Different words
like French Tribu, English Tribe and Latin Tribus were used to designate social
divisions among the Roman population. Similarly the Greek word Phule also
represented Indo-European Social Organisations. The word “tribe” has
a long and ignoble history and remains one of the most variably used terms
within and outside of anthropology (Helm 1968). Anthropologists often use it as
a catch-all substitute for “primitive,” avoiding the invidious
comparison of “nonstate.” But most who use the term analytically
narrow it to mean some form of political unit, as distinct from
“ethnie” or “nation,” which suggest a cultural identity.
The foundation
structure of the tribe is Kinship. The smaller Kinship unites were known as
Genos in Greek and Gens in Latin. Scottish people used to call them Clan. One
can only be a member of a clan if s/he is connected through kinship
relationships. A person is a member of a tribe by birth. Each of these clans
had a separate name and a tribe constituted a number of clans. Since, tribal system
is pre-state condition, there is no centralised administration among the tribal
societies. The social order is maintained by the kinship organisations. Kin
rules framed primarily on the basis of systems of affinity and consanguinity were
used to determine the right over a geographical location or selection of the
headman.
Tribe in the
evolutionary scheme of social type
About a century
later than what was written by Morgan, Marhshal Sahalins and Elman Service have
tried to classify pre-industrial societies. Service (1962) followed a long
tradition in positing tribe as a stage in political evolution falling between
more independent BANDS and more centralized and hierarchical CHIEFDOMS. Sahlins
(1968b) also saw tribes as evolutionary predecessors of states but was more
concerned with mechanisms of integration than boundaries. Here tribes were seen
as unified and bounded by kinship or other ties and constituted the broadest
level of cooperation in a segmented hierarchy of functions.
They have
classified societies according to the relative socio-political complexity into
four major categories. These are a) Band, b) tribe, c) chiefdom, and d) state.
Band is the simplest form of social organisation. Its simple amalgamation
of a number of families. The population of a band is quite small, usually range
between 10 to 50. The concept of a single leader or headman is absent. The leadership
is rather situational and it is never transmitted from one generation to the
next. A band collects food from a designated locale. Since, band societies are
always foragers, they are most often than not seen as roaming from one to place
to another to collect their resources. Because of such movement, there is a
general lack of the concept of private property system among the bands. Every
member of a band has the equal usufructuary rights over every resources of the
region where they inhabit. The kinship ties are usually patriarchal, but there
is a relative prevalence of gender equality. In India we have Onge, Jaroa,
Cholanakan, Birhar as bands. Africa has !Kung (bushmen), Mubti Pygmy. The
patriarchal nature of band suggests that the contention that early men had
matriarchy may not be true.
Tribe is relatively more complex. Tribe system is also pre-state and
pre-inustrial entity. Tribes have team-leaders of headmen but they do not have
institutional mechanism to maintain power relations within the society. Their
economy is based on animal husbandry or farming. The primary difference between
band and tribe lie in the existence of social segments. The presence of social
segments and their integration is what characterises a tribe. It should be
remembered that state system has developed about 4000 years ago, but human
society survived without them for thousands of years. Even today, there are
tribal and band societies which is surviving alongside the state. Therefore, it
is important to understand what inner system has enabled these people to keep
their social system intact for so many years. E.E. Evans-Pritchard has tried to
explain this puzzle by his study of Nuer in Sudan, Africa. Prichard shows that
Nuer are divided into different lineages. These lineages do not have hierarchy
in terms of economy, politics, ideology or economy. They do not have much of
interdependence, yet, together they form the tribe Nuer. Using classical
Participant Observation method, following Malinowskian method Evans-Pritchard
argued that there are conflicts between these lineages but then by some
unwritten agreement and rules the conflicts are resolved. Sahalins in 1960s
have argued that Nuers could beat Dinkas because of their effective lineage
systems.
In india the
Nagas, in Africa the Zulus and Asantis represents typical tribal system.
Chiefdom
system is formed if one of the lineages among a
tribe claims supremacy. For a variety of reasons ranging from natural to
technological, it is seen that often among many lineages one becomes more
powerful. They can achieve it by acquiring a relatively higher social prestige and
position or by winning a war with others. In this way a new family system can
be developed. After a few generations this family/lineage can become the king’s
family. This is a system of state formation which is evidenced in Peru the Inca
family. This has been studied by Robert Leonard Carneiro. Similarly Romila
Thapar has studied the formation of state in Ganga-Yamuna valley and argued
along this line.
By contrast,
Fried (1967, 1975) disputed the evolutionary existence of such bounded groups,
arguing instead that tribes arose from interactions with existing states.
Despite their differences, all three agreed that boundedness of tribes was a
result of external conflict, or WAR.
