The Archaeology of Tribal Societies (Archaelogical Series 15)

224 Pages·2003·31.61 MB·English

by  William A. Parkinson

The Archaeology of Tribal
Societies
edited by
William A. Parkinson
INTERNATIONAL MONOGRAPHS
IN PREHISTORY
ArchaeologicalSeries 15
©2002 byInternationalMonographs in Prehistory Table ofContents
Allrights reserved
Printedin the United States ofAmerica
List ofContributors v
Allrights reserved
Preface andAcknowledgements vii
ISBN 1-879621-34-7 (Paperback) Part I - Theoretical Considerations
ISBN 1-879621-35-5 (LibraryBinding)
1. Introduction: Archaeology and Tribal Societies
WilliamA. Parkinson 1
2. From Social Type to Social Process: Placing'Tribe' in a Historical Framework
Severin M. Fowles 13
3. The TribalVillage and Its Culture: An Evolutionary Stage in the History ofHuman
Society
Robert L. Carneiro 34
Part II - Ethnographic and Ethnohistoric Perspectives
Library ofCongress Cataloging-in-PublicationData
4. The Long and the Short of a War Leader's Arena
The archaeology oftribal societies / edited byWilliam A.Parkinson. Elsa M. Redmond 53
p. em. -- (Archaeologicalseries ;15) 5. Inequality and Egalitarian Rebellion, a Tribal Dialecticin Tonga History
Includes bibliographical references. Severin M. Fowles 74
ISBN 1-879621-34-7 (pbk. :alk. paper) --ISBN 1-879621-35-5 (lib.bdg. :alk. paper) 6. The Dynamics ofEthnicityin Tribal Society: A Penobscot Case Study
1. Tribes. 2. Villages.3. Socialstructure--Cross-culturalstudies.4. Socialarchaeology. I.Parkinson,
Dean Snow 97
William A.II. Archaeological series (AnnArbor, Mich.);15.
7. Modelingthe Formation and Evolution of an Illyrian Tribal System: Ethnographic
GN492.5 .A73 2002
andArchaeologicalAnalogs
Michael Galaty 109
2002153770
CIP
Part III - Archaeological Perspectives from the NewWorld
8. Mobility and the Organization ofPrehispanic Southwest Communities
SarahA. Herr and JefferyJ. Clark 123
9. BuildingConsensus: Tribes, Architecture, and Typology in the American Southwest
MichaelAdler 155
10. FractalArchaeology: Intra-Generational Cycles and the Matter ofScale, an
Example from the Central Plains
Donald J. Blakeslee 173
11. Material Indicators ofTerritory, Identity, and Interaction in a Prehistoric Tribal
System
John M. O'Sheaand Claire McHale Milner 200
12. Hopewell Tribes: A Study ofMiddle Woodland Social Organization in the Ohio
Valley
Richard W. Yerkes 227
This bookis printed onacid-free paper.
00 13. The Evolution of Tribal Social Organization in the Southeastern United States
David G. Anderson 246
14. Mesoamerica's Tribal Foundations
International Monographs in Prehistory
John E. Clark and David Cheetham 278
P.O. Box1266
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106-1266
U.S.A. Continued on nextpage...
Table ofContents (Continued)
List ofContributors
Part IV - Archaeological Perspectives from the Old World
MichaelAdler DepartmentofAnthropology, SouthernMethodistUniversity,
15. Early Neolithic Tribes in the Levant Dallas TX75275-0336
Ofer Bar-Yosefand Daniella E. Bar-YosefMayer 340 David G.Anderson SoutheastArchaeological Center, NationalParkService,
16.A Neolithic Tribal Societyin Northern Poland Tallahassee, FL 30210
Peter Bogucki 372
OferBar-Yosef DepartmentofAnthropology, HarvardUniversity, Cambridge, MA
17. Some Aspects ofthe Social Organization ofthe LBK ofBelgium
02138
Lawrence H. Keeley 384
DaniellaE. Bar-YosefMayer PeabodyMuseum, HarvardUniversity, Cambridge, MA02138
18. Integration, Interaction, andTribal 'Cycling': The Transition to the CopperAge
on the Great Hungarian Plain DonaldJ. Blakeslee DepartmentofAnthropology, Wichita StateUniversity, Wichita,
WilliamA. Parkinson 391 KS 67260
PeterBogucki School ofEngineeringandApplied Science, PrincetonUniversity,
Princeton, NJ08544
Robert L. Carneiro Division ofAnthropology, American Museum ofNaturalHistory,
New York, NY 10024
David Cheetham Department ofAnthropology, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ
85287
JefferyJ. Clark Centerfor DesertArchaeology, Tucson, AZ85705
JohnE. Clark Department ofAnthropology, BrighamYoungUniversity, Provo,
UT 84602
SeverinM. Fowles Department ofAnthropology, UniversityofMichigan,AnnArbor,
MI48109
Michael Galaty Department ofSociology andAnthropology, Millsaps College,
Jackson, MS 39210
SarahA. Herr DesertArchaeology, Inc., Tucson, AZ85716
LawrenceH. Keeley Department ofAnthropology, UniversityofIllinois at Chicago,
ChicagoIL 60607
Claire McHale Milner Department ofAnthropology, The PennsylvaniaStateUniversity,
UniversityPark, PA 16802
John M. O'Shea Department ofAnthropology, UniversityofMichigan,AnnArbor,
MI48109
WilliamA. Parkinson Department ofAnthropology, FloridaStateUniversity,
Tallahassee, FL 32306
ElsaM. Redmond Division ofAnthropology, American MuseumofNatural History,
New York, NY 10024
DeanSnow Department ofAnthropology, The PennsylvaniaStateUniversity,
UniversityPark, PA 16802
Richard W.Yerkes Department ofAnthropology, Ohio StateUniversity, Columbus,
OH43210
v
Preface and Acknowledgements
In 1877, Lewis HenryMorgan made the insightful observation that "It is difficult to describe an
Indiantribebytheaffirmativeelementsofitscomposition."AsIsendoffthisvolumetothepress,Ihave
.
/ a verygoodidea ofwhat he was writingabout.
The'germsofthought'thatinspiredthispublicationweresownduringagraduateseminaronScale
andBoundariesinMiddle-RangeSocietiestaughtbyRobertWhallonandJohnO'SheaattheUniversity
ofMichiganin1997.Severalofthetheoreticalconceptsthatwerediscussedanddevelopedinthatclass
provided the initial impetus for writing this book on tribal societies, as well as several other
publications, Ph.D. dissertations, and'preliminarypapers.'I personallyowe a greatdealofgratitude
to everyonewho participatedinthatseminarnotonlyfortheopportunityto exchangeideaswiththem
inthehallsoftheMuseumofAnthropologyandattheBrownJug,butalso forthecollegialsupportthey
have providedme overthe years.
Likemostgoodthingsin archaeology,thepublicationofthiseditedmonographtooka considerable
amountoftimeandinvolvedawonderfulteamofindividualswhoeachcontributedtheirowninnovative
ideas, harsh criticisms, and invaluable support to produce what I hope is a book that-like the
structuralorganizationoftribalsocieties-willbe somethingmorethanthesumofitsparts.Theideas
that underlie the majority of the chapters that make up this volume originallywere presented in a
symposium Severin Fowles and I organized at the 64th Annual Meetings ofthe Societyfor American
Archaeologyin Chicago, IL, in 1999. In that symposium-'TheArchaeologyofTribal Societies'-Sev
and I tried to bringtogethersome ofthebestarchaeologistsinthe world to commenton the notionof
tribefrom theirowntheoreticalperspective,andalso topresentsubstantiveinformationfrom theirown
research contexts that would help us reassess and reevaluate the tribal concept in anthropological
archaeology.MichaelAdler,DavidAnderson,OferBar-Yosef,DaniellaBar-YosefMayer,JamesBrown,
JohnClark,LawrenceKeeley,andDeanSnowallgraciouslyagreedtoparticipateinthesymposiumand
havebeenonboardfrom thebeginning.Iwanttothankthemeachfortheircontinualpatienceandlevel
headedguidanceinhelpingthis book evolve and develop.
ThesuccessoftheSAAsymposiumencouragedus to expandthegeographicandtemporalscope of
the edited volume to include ethnographic and ethnohistoric contributions, as well as additional
archaeologicalcontributionsfrom differentpartsoftheworld.Theendresult,wehoped,wouldbemore
representative of the holistic nature of anthropological discourse, and also would provide specific
examplesofhowdifferentprocesseswithintribalsocietiesareaccessibletoanthropologistsviadifferent
research methodologies, be theyarchaeological, ethnohistoric, or ethnographic. To help achieve this,
Donald Blakeslee, PeterBogucki, Robert Carneiro, Jeffery Clark, David Cheetham, Michael Galaty,
Sarah Herr, John O'Shea, Claire McHale Milner, and Elsa Redmond all kindly made outstanding
contributions to the cause. I thank them for the enthusiasm with which they took on the task of
participatinginthevolumeandforhow carefullytheyconsideredmy ownideas,nomatterhow under
baked.
RobertWhallon-firstas aninstructorandlateras a publisher-hasbeenverysupportiveofthis
taskfrom its inception and has provided invaluablehelp and support along the way. I would like to
thankhimfor his patience and guidance as this projectfinally found itswayto completion.
I also am deeply indebtedto Severin Fowles, who has been a fantastic colleague and close friend
sincebeforethatgraduateseminarheldall thoseyearsago. Sev wasa co-organizerandco-chairofthe
SAAsymposiuminChicago, andhisideas andinfluenceshavecontinuedto permeatethroughoutthe
un
pages ofthisbook andthroughmyownresearch. Sevwrotethe theoreticalframeworkfor thevolume
(Chapter2), and thevolume wouldnotbe completewithouthisverysubstantial contributions. lowe
himaveryspecialthanksfor hiscontinuedhelpinbringingthisvolumeto fruition andfor helpingme
to learnhow to be a professionalcolleague and a dearfriend at the sametime. 1. Introduction: Archaeology and Tribal Societies
Intheyearsthathavepassedsincethiseditedvolumeinitiallywasconceived,Ihavehadthegood
fortune to interact with several different colleagues at four different universities-the University of William A. Parkinson
Michigan, the University of Cincinnati, Ohio State University, and Florida State University. While
these years have beenwonderfulfor fine-tuning myideas abouttribal social organization, theyhave
beenless thanidealfor mywife, Betsy,whohas beenforced to find a newpositionineachnewtown.
Toherlowe the biggestthanks ofall.
Dotribes exist? Orare they chimeras, imagi spouse.Ofcourse,thetermalsohasaveryspecific
narycompoundsofvarious and, at times, in legal definition in the halls of the United States
congruous parts, societal illusions fabricated government(seeBeinart1999;Sterrittetal. 1998).
WilliamA. Parkinson fordiversereasons, butoncecreated,endowed LikeElisabethColson,manyanthropologists,
Tallahassee, Florida with such solidrealityastohaveprofoundef because ofthe semantic and analytical problems
December 2001 fectonthelivesofmillionsofpeople?Theques associatedwiththeterm'tribe',haveabandonedit
tion is practical, because it doeshave conse in favor of more descriptive-and usually multi
quencesin dailylife,and theoretical, because hyphenated-phrases such as 'small-scale, semi
the notion oftribe has played a vital role in sedentary, trans-egalitarian societies'. Butgiven
various socialsciences,perhapsmostconspic thelong-albeitratherjaded-historyofthetribal
uouslyin anthropology. conceptwithinthediscipline(see,forexample,June
This is how Morton Fried began his seminal Helm's[1968]editedvolume,TheProblemofTribe),
work entitled, The Notion ofTribe (1975). In the we shouldconsiderthepossibilitythattheremay
decades since Friedposedthis simple question besomethingsalvageableintheconceptbeforewe
'Do tribes exist?'-anthropologists still cannot discardit entirely. EvenDr. Colson's quote, cited
agree on its answer. Fried's own conclusion was above,isfrom anarticleentitled"PoliticalOrgani
thattribesareanaberrantformofsocialorganiza zationsinTribalSocieties."Thus,despitethefact
tionthatoccuronlyinveryspecificsecondaryso that the term has come to acquire-and always
cial contexts (see also Fried 1968). mayhavehad-avarietyofdifferenttechnicaland
Most cultural anthropologists-following colloquialdefinitions,theconceptoftribe,as Fried
Fried'slead-haveabandonedtheconceptentire himselfnoted, has "played a vital role invarious
ly.AsElisabethColson(1986:5)beganone article: social sciences, perhaps most conspicuously in
Idonotknowwhatismeantby'TribalSociet anthropology" and deserves to be revisitedbefore
ies.' 'Tribe' and 'tribal' are slippery terms de itis banishedforeverfromouranalyticalarsenal.
spitevariousattemptstopinthemdownsothat Thepresentvolumerepresents anattemptat
theycouldbeusedanalytically,'tribe'hasbeen doing just this. Using information derived from
used with reference to the wholespan ofhu ethnographic, ethnohistoric, and archaeological
mangroups,withperhapstheexceptionofthe sources,thevariousauthorswhohavecontributed
nuclear family. The Tribe On The Hill which chapters to this volume each have made an at
Jack Weatherford published in 1981is about tempt to assess the utility(or futility) ofthe con
theUnitedStatesCongresswithitsassociated ceptinthewidevarietyofdifferentsocioenviron
staffand penumbraoflobbyists. mental contexts in which theywork. The end re
Colson'sexplicitdisdainofthetribalconceptshould sultis avolumethatcanitselfbeviewed as a col
resonatewithanyonewhohasturnedon a televi lection of ethnographers', archaeologists' and
sion recently, only to find so-called 'reality' pro ethnohistorians' perceptions of what the 'tribe'
gramsabout'tribes'ofattractive,scantily-clothed, conceptmeans and, muchmoreimportantly,how
urbanites competing with each other in extreme theybelievetheconceptcanbe employedto learn
environmentsforlargecashprizes.TheCleveland abouthumansocialvariabilityinvarious prehis
Indianshavebeenreferredtobytheirloyalfansas toric andhistoric contexts.
'thetribe'for years, anda recentNew York Times Thecommonthreadthattiestogetherthevar
Magazine containeda piecethatusedthetermto iouscontributionstothevolumeis thetheoretical
refer to a close-knit group of unmarried friends propositionthatalthoughthetribalconceptfinds
who find solace in each other in the absence ofa its historical roots in the ethnographic branch of
I
1
L
r
WilliamA. Parkinson 1.Introduction:Archaeology and Tribal Societies
anthropologicaldiscourse,itmaybeaconceptthat problemmoreapparentthandealingwiththeterm into the diachronic context of archaeological re ofthe samepeopleintheareaoftheiroccupa
is better approached using information derived tribe. searchduringthelasthalfofthetwentiethcentu tion,followedbydivergenceofspeech,segmen
from the archaeological-rather than the ethno The term 'tribe' is used throughout this book ry and suggests that it is necessary to shift the tation' and independence. (Morgan 1995
graphic-record. Specifically, the authors were notbecausewewishtorekindlethepolemicdebate subject matter "from types of entire societies to [1851]:93)
urgedto considerwhetherthe long-termperspec surroundingthesupposedlyinexorableprocessof typesofculturalprocessesorhistoricaltrajectories." Morganenvisionedtribesasformingduetoagrad
tiveavailabletoarchaeologistsallowsthemtotrack socioculturalevolution(e.g.,Band-Tribe-Chiefdom ual outflow, or budding-off, ofgroups from a hy
subtlechangesin socialorganizationthatethnog State [forexample, Service 1971]),butratherbe A BriefHistoryofTribe pothesized geographic tribal center. Over time,
raphersareseldomatlibertyto witnessgiventhe causethetermhasalonghistoryincross-cultural these emigrants would acquire distinct cultural
inherentlyshort-termnatureoftheinformationat anthropology,andbecauseitdenotesaformofsocial Sincethe time ofMorgan the conceptoftribe traitsand,eventually,linguisticdifferences,thus
their disposal. Thus, the volume attempts to ex organizationgenerallyunderstoodtorefertoawide hasbeenplaguedbythetendencyofearliergener creatingnew tribes (see Morgan 1851:95).
ploretheutilityofretainingthetribalconceptand rangeofsocialsystemsthatregularlyexhibitsome ationsofanthropologiststogenerateattributelists Morgan cites as a causal factor in the forma
redefiningitinsucha mannerthatitmaybe use degree of institutionalized social integration be thatattemptto pigeonholesocietiesintodifferent tion oftribes "a constant tendency to disintegra
ful for comparing social trajectories in a cross yond that of the extended family unit, or band. classificatory groupings. Early attempts at such tion." This notion persists in even some recent
cultural framework (see Fowles, this volume, Nevertheless,someareboundtofindtheuseofthe classificatoryschemeswere basedupon unilineal archaeologicaldiscussionsoftribes,whicharecom
Chapter2).Indoingso,we hopeto builduponthe termanachronistic,sinceithascometobereplaced evolutionary paradigmatic approaches (see also monlyunderstoodasregionally-integratedsystems
work of our colleagues who in recent years have by evenmoreambiguousphrases,suchas 'middle Spencer 1896; Tyler 1871), wherein 19thcentury that develop out of a quagmire of disaggregated
tried to retool cultural-or in Flannery's (1995) range society' (e.g., Feinman and Neitzel 1984). European civilizationwas envisioned as the ulti bands(e.g.,BraunandPlog1982). Inaddition,itis
terminology, social-evolutionary frameworks to Thislattermonikerattemptstoplacetribessome mate predestined form of social organization to importantto note thattheprincipleofsegmenta
focus upon socialprocesses that operate at many whereBetweenBandsandStates(Gregg1991), as whichallsocietieswereinevitablyprogressing(see tion already was present in Morgan's initial for
different temporal, geographic, and social scales one book title puts it, andemphasizesthe transi Trigger 1990). Several ofthe characteristics that mulationoftheconceptasananthropologicalclas
(see, for example, Carneiro 1996; Drennan 1991; tional and moreephemeralnatureoftribal social initiallywereattributedto tribeswithinthistele sificationofsociety.
Feinman2000;NeitzelandAnderson1999; Spen systems. ological context continue to plague more recent Durkheim's (1893) tangential contributionto
cer 1997). Butis preciselythis tendency-toview tribes formulations of the concept, and must be recog the topic also stressedthe principle ofsegmenta
asephemeraladhocsocialconstructions-thathas nizedifwe are to arrive at an operational defini tion, or mechanical solidarity, to distinguishless
Why 'Tribe'? resulted in the creation of a number of appella tion ofthe concept. economicallycomplexsocieties-whatlatercame
tions,suchas'tribelet'(e.g.,Bocek1991),'rituality' Morgan's (1851, 1877) initial social typology to be referred to as bands and tribes-fromthose
Thewordtribe is one ofseveral arbitrary, op (e.g., Yoffeeetal. 1999), and'transegalitarianso placedhuman societies into three developmental societiesthatexhibitorganicsolidarity,oreconomic
erational definitions used by anthropologists to cieties'(e.g., OwensandHayden1997),whichfre 'stages' through which he believed all societies specialization-chiefdoms and states. Although
facilitatecross-culturalcomparison(Bernard1994; quentlyapplyto onlya fewhistoricallyparticular necessarily passed-Savagery, Barbarism, and Durkheim was concerned explicitly with the de
Kuznar 1997). Otherexamplesofoperationaldef contexts andhave no more utilityincomparative Civilization.Eachofthesestageswasindicatedby velopmentofthedivisionoflabor,hisbasicclas
initions include the terms culture, band, society, cross-cultural analyses than does the tribal con a particulartechnological repertoire, andwas as sificatory scheme carried with it the assumption
etc.Theuseofsuchdiscipline-specificterminology cept.Althoughcases occasionallyarisewhenitis sociatedwithaparticularsubsistencestrategyand thatchangingeconomicstrategiesoccurredhand
isanecessaryevilwithinthesocialsciences,where necessary to create new terms within the disci politicalform. This error-togrouptogethersoci in-handwith particularpolitical forms. As Lewis
in the unit of analysis is seldom clearly defined. pline,suchneologismshavebeguntorunrampant etiesbaseduponaplethoraofcharacteristicswhich Cosernotes in hisintroductionto The Divisionof
d
Regarding this problem, the late Marvin Harris within the field, and it is now necessary to begin areunderstoodtobeintimatelyintertwined-was Labour:
(1979:15) noted that: reassessingtheirutility.Tothisend,theresearch perpetuated throughout the following century in Durkheim was, by and large, beholden to a
Astrongdoseofoperationalismisdesperately presentedin thisvolumerepresentsanattemptat the works ofvarious influential authors,such as structural explanation ofmoral phenomena.
neededtounburdenthe socialand behavioral stressingnotthehistoricallyparticularcharacter White, Service, and Sahlins (see Feinman and Theessentialdifferencesbetweentypesofso
sciencesoftheiroverloadofill-definedconcepts, istics oftribal social systems, but their lasting Neitzel [1984] for an excellent discussion of the ciety were to be sought on the structural or
such as status, role,group, institution, class, albeitsomewhatelusive-processualsimilarities, problemswith'typologicalapproaches').Neverthe morphologicallevel.The causal arrow in the
caste, tribe, state, and many others that are several of which are only accessible via the less, Morgan's initial discussion of tribal society analysisofsocialphenomenawentlargelyfrom
partofeverysocialscientists'workingvocabu diachronic perspective ofarchaeological inquiry. setthe terms for the wayin which both the term productive relations and structural linkages
lary. The continuing failure to agree on the Theremainderofthischapterbrieflyoutlines andtheconceptwouldbeemployedduringthenext between people to moral or legal systems of
meaningoftheseconceptsisareflectionoftheir the developmentofthe tribal conceptwithin eth century. thought. (Coser1984:xviii)
unoperational status and constitutes a great nography and discusses the various characteris Morganusedthetermtribetorefertolinguis- InDurkheim'swork,theconceptofsegmentation
barrier to the development ofscientifictheo tics that have come to be associated with tribal ticallyhomogeneous cultural units: in the guise of mechanical solidarity-was com
ries ofsocialand culturallife.(myemphasis) societies inthat context. Several ofthese charac Eachtribe wasindividualized byaname,bya binedwith Marxiststructuralprincipleswherein
The 'strong dose' of operationalism suggested by teristics derivefrom models thatwere dependent separatedialect,byasupremegovernment,and differenteconomicinfrastructuresproducediffer
Harriswasnevertaken, andanthropologistscon uponthesynchronicinformationcontainedinthe bythe possessionofaterritorywhichit occu entforms ofsuperstructures. Thisbasicstructur
cernedwithcross-culturalanalysiscurrentlyfind ethnographicrecord-modelsthatwereunableto piedand defendedasits own.Thetribes were alistconceptofsegmentationasbeingcharacteris
themselves inundated with a plethora ofill-de accountforsocialprocessesthatoccurredovertem asnumerousasthedialects,forseparationdid tic ofless economically complex societies heavily
finedtermswhicheachseemto acquiretheirown poral durations ofseveral decades or centuries. not becomecomplete until dialecticalvaria influencednotonlythepre-warBritishstructural
definition depending upon the specific context ThefollowingchapterbySeverinFowlesthen tion had commenced.Indiantribes, therefore, ists, but also the work of later writers, such as
withinwhichtheyareemployed. Nowhereis this discusseshowthetribalconcepthasbeentranslated are naturalgrowths through the separation Steward, Sahlins, and Service (see below).
I
2 L 3
WilliamA. Parkinson 1.Introduction:Archaeology and Tribal Societies
Duringthe early decades ofthe last century, tribe was defined in terms of a group which was unit of societal analysis. It was only later, when (Steward 1955:53). To this end, Steward defined
severalBritishanthropologistsbeganworkingwith recognizedbyitsmember;as constitutingacoher the concept was co-opted by Sahlins and Service threebasicintegrationallevels:thenuclearfami
tribalsocietiesindifferentpartsoftheworld,bring entunit, particularlyfor the purposes ofwarfare (1960),thatparticularlevelsofintegrationbecame ly,folk societies(or multifamilysocioculturalsys
ing a functional-structuralist perspective to the andhomicideretribution.Withinthevarioustrib equated with particular stages of cultural evolu tems),andstates.Heconcededthatthereareprob
discipline. Influencedby Frenchsociologistswrit algroupingsofNuersociety,Evans-Pritchardnot tion and were again associated with specific eco ablyseverallevelsofsocioculturalintegrationbe
ingattheturnofthecentury,suchasHenriHubert ed several structural subdivisions: nomic, ideological, and politicalcriteria. tweenthesethree,butthat"thesearequalitative
andEmileDurkheim,membersoftheBritishschool Atribe is dividedinto a numberofterritorial Steward(1931)proposedtheconceptoflevels ly distinctive organizational systems, which rep
proposedanethnographicmethodthatcombineda segments and these are morethan mere geo ofintegrationprimarilyasatoolforcross-cultural resentsuccessivestagesinanydevelopmentalcon
focus upon structure andfunction. Thisfunction graphical divisions, for the members ofeach analysis as an alternative to what he called the tinuumandconstitutespecialkindsofculturalcom
alistperspective leadRadcliffe-Brownto a meth consider themselves to be distinct communi traditional assumptions about tribal societies ponents within higher sociocultural systems"
odology that was cross-cultural in nature, and ties and sometimes act as such. Wecall the (Steward1955:44).Thistraditionalviewwasbased (1955:54). Steward suggested that the concept of
which focused upon each culture as an adaptive largesttribalsegments 'primarysections',the uponthreefundamentalaspectsofthebehaviorof socioculturallevels shouldbe usedas ananalytic
and integrative mechanism (see Radcliffe-Brown segments ofaprimarysection'secondarysec membersoftribalsocieties,whichStewardreject tool in the studyofchangeswithin particular so
1948:ix).Thefunctional aspectofthisperspective tions',andthesegmentsofasecondarysection ed. He outlined these aspects in the following ciocultural systems, which each consist of parts
wasbased,inlargepart,uponDurkheim'sconcept 'tertiarysections'.Atertiarytribalsectioncon manner. First,tribalculturewasa constructthat that developed at different times and which con
of'solidarity' (see Harris 2001:516 for additional sists of a number ofvillages which are the represented the ideal, norm, average, or expect tinue to integrate certainportions ofthe culture.
discussion). smallestpoliticalunitsofNuerland. Avillage able behavior of all members of a fairly small, Service(1971)builtuponSteward'sconceptof
Radcliffe-Brown delineated Andaman social ismadeupofdomesticgroups,occupyingham simple, independent self-contained, and homoge levelsofintegration,butreincorporatedanexplic
structureasconsistingofindependentandauton lets, homesteads, and huts. (Evans-Pritchard neoussociety.Second,tribalculturehadapattern itlyevolutionarycomponentto itsinitialformula
omous small communities, each "leading its own 1940:5) orconfiguration,whichexpressedsomeoverallin tion. Despite the various critiques of his now
life and regulatingits own affairs." Each ofthese various structural sections formed tegration.Finally,theconceptoftribalculturewas (in)famousBand-Tribe-Chiefdom-Statemodel(e.g.
These localgroupswere unitedinto whatare partofasegmentarysystem,"byreferencetowhich understood to be essentially relativistic-mean Fried1968), thestrengthofService'smodelliesin
here calledtribes. Atribe consistedofanum it is defined, and, consequently the status of its ingthatthecultureofanyparticulartraditionwas itsfocus uponthestructuralintegrationofsociet
ber oflocalgroups all speakingwhat the na members,whenactingassuchtowardsoneanoth seen to be unique in contrastto cultures ofother ies:
tivesthemselvesregardedasonelanguage,each er and to outsiders, is undifferentiated" (Evans traditions.Steward(1955:46)suggestedthatwhile Ifthe general evolutionofsocietyconsists, as
tribe having its ownlanguage and its name. Pritchard 1940:4). Like his mentor, Radcliffe thisconceptualizationoftribalculturehadbeena somehavesaid, ofnotonlyamultiplicationof
Thetribe wasofverylittleimportance inreg Brown, Evans-Pritchard envisioned these seg tool useful for analysis and comparison, itwas of groupsbutalsoofanincreaseinspecialization
ulatingthe sociallife,and was merelyaloose ments as integratingatvarious levels, eachlevel littleutilityindealingwithculturechange.Inplace intoeconomicand politicalparts,ritualunits,
aggregateofindependentlocalgroups.Within determiningthestructural'distance'betweenthe of this normative perspective, Steward proposed and the like, then tribes have advanced over
the localgroupthe onlydivisionwasthatinto members ofdifferent segments. the concept oflevels ofsociocultural integration. bands onlyin the sense ofmultiplication and
[nuclear]families. These were the onlysocial WhiletheBritishstructural-functionalistper Stewardinitiallyintendedthe concept oflev integration ofparts. This is why the present
divisionsexistingamongtheAndamanese,who spective proved extremely useful for describing els of sociocultural integration to be used as a bookchoosesasthediscriminatingcriterionof
werewithoutanyofthose divisionsknownas social relations within static cultural contexts, it methodological device: stagestheform ofintegration.Ateachlevelthe
'clans' whichare characteristicofmanyprim inevitablyfailedtoformulatethesignificantsocio- The cultural evolution ofMorgan,Tylor,and integrationofpartsis carriedout differently.
d
itive societies.(Radcliffe-Brown1948:23) cultural laws it had proposed to produce. Harris others is adevelopmental taxonomybased on (Service1971:132,original emphasis)
Eachofthetribal units occupieda particularter attributed this failure to the structural-function concrete characteristics ofcultures. The con Withinthisscenario,thedefiningcharacteris
ritory, and spoke a different dialect. As was the alist tendency to allot social structure a central, cept oflevels ofsociocultural integration, on tic of tribal social organization is the structured
casewithMorgan,Radcliffe-Browndefinedatribe primary,roleto theexpenseofsubordinatingoth theotherhand, issimplyamethodologicaltool organizationofsegmentaryunitsofasimilarscale,
an essentially linguistically homogeneous region er techno-economic parameters (see Harris fordealingwithculturesofdifferentdegreesof usuallylineagesor groupsoflineages(bands),via
thatwas associatedwith a particularterritory. 2001:524). complexity.Itisnotaconclusionabout evolu someintegrativeinstitution.AccordingtoService,
E. E. Evans-Pritchard, a studentofRadcliffe Thestructuralistconceptsofsegmentationand tion.(Steward 1955:52) this institution usually takes the form of a pan
Brown's, also assumed an explicitly structuralist integration figured largely into Steward's argu Hearguedthattheconcept"providesanewframe tribalsodality,whichcrosscutslineagesandunites
perspectiveoftribalsocietiesinhisworkTheNuer mentthatsocietiesshouldbe approachedinterms ofreferenceanda newmeaningto pattern;andit groupsofbandsintotribes. As Service(1971:100)
(1940), inwhich he wrote: ofvaryinglevels ofsociocultural integration (see facilitates cross-cultural comparison" (Steward notes:
Thelargestpoliticalsegment amongthe Nuer Steward 1955). This idea carried over, in some 1955:52). Atribe is ofthe order ofa large collectionof
isthe tribe. There isnolargergroupwho,be whatmodifiedform, intotheworkofSahlins and Steward built upon Redfield's (1941, 1947) bands,butitisnotsimplyacollectionofbands.
sidesrecognizingthemselvesasadistinctlocal Service (1960). Initially, Steward intended the distinctionbetweenfolk societies andurbansoci Thetiesthatbindatribearemorecomplicated
community,affirmtheirobligationtocombine conceptnotas a componentinculturalevolution eties, noting that by establishing an empirically than those ofbands and, as weshall see,the
inwarfareagainstoutsidersandacknowledge arytheory,butas atool for cross-culturalcompar basedtypologyofintegrationaIlevels,itwouldbe residential segments themselves cometo be
the rights oftheir members to compensation ison.Duringthisbrieftime, thetendencyto lump possible to examine the incorporation of smaller ratherdifferent frombands. (originalempha
forinjury. (Evans-Pritchard 1940:5) together various political, economic, and social (whathe called'simpler') societies into larger so sis)
Nuer tribes had no common organization or attributesbecametemporarilyuncoupled.InStew ciocultural systems, "...and to make generaliza This contention-that tribes are essentially
centraladministration, althoughtheysometimes ard'sview,aparticularstructuralcharacteristic tions aboutprocesseswhichgobeyondwhatRed social segments integrated via some sort ofpan
formed loose federations. In this formulation, a thelevelofintegration-wasusedastheprimary field derived from the process of urbanization" tribalinstitution-reiteratesSteward'scontention
4 .I. 5
I
WilliamA. Parkinson 1.Introduction:Archaeology and Tribal Societies
thatitis necessarytofocus uponlevelsofintegra plying this as the specificcourse ofdevelop tionsavailabletoindividualsindifferentsocieties. withthestructureoftheirsocialrelationspriorto
tionasa primarycriterionfor typologicalclassifi mentoftribes,wemaynonethelessviewatribe This led to his tripartite classificatory system of contact.Somesocietiesexhibitedcertainstructur
cation. Butwhereas Steward attempted to apply as acoalescenceofmultifamily groupseachof egalitarian,ranked,andstratifiedsocieties.Since alfeatures-suchassodalities-thatallowedthem
theconcept (oflevels ofintegration) as a method the order ofaband. (Sahlins 1961:324) Fried understood both bands and tribes to be es to organizeintomore,andmorecomplex,integra
ological tool for cross-cultural investigation, in InSahlins'view,tribesconsistofeconomicallyand sentiallyegalitarianinnature, he sawno needto tive units than other societies. These included
Service's formulation the degree and manner of politicallyautonomoussegmentsthatareheldto subdivide egalitarian societies into two discrete tribes.Othersocietieslackedthestructuralmech
integrationhaditselfbecomethetypologicalindi getherbytheirlikenessto eachother(i.e., by me groups.Inaseriesofarticles(e.g.,Fried1968)and anismsnecessarytointegrateintothesemorecom
cator. Thus, the level ofintegration-initiallyin chanicalsolidarity)andbypan-tribalinstitutions, abook(Fried1975),helaunchedaseriesofattacks plex units-these were bands. The structure of
tendedasamethodologicaltool-hadbecome,per whichcrosscuttheprimarysegments.ForSahlins upontheconceptoftribe,arguingthattribestend socialrelationspriortothetimethatsocietieswere
haps inevitably a 'conclusion aboutevolution', (1961), thesegmentarylineagesystemis a substi to occur only in secondary contexts, "as a conse impingeduponby morecomplexonesnecessarily
Also inherentinService's conceptoftribeis a tute for the fixed political structure that tribal quenceoftheimpingingonsimpleculturesofmuch determinedthetrajectoriesthesesocietiesassumed
certaindegreeoffragility,andatendencytowards societies are incapable ofsustaining. more complexly organized societies" (Fried after contact. Fried's inability, or unwillingness,
disunity: SahlinsbuiltuponSteward'snotionoflevelsof 1975:10). to acceptthisbasicfact canbe attributed, atleast
Considering the lack ofinstitutional political integrationby linkingvaryinglevels oforganiza Fried'scritiquedeservescarefulconsideration, in part,tohisoverrelianceupontheethnographic
means ofunityandthe absenceoforganicsol tion with sectors of social relations. Within-this notleastbecauseitconstitutestheinceptionofthe record, which because of its short-term perspec
idarity, andconsideringsuchgravesourcesof 'sectoral model', "relations become increasingly replacementofthetermtribeby muchmorecum tivewaslimitedinitsabilityto tracktrajectories
disunityas feuds,it seemsremarkable that a broadanddiluteasonemovesoutfromthefamil bersomephrases,suchas 'middle-rangesocieties'. ofchangethat occuron a muchlongerdiachronic
tribe remainsatribe.Itseemssensibletoreaf ial navel" (Sahlins 1968:16). Sahlins understood Thisisunfortunate,forFried'sargumentsseemto scale.
firmthatexternalstrifeandcompetitionamong cooperation and social interaction to be most in augment,ratherthandiscredittheconceptoftribe Thistendency-toconstructclassificatorysys
tribes mustbethe factorthatprovidesthe ne tenseatthetribal'core'-thehomesteadandham as a constructusefulfor cross-cultural analysis. tems based exclusively upon ethnographic and
cessity for internal unity. (Service 1971:104; let. Thus, the degree of integration decreases as For example, Fried's contention that tribes ethnohistoricexamples-resonatesthroughoutall
original emphasis) theleveloforganizationincreases,anddegreesof formonlywhenlesscomplexsocietiesareaffected ofthe models discussed above. Despite this fact,
Whiletheconceptoflevelsofsocioculturalin sociabilitydiminishasfields ofsocialrelationbroad by morecomplexones, seemsto begthe question: certainthreadspermeateeachofthemodels,sug
tegration' as Service used it, provides a method en. Inhis ownwords: why do certain societies turn into tribes when gesting the existence of some ethnographic pat
useful for classifying different societal forms, it Themodelbeforeusisset out insocialterms. they come into contact with states and empires, ternsthatneedtobeconsideredwhileformulating
suffersfrom a staticqualitythatdoes notaccount Butmorethanaschemeofsocialrelations,itis andothersdonot?Fried'sinabilityto answerthis an archaeologically useful notion of tribal social
adequately for the degree of dynamic flexibility anorganizationofculture.Theseverallevelsof simple question exposes the Achilles heel of his trajectories.
documentedinthearchaeologicalrecord. Thatis, organization are, in the jargon ofthe trade, entireargument,whichis basedupontheuntena
eventheroughly-hewnforms ofsocialintegration levelsofsocioculturalintegration;thesectors, ble position that tribes exist only as discretely AttributesAssociatedwith the
thatServiceemployssufferfromthefactthatthey sectorsofsocioculturalrelations.Functionsare defined cultural units, a notion explicable by his Tribal Conceptin Ethnography
are themselves static idealizations of dynamic regulatedbylevelsoforganization, andtrans dependence upon the ethnographic record. When
phenomena.AlthoughService'smodelallowsfor actionsbysectorsofrelation.(Sahlins1968:16) viewed solelythroughthe short-termperspective This briefoverview ofthe development ofthe
a certain range of variability within each of his WithinSahlins'holisticapproach, tribescansub available through ethnography, the distribution tribal concept in ethnographyreveals several at
forms of social integration (e.g., lineal and sume an astonishing array ofdifferent societal ar- oftribes across the globe wouldcertainlyseemto tributesthatfrequentlyhavebeenassociatedwith
G
compositetribes),itdoes notaccountforthebasic rangements, from segmentary tribes to chiefdoms correlate with those regions which were heavily the tribe concept. Theseinclude:
fact that the social structures, which themselves (see Sahlins 1968:20). He envisionedmanyinter influencedbyhistoricalstate-levelsocieties:North 1.Theconceptofsegmentation,or'mechanicalsoli
definethedifferentevolutionarystages,inherent mediatearrangementsbetweenthesetwo endsof America,NewGuinea,SouthAmerica,etc. Never darity',
ly allowfor a certaindegree ofintegrative, or 'or the tribal spectrum. Theseinclude: conical clans, theless, a closer look at the archaeology ofthese 2. Atendencytowards entropy, or disunity,
ganizational flexibility' (see Fowles, this volume, segmentarylineagesystems,territorialclans,dis same regions would reveal that several tribes 3. The ideathattribes existonlyas discreteenti
Chapter2;FowlesandParkinson1999;Parkinson persedclans, and local cognaticdescentgroups. hademergedpriorto contact, and indeedpriorto ties, with well-defined social and geographic
1999:44-47). Because this flexibility may not be In addition to trying to blurthe line between the indigenous development or impact of state boundaries, and
expressed within the short-term perspective in different social classifications, Sahlins also at levelsocietiesintheseregions.Furthermore,even 4. Theideathattribes are somehow'transitional'
herent to the ethnographicrecord, it is a charac temptedto decouple the relationship between so inthesameareaswhereFriedarguedthatcontact betweenlesscomplexsocialforms,suchasbands,
teristicthatcanonlybeactivelyexploredusingthe cialforms andeconomicpractices,"whileitistrue producedtribalsystems, hefails to explainwhy andmorecomplexforms, suchaschiefdomsand
diachronicinformation containedinthe archaeo thatmosttribesmenarefarmers or herders, thus certain societies, such as the Shoshone of Cali states.
logicalrecord. cultural descendants ofthe Neolithic, notall are. fornia, or theAustralianhuntersandgatherers, Oftheseattributes,perhapstheonlyone that
MarshallSahlins alsosubscribedto a version TheNeolithic,then,didnotnecessarilyspawntrib never developed into tribal units, but remained shouldberetainedinanattemptto operationalize
ofthebasicBand-Tribe-Chiefdom-Stateevolution al culture.Whatitdidwasprovidethetechnology un-integrated bands. an archaeological definition of tribal social pro
aryschemeanddistinguishedbetweenbandsand oftribal dominance" (Sahlins 1968:3). Fried'sformulationoftribalsocietysuffersfrom cesses is the conceptofsegmentation. Therest of
tribes inthefollowingmanner: Fried's visceral reaction to the Band-Tribe a static quality that precludes the possibility for thecharacteristicscanbeattributedtotheskewed
Aband isasimpleassociationoffamilies,but Chiefdom-Statemodel,andto ServiceandSahlins tribes to assume a variety ofdifferent configura temporalperspectiveofferedthroughtheinforma
atribeisanassociationofkingroupswhichare in particular, was based upon his paradigmatic tions throughout theirontogeny. Thereasonwhy tion contained in the ethnographic record-the
themselves composedoffamilies. Atribe is a assumption that social classification should be tribesemergedinsomeinstancesofWesterncon primary data source for most of the models pre
larger, more segmented society.Without im- based upon the differential access to status posi- tact,andnotinothers,musthavesomethingto do sented above.
6 7
L
WilliamA. Parkinson 1.Introduction:Archaeology and Tribal Societies
Segmentation Warre was allotted a primary, centralrole. andboundaryformationindifferentcontexts,and Asdiscussedearlier,Sahlinssuggestedthatmany
While there does seem to be a tendency for suggestthatthenatureofboundarieswithintrib intermediate arrangements stand between the
Perhapsthemostpervasivecharacteristicas tribestodevelopingroups,perhapsindicatingsome al socialtrajectories arein constant(or nearcon mostadvancedchiefdomandthesimplestsegmen
sociatedwithtribalsystemsinbothethnographic sortofinterdependentrelationshipbetweenthem stant)statesofflux, andcanbeexpectedtovaryat tarytribe.
and archaeological contexts is the idea that they (see, for example, Braun and Plog 1982), the na temporalscalesthatexceedthepurviewofethno Unlike Service and Sahlins,who argued that
are segmented (see Fowles, this volume, Chapter ture ofthese relationships, and in particular the graphic research. As these studies demonstrate, tribes should be considered evolutionary stages
2,foranextensivediscussionofsegmentation).As natureofintra-andinter-tribalaggression,seems however,despitetheirdiachronicfluctuation,such between bands and states, Fried contended that
notedabove, theideathattribescanbecharacter to varywidely(see Keeley1996, andthisvolume, boundaries frequently do leave behind material tribes develop only in secondary contexts when
ized by segmentary forms oforganization can be Chapter17).At times, aggressionintribalsociet remnantsthatmakethemaccessiblearchaeologi band societies are impinged upon by much more
traced back to Morgan (1851). Durkheim (1984) ies consistsessentiallyofintra-tribalfeuds,occur cally. complex societal forms. In this case, tribes were
associated the term with mechanical solidarity, ring between family units (e.g., the Yanomamo; seen not as transitional entities on an evolution
whichlaterauthors, suchas Sahlins andService, Chagnon1983),atothertimes,itconsistsofall-out Tribes as transitional social forms aryladder,butasentitiesthatdevelopingeograph
usedtocharacterizebandsandtribes,economical warfare between highly organized confederacies icallytransitionalenvironments.Whiletheirviews
lyandpolitically(see alsoKelly1985).Thisnotion (e.g.,theIroquois,seeSnow1994;seealsoFerguson A final characteristic associated with tribes varieddramatically,allthreeevolutionarymodels
carriesoverintoarchaeologicalapproachestotrib andWhitehead [eds.] 1992, forseveralexamples). baseduponethnographic cases is the notion that werebasednotuponlong-termprocessesdocument
al societies.Althoughdifferentauthors arguethe While there may, in fact, be some social logic be theyaretransitional(readephemeral)formations edinthearchaeologicalrecord,butonsynchronic,
degree to which mechanical solidarity-as it re hindthese changingpatternsofaggression, their thatexistevolutionarilyorgeographicallybetween ethnographic examples.
fers totheredundancycreatedbyalackofeconom existence shouldnotleadus to presuppose a ten bandsandstates. Theideathattribesarea stage This focus upon the short-term perspective
icspecializationbetweendifferentsocialsegments dencytowardsdisunity.Rather,itismoreproduc ontheevolutionaryladderdatesbacktoMorgan's available through the ethnographic record has
practicing the domestic mode of production (see tive to envision different mechanisms thatfacili (1851) unilineal stages of Savagery, which sub resultedintheplacementoftribesas transitional,
Sahlins 1972)-can vary within tribal systems, tate fission, at times, and fusion, at other times. sumesbothbandsandtribes,andBarbarism,which ephemeral formations that occur between bands
there is some general consensus that social seg This more accurately represents what happens subsumes both tribes and chiefdoms. This basic andstates,evolutionarilyandgeographically(see
ments of roughly similar scale and composition withintribaltrajectories,especiallywhentheyare ideawasrephrasedbySahlins(1961) andService Gregg 1991:1). An archaeological perspective of
replicatethemselvesatvaryinglevelswithintrib viewedfrom thelong-termdiachronicperspective (1971), both ofwhom were heavily influenced by tribalsocialtrajectorieswouldsuggest,rather,that
al societies. Theprecisemannerinwhich this in ofthearchaeologicalrecord(see,forexample,Snow, Steward'snotionofmultilinearevolution, andby tribes were a dominant socialform on the planet
tegrationoccursvariesconsiderablywithindiffer Chapter6;Herrand Clark, Chapter 8). the concept of sociocultural levels ofintegration. forseveralthousandyearsfollowingtheendofthe
ent tribal societies, but as a general rule it must Serviceconsideredtribestobetransitionalbetween Pleistocene. The chapters by Galaty (Chapter 7),
involve at least some regular integration beyond Tribes as discrete entities bands,whicharesegmentedanddisintegrated,and Anderson (Chapter 13), Clark and Cheetham
the extended family unit, or band. Several ofthe chiefdoms,whicharecentralizedandranked.Sah (Chapter14),andBar-YosefandBar-YosefMayer
papers inthis volume address the natureofinte Another ethnographic fiction that has been lins, on the other hand, used the term tribal to (Chapter 14) all address the varying temporal
grationwithintribalsocialtrajectoriesdirectly(see perpetuated by the misrepresentation of tribal refertotherangeofevolutionaryforms thatexists lengths tribal trajectories persisted in different
Redmond, Chapter 4; Fowles, Chapter 5; Adler, systemsis thenotionthattribes existexclusively between bands and states, including chiefdoms. parts ofthe world. In addition, other chapters in
Chapter9),andagooddealofmyownresearchhas as discrete entities with very well-defined social Withinthisscenario,tribesaredistinctfrom civi thevolume,suchas thosebyCarneiro(Chapter3),
been dedicated to developing a methodology for andgeographicboundaries.Whilesome tribalso-, lizations primarily because the former are in a Redmond (Chapter4), Fowles (Chapter 5), Adler
modelingintegrationoverthelong-term(Parkinson cieties certainlydo exhibit clearboundaries, oth Hobbesian conditionofwar, "Lackingspecialized (Chapter 9), and Keeley (Chapter 17) all address
1999, and this volume, Chapter 18). ers appear as smears across the archaeological institutionsoflawandorder,tribesmustmobilize thevariablenatureofleadershipandpoliticalhi
landscape,withfew discernibleinternalor exter the generalizedinstitutions theydohave to meet erarchywithintribalsocialtrajectories,thuspro
Tendency towards disunity nal boundaries. The segmented nature of tribal thethreatofwar. Economics,kinship, ritual, and vidingaframeworkthatallowstheseprocessesto
systems, combinedwith their tendency to fission therestaresoenlisted"(Sahlins1968:12-13).With bemodeledatvaryingtemporalscales(seeFowles,
In contrast to the relatively useful idea that andfusegivendifferentsocialandenvironmental inthetribalform, Sahlinsdistinguishedbetween Chapter2).
tribes are segmented, the notion that tribes tend conditions,resultsinasocialpicturethatassumes segmentarytribes andchiefdoms:
towardsdisunityseemstobeavestigialcharacter discrete boundaries at only isolated moments in Thesegmentary tribe isa permutationofthe Towards anArchaeology ofTribal
isticthathasbeenperpetuatedbyhistoricaldevel time. The tendency ofdifferent segments within general modelin the directionofextreme de Social Trajectories
opmentswithinthediscipline. InMorgan'sinitial the system to constantly renegotiate their rela centralization, totheextentthattheburdenof
formulation ofthe tribal concept, he argued that tionship with each other can precludethe forma culture iscarried in small,local,autonomous Thelastthirtyyearshavewitnessedthenear
thereasontribesweresegmentedwasbecausethey tionofestablishedsocialboundariesoverthelong groupswhilehigherlevelsoforganizationde abandonment ofthetribeconceptinethnologyin
were constantlyfissioning. This basicnotioncar term, usuallyresultingina complicatedarchaeo veloplittlecoherence,poordefinition,andmin favor of,ontheone hand,a tendencytowardshis
ried through in the work of Sahlins and Service logicalpicturewithfuzzy linesapproximatingthe imumfunction.Thechiefdomisadevelopment toricalparticularismwiththeanalyticalemphasis
who saw entropy not as a causal feature in the bordersbetweendifferentprehistoric'groups'.The intheotherdirection,towardintegrationofthe placedupontheculturalvariablesthatdistinguish
evolutionoftribes,butastheunfortunateresult chaptersby O'Shea and McHaleMilner(Chapter segmentarysystemathigherlevels.Apolitical one societyfrom another. On theotherhand, this
of a lack of centralization. In their view, tribes 11), Blakeslee (Chapter 10), Anderson (Chapter superstructureisestablished, andonthatba trendhas beenaccompanied by a tendencyin ar
were plagued by external strife and it was only 13),ClarkandCheetham(Chapter14),Bar-Yosef sisawiderandmoreelaborateorganizationof chaeologyto employclassificatoryschemata that
throughconstantcompetitionwitheachotherthat andBar-YosefMayer(Chapter15)andmyself(Par economy,ceremony,ideology,andotheraspects basically employ social types that roughly corre
they managed to sustain any degree ofcohesion. kinson,Chapter18)alladdressthenatureofscale ofculture. (Sahlins 1968:20) latewithwhatpreviouslyhadbeencalled'tribes',
8 9
WilliamA. Parkinson 1.Introduction:Archaeology and Tribal Societies
suchas'middle-range'or'transegalitarian'societ Milner(Chapter11),RichardYerkes(Chapter12), Carneiro, Robert L. ceedingsofthe1967AnnualSpringMeet
ies. Ultimately,theburdenofexploringcross-cul andDavidAnderson(Chapter13)focusontheGreat 1996 Cultural Evolution. In Encyclopedia of ing ofthe American Ethnological Soci
tural comparisons between tribal societies falls Plains, the Great Lakes, the Ohio Hopewell, and Cultural Anthropology, edited by D. ety, editedby June Helm, pp. 3-22. Uni
upon the shoulders of archaeologists, who, with thesoutheasternUnitedStates,respectively.John Levinson and M. Ember, pp. 271-277. versityofWashingtonPress, Seattle.
theirlong-term perspective are capable ofidenti ClarkandDavidCheetham(Chapter14)thensyn HenryHolt, NewYork. 1975 The Notion ofTribe. Cummings,Menlo
fying anddifferentiatingsocialprocessesthatoc thesize an impressive amount of information to Chagnon, Napoleon Park, CA.
curattemporal scalesnotaccessibleto ethnogra explore the tribal foundations of prehistoric 1983 Yanomamo: The Fierce People. Holt, Gregg, SusanA. (editor)
phersorethnohistorians.Conversely,as severalof Mesoamerica. Rinehart andWinston, Inc., Chicago. 1991 Between Bands and States. Occasional
thepapersinthisvolumedemonstrate,ethnogra The final section represents archaeological Colson, Elizabeth Paper No.9. Center for Archaeological
phersandethnohistoriansfrequentlyhaveaccess approaches to studyingtribal social organization 1986 PoliticalOrganizationsinTribalSociet Investigations,SouthernIllinoisUniver
to moresubtlesocialprocessesthatarenearlyin intheOldWorld. Thechaptersby PeterBogucki, ies:ACross-CulturalComparison.Amer sityat Carbondale, IL.
visible within the long-term view of prehistoric LawrenceKeeley,myself,andOferBar-Yosefand ican Indian Quarterly X:5-20. Harris, Marvin
archaeology. Butitis onlythrough the profitable DaniellaE. Bar-YosefMayerexamineprehistoric Coser, Lewis 1979 Cultural Materialism. Random House,
combinationofbothperspectivesthatwe canever tribal societies in the Neolithic of Northern Eu 1984 Introduction. In The Division ofLabor NewYork.
hope to arrive at an anthropological understand rope (Bogucki, Chapter 16; and Keeley, Chapter inSociety,EmileDurkheim,pp. ix-xxxi. 2001 The Rise ofAnthropological Theory: A
ing ofwhat it means 'to act tribally' (see Fowles, 17),theCopperAgeontheGreatHungarianPlain The Free Press, NewYork. History ofTheories ofCulture. Updated
this volume, Chapter2). (Parkinson, Chapter 18), and in the Pre-Pottery Durkheim, Emile edition. AltaMira Press, WalnutCreek,
The remainder of this volume constitutes an Neolithic of the Near East (Bar-Yosef and Bar 1984 [1893] The Division ofLabor in Society. CA.
initial attemptto redefine andoperationalizethe YosefMayer, Chapter 15). TheFree Press, NewYork. Helm, June (editor)
tribal concept as a tool for cross-culturalcompar Whilethesediversecontributionsbynomeans Drennan, Robert D. 1968 The ProblemofTribe:Proceedingsofthe
isonin anthropologyandanthropological archae exhaustthewiderangeofvariabilitythathasbeen 1991 CulturalEvolution,HumanEcology,and 1967AnnualSpringMeetingoftheAmer
ology. In the following chapter, Severin Fowles exhibited by social trajectories throughout the Empirical Research. In Profiles in Cul ican EthnologicalSociety. Universityof
discusseshowthetribalconcepthasbeentranslat world, theynevertheless provide several insights tural Evolution: Papers from a Confer WashingtonPress, Seattle.
ed from its synchronic ethnographic origins into into the various social processes that have, over encein Honor ofElmanR. Service, edit Keeley, Lawrence H.
thediachronicrealmofarchaeology. He thenout the years, had a profound and very real effect on ed by A. T. Rambo and K. Gillogly, pp. 1996 WarBefore Civilization. OxfordUniver
linesanapproachtostudyingtribalsocialprocess the lives of millions of people-they are neither 113-135.AnthropologicalPapersNo.85. sityPress, NewYork.
esthatcallsforanalysisatmultipletemporalscales. chimera, nor societal illusions, but societies our MuseumofAnthropology, Universityof Kelly, Raymond C.
The next chapter, by Robert Carneiro, discusses predecessors chose to call 'tribes'. They deserve Michigan, AnnArbor. 1985 The Nuer Conquest: The Structure and
the relationship between the concepts ofautono our attention as well. Evans-Pritchard, E. E. DevelopmentofanExpansionistSystem.
'mous villages and tribal societies, and describes 1940 TheNuer. OxfordUniversityPress,New University of Michigan Press, Ann Ar
the general characteristics ofautonomous villag York. bor
es. Together, these three chapters comprise the References Cited Feinman, Gary Kuznar, Lawrence
theoreticalframework ofthe volume. 2000 Cultural EvolutionaryApproaches and 1997 Reclaiming a Scientific Anthropology.
Thenextsectionofthebookconsistsofethno Beinart, Peter Archaeology:Past,Present,andFuture. AltaMira, Walnut Creek, CA.
graphic and ethnohistoric perspectives on tribal 1999 LostTribes:NativeAmericansandGov In Cultural Evolution: Contemporary Morgan, Lewis Henry
social organization. Elsa Redmond uses ethno ernmentAnthropologistsFeud overIn Viewpoints, editedby GaryM.Feinman 1964 [1877] Ancient Society, edited by Leslie
graphicinformationto examinethe two temporal dian Identity. Lingua Franca May/ andLindaManzanilla,pp. 3-12. Kluwer White. BelknapPress, Cambridge, MA.
dimensions of a Jivaroan war leader's career. June:32-41. Academic/PlenumPublishers,NewYork. 1995 [1851] League ofthe Iroquois. JG Press,
Severin Fowles, Dean Snow and Michael Galaty Bernard, Russell Feinman, Gary, and Neitzel, Jill North Dighton, MA.
draw from ethnohistoric evidence to discuss the 1994 ResearchMethodsinAnthropology:Qual 1984 TooManyTypes:An OverviewofSeden Neitzel, JillE., and David G. Anderson
social organization of societies in Africa (Fowles, itativeandQuantitativeMethods. Sage, taryPrestateSocietiesintheAmericas. 1999 Multiscalar Analyses of Middle Range
Chapter 5), northeastern North America (Snow, Thousand Oaks, CA. AdvancesinArchaeologicalMethodand Societies:ComparingtheLatePrehistor
Chapter6)andsoutheasternEurope(Galaty,Chap Bocek, Barbara Theory 7:39-102. ic Southwest and Southeast. In Great
ter 7). 1991 PrehistoricSettlementPattern and So Ferguson, R. B., andWhitehead, N. L. (editors) Towns andRegionalPolitiesin the Pre
The third section of the book is comprised of cial Organization on the San Francisco 1992 War in the TribalZone. SchoolofAmer historicAmericanSouthwestandSouth
archaeological approaches in New World prehis Peninsula,California.InBetweenBands icanResearch, SantaFe, NM. east, edited by Jill E. Neitzel, 243-254.
toriccontexts.SarahHerrandJeffClark(Chapter and States, edited by Susan A. Gregg, Flannery, KentV. Amerind Foundation New World Stud
8) discuss the role of mobility in the prehispanic pp. 58-88. SouthernIllinoisUniversity, 1995 PrehistoricSocialEvolution.InResearch ies Series 3, University of New Mexico
southwestern United States, and Michael Adler Carbondale, IL. Frontiers in Anthropology, edited by C. Press, Albuquerque.
(Chapter 9) considers how we mightbestuse our Braun, David, and StephenPlog R.EmberandM.Ember,pp. 1-26. Pren Owens, D'Ann, and Hayden, Brian
anthropologicalperspectivesthecreation,use,and 1982 Evolution of "Tribal" Social Networks: tice Hall, EnglewoodCliffs, NJ. 1997 PrehistoricRitesofPassage:ACompar
abandonmentofpublic(ritual)architecturalspace TheoryandPrehistoricNorthAmerican Fried, Morton ativeStudyofTransegalitarianHunter
withinPueblocommunities. Thechaptersby Don Evidence. American Antiquity 47:504 1968 Onthe Concepts of"Tribe" and"Tribal Gatherers. Journal ofAnthropological
Blakeslee (Chapter 10), John O'Shea and Claire 527. Society". In The Problem ofTribe: Pro- Archaeology 16(2):121-161.
10 I 11
~