislavery.org/http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0309/feature1/http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0309/feature1/


18/20

18

become the centers of the majority of ancient civilizations, this crisis wasprobably the most acute. The first response was to shift the focus of foragingto small game and wild plant foods, especiallycereals. This was a stop-gapsolution that allowed human populations to continue growing. Inevitably, plantand animal domestication were necessary to increase the food supply andmake it more dependable. Horticulture and pastoralism were successful aslong as the population density did not increase much. However, many ofthese societies continued to get bigger. Chiefdoms became a commonsolution to the problem of continued societal growth. The next evolutionarystep was the development of intensive agriculture. This made the creation ofthe ancient states almost inevitable.

Why Did We Develop States?A number of theories have been suggested to explain why states appeared.Most of them are what have been called "prime mover" theories. That is, theyassume that there is a single key factor responsible for state formation. Themost well known ones are the voluntaristic theory , the hydraulic theory, andthe coercive theory. All three attempt to summarize the primary forces thatwere responsible for state formation in most, if not all, of the early civilizations.In 1936, the British archaeologist V. Gordon Childe first proposedthe voluntaristic theory. This assumed that people made rational economicdecisions that led them inevitably to develop the first states. Childe suggested

that food surpluses created by early agriculture allowed some individuals tospend increasing time in developing more sophisticated weaving, pottery, andother manufactured products, while some others became full-time traders todistribute surplus food and luxury items. Markets appeared to facilitate tradeand some individuals became wealthier than others. In order for this tohappen the strong social pressure of the earlier egalitarian societies thatforced people to share had to be replaced by the acceptance of individualsaccumulating wealth. These changes created the need to develop newpolitical solutions to the problem of mediating the differences between thevarious occupational and economic groups within society. A more centralizedand less democratic political system was the outcome of this process in mostcases. According to Childe, informed self-interest led people to accept thenew political organization.During the 1950's, the German historian Karl Wittfogel and the Americanarchaeologist Julian Steward created an ecological explanation for stateformation that has come to be known as the hydraulic theory. This proposed
http://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#cerealshttp://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#cerealshttp://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#cerealshttp://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#cereals


19/20

19

that state level political systems arose out of the need to construct andmanage large-scale irrigation systems necessary for intensive agriculturewithin arid river valleys. Elaborate irrigation systems required leadership toorganize the labor needed for this purpose. Wittfogel and Steward arguedthat once that leadership had come into existence, local control wouldincreasingly pass to a permanent centralized ruling class. That elite classwould be able to control farmers by denying water to those who resisted theirauthority.In 1970, the American anthropologist Robert Carneiro developed the coercivetheory of state formation. This proposed that states developed as a means ofmobilizing armies to conquer competitive neighboring peoples. Carneirosuggested that increasing population pressure in early agricultural societieswould have resulted in intensive competition with other societies for scarceresources such as land, water, salt, and wood. This would have triggeredwars of conquest. Centralized state governments would have developed tomobilize and direct armies. According to Carneiro, those armies wouldcontinue to exist as tools for controlling conquered peoples, collectingtribute,and allocating resources.All three of these prime mover theories of state formation have merit. Eachone describes a piece of the puzzle. It is probably more realistic to think ofthe evolution of ancient states as having multiple causes that were intertwinedwith the unique set of environmental, social, and historical circumstances ofeach region. Just such a multi-cause explanation was proposed by theAmerican archaeologist Robert Adams in the 1960's for the origin andevolution of early states in Mesopotamia. He observed that changes in asociety, its culture, and the environment are always interrelated in complexways like the organs of a human body. Different developments in evolvingstates would have triggered further developments which in turn would haveaffected the direction and rate of the initial developments. Eventually, someemerging states in Mesopotamia were more successful than others. Adamssuggested that was usually because they had better resource bases and wereable to control agricultural production over larger areas. This in turn gave

them advantages in waging war. Once they began conquering their neighbors,they would have gotten tribute from the defeated states which would havereinforced the advantages of the successful conquerors. Adams suggestedthat all of these changes were inevitable due to the continued growth of thehuman populations.

Nation States Today
http://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#tributehttp://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#tributehttp://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#tributehttp://anthro.palomar.edu/political/glossary.htm#tribute


20/20

20

Modern nation states ultimately replaced kingdoms and empires ruled by royaldynasties. However, there remain many crucial similarities. Nations todaystill are marked by social, political, and economic inequality. There is povertyfor some while others are rich. Social mobility between classes is generallymuch easier now, but there remains a pyramid shaped distribution ofeconomic and political power in all modern nations. Hereditary rulers havebeen almost entirely replaced by democratically elected leaders. However,those elected politicians still are at the top of the pyramid of power. Onemajor difference between ancient and modern states is that the latter have farlarger permanent bureaucracies. Their political power is centered in cities thatdwarf most of those in the early states.

Important seats of power in a modern nation state--buildings for the head of state (ruler), legislature,and

government bureaucrats (White House, Capitol Building, and government offices in WashingtonD.C.)

The FutureWhile the ancient civilizations are long gone, the process that led ourancestors from small acephalous societies to chiefdoms and states did notstop. The world human population keeps on growing and most of oursocieties are becoming progressively more complex and interconnectedglobally. We constantly need to produce more food, fiber, and other materialsin order to satisfy the growing demand generated by the additional peopleeach year. Over the 21st century, much of the world very likely will facesevere shortages, including those of food (especially protein rich meat),

drinking water, arable land, and petroleum based fuels. We will be forced tobe ever more creative in using them efficiently and to make hard decisionsabout their distribution in society. Those decisions probably will involve newpolitical solutions in addition to technological ones.

political organization 10

Documents