As the case stands, we have two objectives:
1.) Defining and explaining the general transition from "tribe" to "chiefdom."
2.) Assessing whether or not the Kuikuru group in the Upper Xingu (UX) region of
Already after this past week's readings and discussion with Dr. Carneiro, we need to modify the second point. Currently, (as well as in the 1950s when Dr. Carneiro launched the first intensive fieldwork undertaking with this group) the Kuikuru do not comprise a chiefdom based on a virtually undisputed quality of chiefdoms: a large population. Indeed, chiefdoms generally range between 1,000 and 3,000 inhabitants. The current Kuikuru group has maybe 30. "Tribe."
That revelation might seem to deflate our entire investigation--but it doesn't! It only makes our detective work more interesting. You see, the major work that we'll be considering in this investigation, Mike Heckenberger's The Ecology of Power, is a recount and analysis of Heckenberger's recent archaeological findings when he conducted fieldwork in the UX. I'm a little over a third of the way through his book (page 134 out of 347--not bad, right?) and already I have come across several instances in the text where Heckenberger introduces archaeological evidence that, he explains, suggests a civilization that was far larger and more complex than that in which the Kuikuru are currently participating. So really, then, our second point of inquiry becomes:
2.) Assessing whether or not the social organization of the ancient Kuikuru group can be described as a chiefdom.
OK! Now that that's cleared up, let's revisit the first point, because I sure have learned a lot about that! (For convenience's sake, let's put important pieces of information in this color.)
The first definition of a chiefdom comes from Kalervo Oberg in 1955--multiple villages united under the leader of one chief (484). The articles by Dr. Carneiro are very helpful in further defining what exactly we should consider as indicative of a chiefdom. In his "What Happened at the Flashpoint?" article, the "flashpoint" refers to that period of transition between "Tribe" and "Chiefdom." He points out that chiefdom have evolved independently of each other in countries across the globe, so there must be some common basic factors, right? We have already discussed the importance of population in the differentiation between "tribe" and "chiefdom"--in a "chiefdom," we're looking at a median of 1,000 to 3,000 inhabitants. With a group this large, then, it would not be out-of-the-question for some sort of social structure to emerge. And indeed, Dr. Carneiro, along with many other prominent anthropologists (especially Morton Fried) have cited the presence of ranking as an "all-but-universal feature of the chiefdom" ("Flashpoint" 20). Now, it is in this article that Dr. Carneiro most fully addresses the role of ranking in chiefdoms, and he posits that any initial ranking system is most likely derived from a person's contribution in establishing the chiefdom (also page 20). Which makes sense. I mean, it's only logical that if someone really pulls all the stops to organize a functional chiefdom, their inputs are viewed as slightly more important when it comes to making group decisions.
OK, so initial chiefs or those who hold a lot of sway are going to be those who took the most action in forming the chiefdom. But...what kind of action would that be?
Let's investigate the written sources even further. Almost 30 years before he emphasized this hierarchy in his "Flashpoint" article, Dr. Carneiro, in "A Theory of the Origin of the State," made a connection between expansion efforts and the need for war-savy leaders--perhaps those very same leaders that would yield great contributions to the founding of the chiefdom! When a group grows, it is necessarily both a physical growth in the population as well as a growth in spatial occupation--more people means more space needed! And we can only imagine the dog-eat-dog world that must emerge if several neighboring groups are trying to expand around the same type. After all, there's only so much space!
Or is there? Both the "State" and "Flashpoint" articles call for an extra-careful consideration of the surrounding environment of the group in question. In this area, there are three factors to consider: Environment Circumscription, Resource Concentration, and Social Conscription.
Environment Circumscription refers to a limit of suitable land for settlement. Theoretically, if there is high environment circumscription there wouldn't really be enough land to go around, and if you had a bunch of groups with burgeoning populations trying to acquire more and more land to accommodate everyone, things would get ugly. However, as Dr. Carneiro explains on page 735 of the "State" article, in the UX, virtually all the land is agriculturally friendly, and there is enough space for the villages to be numerous, yet widely dispersed. So there shouldn't have been much competition...unless we consider the second factor.
Resource Concentration refers to, well, the concentration of resources in an area. Like hitting the agricultual jackpot! Because let's face it, not all the land is equally fertile, and the good stuff is worth fighting for...literally. This goes hand-in-hand with the third and last phenomena:
Population Conscription refers to how densely packed people are in a region. In areas of high resource concentration, there will logically be more people. Flock to the good stuff, right? Then, as competitions for space on this choice land emerge between these separate groups, battles break out. Eventually, someone wins, and someone loses, and the land rights have been decided (at least for the moment!) In some cases, Dr. Carneiro points out, the losers might retreat altogether and forfeit any presence on the land. But sometimes the resources might be so appealing that the losing group would be forced the forfeit their autonomy and accept the leadership of the winning group.
To arrive at the point where groups would need to battle each other for space, they would probably already be large. That's part of what the "population conscription" theory implies (chiefdom vs. chiefdom, as opposed to a bunch of small tribes squabbling over an area--working out some sort of peace in that instance would be highly unlikely.) And this is where the ranking component comes in: There would be leaders (or at the very least a chief) to guide the war efforts, so already social distinctions would be made. But where in the social structure do the people that belonged to the losing group fit? It is hard to imagine that even the Average Joes of the winning group would consider themselves on the same level as those in the group that their warriors just dominated. No, a lower rung would need to be added, especially if prisoners of war were used as slaves and exploited for labor. Thus, the ranking system would expand.
The chiefdom we have just constructed is a basic one: In response to competition for the best land and resources, one group will rise above and secure its position of titleship. It's population will be free to further expand, and if the winning group didn't feature a cluster of villages over which one leader held power, it sure would now! This is a hypothesis that is very much in line with the first of the two camps of thought that I addressed in the previous post. Heckenberger adopts the other side, arguing against environmental determinism in favor of a more spiritually driven evolution. Quoting Turner, another anthropologist of this persuasion, asserts that "political power is always dependent on ritual" (26). Furthermore, while he, like Dr. Carneiro, strongly acknowledges a basic ranking system of at least chief/commoner, he argues that the power that the leaders have is based on "sacred authority" (72)--a nod from the gods, if you will. And while this may be the case, one has to wonder why certain gods were made important, and what criteria they might use to select the leaders. I would hypothesize that these higher spiritual beings are particularly important because of the strength they yield during times of great trial. The most crucial of which, I would further hypothesize, would be instances of war, whether offensive or defensive. This will definitely be an area that we have to address if we want to make a strong case for the influence of war in prompting the rise of chiefdoms--the theory I am most in favor of. What did the gods mean to the early Kuikuru, and how could this be linked to their social evolution?
So, that's a lot of information to absorb! Let's take the night to let it sink in, and tomorrow we'll see how we can apply it to the UX in particular. I promise the next post will have lots of cool pictures so we can start visualizing how these theories actually play out! (As with everything, we have to cover the nitty-gritty theoretical bases before we can get to the fun application part, right?) A large portion of Heckenberger's book is dedicated to recounting his archaeological finds--just the kind of evidence we need to sort through these ideas!
Stay tuned, detectives!
Brief Bibliography
Carneiro, Robert L. "A Theory of the Origin of the State." Science. 169. 21 Aug 1970. 733-738.
Carneiro, Robert L. "Godzilla Meets New Age Anthropology: Facing the Post-Modernist Challenge to a Science of Culture." Europaea. Ed. Giulio Angioni.
Carneiro, Robert L. "The Nature of the Chiefdom as Revealed by Evidence from the
Carneiro, Robert L. "What Happened at the Flashpoint?" Chiefdoms and Chieftancy in the
Heckenberger, Michael. The Ecology of Power. Routledge:
No comments:
Post a Comment