Making Sherlock Proud

The Case of the Chiefdom Challenge
in the Upper Xingu
     So as I mentioned in the previous post, my AMNH internship experience will take the form of a detective case!
Now, let's get some background information.

     The matter at hand is two-fold:
First, it concerns the historic difficulty in defining and explaining the transition to a chiefdom, from an anthropological perspective.
Second, it concerns the presence of a chiefdom among a group of people in particular:

the Kuikuru group, which inhabits the Upper Xingu region of the Brazilian Amazon.

     With regard to the first part of our mystery, we must consider the gray areas when it comes to understanding chiefdoms. The idea of a chiefdom was introduced in the mid 1900s by a social scientist named Kalervo Oberg. He proposed this term in 1955, basically outlining a "chiefdom" as a group of villages united under the leadership of one central ruler. Its population is usually around 2000 people, though this is by no means a make-it-or-break-it stipulation. The chiefdom buzz picked up, and in 1962 another social scientist, Elman Service, proposed that a chiefdom was actually the third of four stages of a social evolutionary sequence:

 Band --> Tribe --> Chiefdom --> State

 So we had more context for a chiefdom--great! But the sloth-like speed of theoretically outlining what comprises a chiefdom (at least among English-speaking social scientists; apparently well before we had even decided on what "chiefdom" would mean, there were already 3 different Spanish words to describe this same concept: señorio, casicazgo, and capitanío. And until a little over 50 years ago, the English language officially had none...right.) should been some indication of how tricky it would be to actually decide on what populations qualify as "chiefdoms." Because let me tell you, it seems to be pretty gosh darn difficult. Sure, for the most part everyone agrees that chiefdoms are a group of communities ruled by a central leader, but the real debate lies with Service's evolutionary sequence: WHY do chiefdoms emerge? What causes the progression from "tribe" to "chiefdom"?

 

     Especially tricky to understand is the fact that in order to progress to "chiefdom," multiple tribes would have to forfeit their autonomy in favor of being led by one ruler. That's like finally scoring a monopoly on, like, the best chocolate in the whole town and then giving it up to Mr. Willy Wonka wannabe in the next coutny over. I mean, no one would voluntarily do that--or would they? So here we are with chiefdoms: We've got these tribes, you know, chilling, and then later we've got chiefdoms. Now, the chiefdom process is by no means a quick one--some formations have been estimated as spanning a millenia! But what factors would guide this change?

     Anthropologists are staunchly divided into two camps with regard to this issue. On one side fall those who propose an impetus characterized by environmental features and warfare. The geography of a region might limit the amount of ideal agricultural land, and as populations increase, so too does the pressure to score acces to the prime real estate. Warfare ensues, the strongest prevails, and the losers--not being able to run away due to the already dense population and limited space--agree to let the winners be in charge. Chiefdom.
However, on the other side fall those who suggest that the transition was based more on voluntary submission, as opposed to coercion. They suggest that instead of giving so much weight to theories of environmental determinism, anthropologists should consider motives that are more based on the individuals as human beings. Ancestral heritage and a connection with the gods might have lead tribes to be more willing to submit to another ruler if this leader was viewed as being holier, or as having a direct "blessing" of governance from the gods.

     As you can imagine, there aren't a whole lot of obvious ways that the differences between these two sides can be reconciled, which means it's up to us! No pressure. What will help us make sense of this issue, (aside from reading what different anthropologists have to say about it which, believe me, I've already begun doing) is conducting a case study. That's where the second part of this case comes in--we're going to go (theoretically) right to the Kuikuru in the Upper Xingu (UX) and examine for ourselves the environment (to satisfy the first group) as well as the social culture (which also relates to the first camp as it regards to warfare, but will also hopefully placate the second group as we search for evidence of religious devotion).

     Conveniently enough, the curator who is supervising my research--Dr. Robert Carneiro--has conducted extensive fieldwork in the UX. He also happens to fall with the first group of anthropologists, so he has collected extensive details about--including photos of--the landscape of the UX region. One intriguing detail he came across in particular are the inexplicable presence of a pair of massive trenches. These gaping holes apparently span 12-15', and are just about as deep. They have been there for as long as the Kuikuru can remember, but no one has any recollection of how they came to be--among themselves, they attribute their creation to the god Fitsi-fitsi. "Natural formation" was ruled out because--get this--sharpened stakes were observed, vertically affixed to the bottom of the trenches. Nice, huh? Dr. Carneiro was able to examine them first-hand, as well as their context. He came up with two possible theories (in addition to the group's own Fitsifitsi explanation): 1) The trenches were a defensive tactic to assist the Kuikuru in warfare with enemy groups or wild indigenous peoples. 2) They were a trap for peccaries:

This area has a significant "infestation" problem with these piglike animals.

      They had an insatiable appetite for the manioc that the Kuikuru grow, and they would go as far as burrowing under fences that had been erected to keep the peccaries out to get to the crops. Once they had access to the manioc, they were like one-man eating machines and would just mow down the vegetation. Since manioc is a large part of the Kuikuru diet, this constant menace was, needless to say, of great concern.
But the problem remains that, as of yet, no evidence has been offered to support either of these theories. We'll see if we can help that!

     So I think that does it for the introduction to the case. Basically it comes down to this:
We know the Who: the Kuikuru; and we know the Where: the Upper Xingu region. But here's what remains a mystery:

Why do chiefdoms arise in general?

What factors prompt this social evolution, particularly in the case of the Kuikuru?

To what extent does the environment trigger the change?

How do tribes' spiritual orientations factor in?

How do we prove this?

And what in the world do those trenches mean?

     Dr. Carneiro has given me several of his articles to read to kick off this investigation, as well as a book that adopts the other side of this issue, the individual/spiritual perspective. I'll start reading these and we'll reconvene at the end of the week!