contestable identities: tribal structures in the moroccan high atlas

Contestable Identities: Tribal Structures in the Moroccan High AtlasAuthor(s): Wolfgang KrausSource: The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, Vol. 4, No. 1 (Mar., 1998), pp. 1-22Published by: Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and IrelandStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3034425 .

Accessed: 16/12/2014 22:07

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserveand extend access to The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Tue, 16 Dec 2014 22:07:03 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=rai

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3034425?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


CONTESTABLE IDENTITIES: TRIBAL STRUCTURES IN THE MOROCCAN HIGH ATLAS

WOLFGANG KRAUS University of Vienna

Some authors have viewed Ernest Gellner's version of segmentary theory as simplistic and easily refutable by demonstrating that empirical reality does not conform to it. After briefly discussing the debate on segmentation in Middle Eastern tribal societies, I show that among the Ayt Hdiddu of the High Atlas, segmentary identities are more ambiguous and less clear-cut than Gellner's model leads us to expect. They refer to several underlying principles, including descent, genealogy, incorporation and political alliance, which partially contradict each other. Accordingly, inclusion and exclusion are sometimes matters of interpretation, and segmentary identities may be contested. However, I argue that this does not refute Gellner's theoretical contribution. Instead of contrasting a complex social reality with a highly abstract model, we should make use of the central ideas organizing his model, which can indeed contribute to our understanding of tribal structure.

Until the 1960s, the Berbers of the central High Atlas mountains were largely unexplored anthropologically. Although considerable importance was attached to ethnography by the French officers who administered the region from 1933 to 1956, this did not lead to systematic and cumulative research, and most of their (in many cases highly interesting) ethnographic reports remained unpublished. The central High Atlas tribes became notable for anthropological theory with the publication of Ernest Gellner's Saints of the Atlas (1969), which established them as an ideal type model of segmentary organization in Muslim tribal societies and introduced its author as the major spokesman of segmentary theory in the Middle East. Gellner stressed only recently that he did not set out with the aim of proving a theory but the importance of segmentation was suggested to him by the way Berbers themselves spoke about social relations (1995: 821-4; cf Davis 1991: 66).1 Even if accidentally chosen, central High Atlas Berbers in comparison turned out to be well selected for his rather unorthodox theoretical approach, as they approximate the ideal 'pure' segmentary system he outlined much more closely than many other Middle Eastem tribal societies. Still, there has been much debate about the fit between the model and the empirical facts. A more fundamental critique, deriving from a radically symbolic approach, has also (somewhat inconsistently perhaps) relied on empirical arguments to refute segmentary theory.

Therefore, after nearly three decades of debate, it might prove fruitful to take the discussion back to the region from which it started. But instead of examining whether political action in the central High Atlas is (or was) in fact channelled by segmentation, I shall take a careful look at the way segmentary identities are

J. Roy. anthrop. Inst. (N.S.) 4, 1-22



2 WOLFGANG KRAUS

conceived of and ordered in a Berber tribe. A precise understanding of the local conceptions of segmentary structure is indeed a prerequisite for any attempt to assess the correspondence between segmentation and actual behaviour. At the same time, I shall argue that the degree to which Gellner's ideal-type model is in line with the facts of actual behaviour might not be the most appropriate question for appraising his theoretical contribution.2

In retrospect, Saints of the Atlas appears to be a rather late statement of segmentary theory. Derived from Evans-Pritchard's and Fortes's African ethnographies (Evans-Pritchard 1940; Fortes 1945; Fortes & Evans-Pritchard 1940), the segmentary or descent group model that had dominated much of British anthropology in the 1940s and 1950s had already lost some of its appeal. From the late 1950s onwards, the model had increasingly come under attack (for reviews see Holy 1976; Kuper 1982; cf Holy 1979). The rising scepticism, which correlated with a shift from structural to transactional analyses, did not, however, diminish the impact of Gellner's book on studies of North African and Middle Eastern tribalism. Although he was by no means the first to apply segmentary theory in a Middle Eastern context,3 his model of the politically marginal segmentary tribe had an enormous influence, both by providing fieldworkers with a theoretical framework for further research and by provoking criticism. In subsequent publications, Gellner reacted to some of his critics by elaborating on the role of the traditional state in his model and refined it by distinguishing several subtypes according to the exercise of power and its interrelations with various religious styles (1981a; 1983; 1991). He also put his views on traditional Muslim society into a more general comparative perspective.

While the transactionalist critique of segmentary theory (a critique to a large extent nourished by New Guinean data) focused on the relations between formal social structure and behavioural reality, in the Moroccan (and, by analogy, Middle Eastern) context the debate has taken a specific turn because it deals only marginally with empirical data but concentrates more openly on epistemological issues. Gellner's most prominent critics - Clifford Geertz and his 'interpretivist' followers, who also carried out fieldwork in Morocco - hold a counter-position so radically different as to leave little common ground for discussion.4

In Gellner's view, the segmentary tribe forms the egalitarian extreme in a spectrum of social forms found in traditional Moroccan society. Within the tribe, the minimum of order required for social continuity is maintained by the potentially violent relations of balanced opposition in conjunction with religious authority, embodied by non-tribal and pacific hereditary saints. He underlines the relative reliability of the tribal segmentary structure, which is normally, but not necessarily, expressed in an agnatic genealogy, and tends to channel political action.

While this model concentrates on the mechanisms of social control and relates them to ecological, economic and social constraints, the interpretivist counter- vision privileges the study of culture as a system of meaning expressed in social action (C. Geertz 1973). It stresses the unity of cultural resources available to actors for building social relations, whether in a tribal or non-tribal context. Social relations in Morocco are regarded as individually contracted, patronage- based rather than egalitarian, and transient and fluid. For the interpretivists, all



WOLFGANG KRAUS 3

permanent social categories are only superficially relevant but dissolve at closer inspection, leaving only shifting 'cloud[s] of unstable micropolitics' (C. Geertz 1971: 20). The concept of segmentation is rejected because its emphasis on durable group relations is viewed as exemplary of an obsolete style of anthropological thinking. Agnatic kinship is not granted a privileged role in social relations (C. Geertz 1968; 1979; H. Geertz 1979; Eickelman 1976; Rabinow 1975; Rosen 1979; 1984; 1989).

As Combs-Schilling (1985: 663) has noted, it is decidedly odd that the interpretivists should pay so little attention to segmentation as a cultural principle. At best, they accept it as one among different 'cultural resources' that individuals use in constructing personal relations (Rosen 1984: 77; cf Eickelman 1976: 120). Presumably, segmentation was not found to be of much importance in the rather modem and urban context in which the interpretivist view of Moroccan society was developed,5 while at the same time it was compromised by the empiricist-positivist background with which its study was associated. But it is ironic that when the interpretivists set out to criticize segmentary theory substantially instead ofjust opposing their alternative view to it, they readily take up strictly empiricist arguments, notably those of Peters's (1967) influential article on the feud among the Cyrenaican Bedouin (cf Eickelman 1976: 264 sq.; C. Geertz 1979: 235, 264; H. Geertz 1979: 377).

Peters convincingly demonstrates that social action among the Bedouin does not follow their highly developed segmentary ideology. He concludes from this fact that segmentary theory is misleading and irrelevant to an understanding of Bedouin social relations, which are instead to be explained by ecological, economic, demographic and political constraints. Since segmentation does not channel behaviour (as the Bedouin claim it does), it is just a false ideological model that is mistaken for a sociological model by segmentary theorists. Arguments such as these, which have been refuted from a more 'cultural' point of view (Salzman 1978a), come rather as a surprise when mobilized by the interpretivist side. On the whole, for those of us who feel that the empirical fact of segmentation as a recurrent principle for ordering social identities in Middle Eastern tribal societies should be explained rather than explained away, the interpretivist view on the subject has little to offer.

Other anthropologists have taken intermediate positions between the extremes of Gellner and the interpretivists (Caton 1987; Combs-Schilling 1985; Dresch 1984; 1986; Eickelman 1989; Jamous 1981; Salzman 1978a; 1978b; Seddon 1979). They too have noticed the frequent empirical disagreement between the segmentary structure and practical action, but without inferring that segmentation is organizationally irrelevant. Their judgements concerning the validity of segmentary theory vary, however, according to their own theoretical views and their understanding of the segmentary model.

They all agree that segmentation is first of all a cultural model, an ideology that expresses how people ought to interact, and perhaps also how they believe they interact. So does Peters, but for him there can be no explanatory value in a theory that takes up those native representations unless practical action corresponds closely to them. The above-mentioned writers are more flexible in this respect: in their hands, the relation between segmentary ideology and actual behaviour becomes a question to be answered rather than a condition to be



4 WOLFGANG KRAUS

fulfilled. (But then, such an awareness of a problematic relation between ideology and action is not too far away from Evans-Pritchard's original formulation; cf. 1940: 138.)

Salzman (1978a) pushes the combination of an ideological understanding of segmentation and belief in the explanatory value of segmentary theory furthest, and he develops his argument precisely while struggling with Peters's serious objections. In Salzman's view, segmentation is an organizational ideology that is capable of regulating practical social relations but is only under specific conditions realized in behaviour. When conditions favour other kinds of social relations, different models which may coexist with segmentation come to the fore, but segmentation is nevertheless ideologically reproduced as a 'social structure in reserve' (Salzman 1978a: 63) to be reactivated when conditions change again.

What then is Gellner's segmentary model about? Is it a mechanical model of social action, which is refuted by the empirical demonstration that people act otherwise?6 It is obvious that his discussion of segmentation (1969: 41-63) does not proceed from empirical data, and even a cursory reading makes it clear that the 'segmentary system' he is interested in is above all a system of logical relations. The 'pure' model (1969: 45) of segmentation he develops is logically pure, and he stresses (and empirically illustrates) repeatedly that the real society only partly conforms to it.7 In this sense, his model is ideal rather than ideological. The underlying assumption seems to be that the same kind of universal logic operates in the actors' way of representing their social relations and in the anthropologists' account of them. But he also claims that actual social relations are significantly shaped by segmentation, his basic thesis being that by maintaining some measure of order, segmentation (in conjunction with the 'unsegmentary' relations of sanctity) is an alternative to centralized power. Anything but an idealist, he is anxious to tie up his ideal model with ecological, economic and social constraints, and argues that under certain conditions segmentary behaviour is encouraged by individual interests. But rather than being empirically demonstrated, this is generally only deduced from common-sense considerations, and so it remains the weakest part of his argument (see, for instance, Gellner 1981b: 163-5).

Furthermore, by concentrating on the logical properties of segmentation, Gellner fails to articulate clearly the necessary distinction between universal logic and cultural ideology. Thus, the dimension of values - fundamental in Evans-Pritchard's view - is neglected in Gellner's treatment (without, however, being totally absent; cf Kraus 1995:10-14). This neglect, and the attempt to tie segmentation as a logical system to social action without clearly interposing ideology, has serious consequences. First, it leads critics who insist on the relative autonomy of ideology into overrating the mechanical aspect of the model (Dresch 1984: 46; Jamous 1981: 181-4); second, and worse, it leaves the model defenceless against empirical refutation. It is probably no accident that Gellner names among the critics of his theory Moroccan nationalists, Marxists and interpretivists, whose views do not seem convincing to him (1983: 445 sq.), but nowhere considers Peters's (1967; 1984:208-10) more solid empirical objections. For the same reason perhaps, he termed Munson 'the most formidable of the critics' (1993: 164). Munson attempted to refute segmentary theory, not by



WOLFGANG KRAUS 5

rejecting its. basic assumptions, but by demonstrating its empirical inadequacy. He criticized Hart (1976), another advocate of segmentary theory in Morocco, by turning Hart's own data against him - so successfully indeed that Hart himself has since abjured segmentary theory (Hart 1989; 1994; Munson 1989). In the same vein, although with lesser immediate success, Munson recently reinterpreted Gellner's (1969) segmentary analysis of the Ayt etta (Ayt Atta) tribe (Munson 1993; c? Gellner 1995; Munson 1995).

The second time, though, the method is much less appropriate. In Hart's case, it was 'precisely the excellence of Hart's data' (Munson 1989: 386) that permitted a re-analysis. But, Gellner's book is anything but a mine of data on the tribes, and his dispersed statements on the Ayt etta (who are for the most part scarcely representative of the central High Atlas tribes with which he deals) do not add up to more than a sketchy account. Therefore, Munson's list of counter-instances extracted from various sources amounts to a serious critique of Gellner's way of using idealized data to illustrate his extremely abstract account.8 However, it does not necessarily refute his model. Obviously, without an alternative interpretation negative instances cannot by themselves falsify a model that claims that empirical reality tends to conform to it but does not invariably do so, and that admits explicitly that other, even contrary, factors may operate in behavioural reality (Gellner 1969: 63). VWhat is needed, therefore, is consideration of these factors before an empirical case can be said to constitute a refutation and, one step further, a refined model in which these factors are integrated as variables. Both of these arguments, of course, already turn up in Salzman (1978a), who is unfortunately not discussed by Munson.

In my view, a more appropriate way ofjudging the value of Gellner's model empirically would be not to focus on its apparent empirical weakness, which is to some extent simply due to its level of abstraction. Rather, we should concentrate on the particular quality of his account - the clarity of the ideas organizing his model - and try to apply these ideas to our data. This is what I intend to do here, drawing on my fieldwork among the Ayt Hdiddu of the High Atlas. I shall describe segmentation as a principle of ordering social identities (that is, particular distinctions between categories of 'us' and 'them'), and then ask to what extent Gellner's ideas can contribute to our understanding of the segmentary order as found among the Ayt Hdiddu.

A large but fairly homogeneous tribe, the Ayt Hdiddu inhabit several valleys on both sides of the main watershed of the central and eastem High Atlas.9 Their centre is the valley of the Asif Mllull where they seem to have arrived in the seventeenth century. Here, they occupy twenty-five villages with an average population of about 500, each village being surrounded by its delimited territory which is exploited by the village community. Economically, they depend on transhumant sheep husbandry and irrigated arable farming. The legal and practical conditions of arable landholding have largely remained unchanged since the times of tribal independence (ended by French military pacification in 1933). Fields are privately owned, their possession originally resulting from an equal distribution among all the families making up a village community, and water rights depend on the possession of fields. There are strong moral and, formerly, legal restrictions on the sale of land to non-agnates. Possession of irrigated land in the village territory was traditionally at the base of men's village



6 WOLFGANG KRAUS

community membership, since full membership rights, including the use of communal pasture, depended on it. Most people also have some dry fields. Certain tribal segments possess collective dry fields that are periodically redistributed among their adult male members.

Pastures are collectively held by villages, by segments of various levels, or by the tribe as a whole. Pasture rights were always a focus of fierce competition; in the pre-colonial period, access to pasture was in principle a matter of the relative strength of the competing groups and depended essentially on violence. French protectorate policy was to continue pasture use as they found it, but since violence was now effectively suppressed, there was no means left of adapting collective access to pasture to changed conditions. Practical control of land became thus transformed into permanent rights. Still, the pre-protectorate state of affairs, as the source of legitimate pasture use, revealed itself frequently as a matter of debate and litigation, and many of the resulting conflicts remain unresolved to the present day. In this and other respects, the introduction of effective state rule by the French has had enormous practical and legal consequences. But as Hdidduland failed to attract modem agricultural or industrial exploitation, traditional economic structures did not undergo radical changes during the protectorate period from 1933 until 1956 or the subsequent period of Moroccan national independence.

Membership in tribal segments is in principle acquired through patrilineal descent, but formal incorporation of non-agnates is, or was, also possible and gave rise to quasi-kinship relations that were for many purposes equated with agnatic kinship (with the notable exception of inheritance). As possessors of land whose lawful use is reserved to their members, segments may act as corporate units, but not all of them do hold such rights. Segments are also conceived of as actors in the frequent intratribal conflicts of pre-protectorate times. In retrospect, collective action is seen as resulting from both the segmentary positions and the ad hoc political strategies of the groups involved.

Although most people consider membership in segments of various levels an important aspect of personal identity, they view the full practical relevance of segmentation as linked to pre-protectorate conditions of tribal independence. An account of segmentary identities therefore necessitates some reconstruction. When these identities relate to current realities, such as collective landholding, everyone involved is, of course, aware of them. But even when they are only associated with the memory of past deeds, most middle-aged and elderly persons - men and women alike - have little difficulties in specifying them. Nevertheless, individual accounts are contradictory in certain respects, and some informants pointed out such contradictions to me. I argue that this is not a matter of imperfect knowledge of past realities, and thus a problem of reconstruction, but that some degree of contradiction was inherent in the traditional situation.

However, reconstruction does encounter difficulties as far as precolonial political organization is concerned. This is no doubt due to the fact that traditional leadership was largely invisible (much more so than among many other Middle Eastern tribal societies which had dominant or chiefly lineages). In fact, many informants are unaware of the existence of regular tribal chiefs, who headed the two primary segments at the first level of segmentation below the tribe.10 Termed imgarn (sg. amgar), they were annually elected according to the



WOLFGANG KRAUS 7

principles of rotation and complementarity described by Gellner (1969: 81-8), although it is not clear to what extent these principles were actually followed. This lack of clarity, even with regard to the institution itself, is significant and attests to its relatively minor importance, given the general level of knowledge about pre-protectorate times. Villages had and continue to have their headmen who are chosen by the same principles and are responsible for the village territory and community affairs.

Individual differences in wealth were rather limited. Nevertheless, if combined with generosity, intelligence and cunning, wealth could be transformed into a dominant position within the village community or tribal segment. There was no formal investiture; a man who had the necessary qualities to act as a 'council member' (abnmae; pl. inmmaen) became 'apparent', as a local expression goes. Most villages had their ahnmae; some had none, while in a few there were even two. The ability to arbitrate disputes, and generosity, were the most important requirements. The iiinmaEn practised hospitality in the name of their village. They negotiated the interests of their village communities and assembled to manage the affairs of their tribal segments and the tribe as a whole; it was they, it seems, who chose the imgarn among themselves. Through advice, persuasion and pressure, they crystallized collectivities into action. But their position depended entirely on the consent of their village or lineage mates, and they are portrayed as rendering services rather than wielding power. Their leadership could normally not be maintained over the generations.

The Ayt Hdiddu never maintained sustained relations with the traditional Moroccan government. They were among the last tribes to hold out against the protectorate forces and did not submit to French rule until totally defeated. French colonial administration underwrote tribal law and organization to a certain degree, and some tribal institutions continued to work (although in a more formalized way than before), thus reproducing the collective identities in terms of which they were organized. After independence, they were replaced by governmental institutions or by the newly created communes rurales which permitted some local self-administration. On the village level, though, self- organization continues to function 'traditionally' in terms of segmentation. Above this level, there is no official recognition of segmentary units unless they hold collective rights in land.11

A primary aspect of local social identity is membership in one of three mutually exclusive categories: imazign or tribespeople (including the overwhelming majority of the local population), igvrramn or saints, and iqbliyn or Black artisans. Membership of these categories is seen as patrilineally transmitted, although in the case of the Black artisans, who are endogamous, it is in fact bilaterally transmitted. Black artisans are considered inferior to tribespeople. Saints in a sense rank higher, while in another they are closer to Black artisans than to tribespeople, since both categories are seen as non-equals in contrast to tribespeople. However, saints and tribespeople may freely intermarry.12 Tribespeople regard themselves broadly as equals. They value mechanical solidarity highly and shun occupational or ritual specialization which is considered an expression of inequality. Tribal segmentation is in principle an affair of tribespeople only, although both Black artisans and saints of lesser importance are attached to tribal segments through relations of protection.



8 WOLFGANG KRAUS

A coherent picture of segmentary identities must take into account the fact that they tend to have a territorial reference smaller than the total tribe. Segmentation must thus be related to the history of the tribe and the conditions of its territorial expansion. According to oral tradition, the Ayt Hdiddu have spread out from the Imdgas valley on the southern slopes of the Atlas, which is considered their point of origin. It seems that the tribe was formed there around the end of the sixteenth century, most probably from constituent parts of various dimensions which already had established collective identities. In heavy competition with other tribes, they soon expanded northwards to the AsifMllull valley and from there onwards to further valleys. In the course of these processes of expansion, a number of contiguous territorial subunits or districts came into being within the tribe. They cut across segmentary identities and may be defined in terms of both geography and political relations. Tribal institutions tended to refer to the district rather than the total tribe, and most day-to-day social relations took place within the district. The most conspicuous political institution of the district was regular leadership. In political terms, there are five districts between which social interaction is rather limited. However, Ayt Hdiddu from all districts (except those of Imdgas) continue to come each year to AsifMllull to exercise the pasture rights they share in the collective pasture of kzlan, which is thus an important symbol of the unity of the tribe.

In Asif Mllull district, the two primary segments are identified in everyday discourse as Ayt Brahim and Ayt Iezza. Their opposition is rather obvious, being expressed in the women's costume and other differences in custom, in denigrating stereotypes about each other, and in many stories about fighting between them in pre-protectorate times. Traditionally, they did not intermarry, both segments being endogamous, and this is only recently beginning to change. Apart from a tribal name and territory (more precisely, that residual part of the tribal territory which is not the object of more specific possessory rights), and a history which they share to some extent, they have little in common. The two segments do not claim a single apical ancestor but explicitly declare themselves unrelated.13 There is only an idea of common geographical origin - 'all Ayt Hdiddu have come from Imdgas' - that implies a political alliance as the source of tribal unity. Being endogamous and claiming disparate descent, the two groups resemble different tribes more closely than segments of one tribe. Villages are either inhabited by Ayt Brahim or by Ayt Iezza, but never by both. Generally, the Ayt Brahim live upstream and the Ayt ITzza downstream, but there is some interpenetration of village territories.

Although Ayt Brahim and Ayt Iezza are the usual designations for the two segments, when pressed for details or when discussing internal affairs informants admit that these are the names of subgroups of the respective groups only. More precisely, the Ayt Brahim are called Ayt Ttlt, a name referring to their three subsegments of which the Ayt Brahim proper are one. Indeed, this is the usual name they are given in Imdgas. Similarly, among the Ayt Iezza there are the Ayt Iezza proper, but there is no more precise name for the wider group.14

The Ayt Ttlt are attributed a common ancestor who serves as a powerful symbol of unity. They are held to descend from Sidi Ih.ya u eisa bn Dris, a historical personage and great-grandson of Mulay Idris I, the founder of the first Moroccan dynasty, and thus claim sharifian descent (that is, agnatic descent from



WOLFGANG KRAUS 9

the Prophet Muhammad, or rather, his daughter Fatima and his paternal cousin and son-in-law Ali). Sidi Ihya u eisa is said to have fathered three sons who brought forth the three subsegments already mentioned. Their sons and grandsons together make up a fairly comprehensive agnatic genealogy accounting for much of the internal segmentation of the Ayt Ttlt on the higher levels. Its details tend to be unknown among younger tribespeople, and it takes a well-informed person to reproduce all the links, but generally there is unanimity as to its content (see fig. 1; the names of the segments defined by the respective ancestors are given in italics; dotted lines represent relations not genealogically specified).

This genealogy is an abstract model for segmentation, much as in Gellner's idealized account (although he is careful to make it clear that in his view segments need not be genealogically defined; see 1969: 39 sq., 48). But the genealogy does not merely posit abstract relations of equivalence and inclusion. Genealogical relations are expressed in legends which tend to give them concrete content, and this content may explain actual deviations from the formal relations established. Thus, the three sons of Sidi Ihya u eisa are said to have had three different mothers: Brahim had a Black mother, Hmmi a Jewish mother and Hddu an Arab mother. While none of these derivations is particularly prestigious according to local criteria, a non-Muslim ancestress is no doubt worst, and people say that in consequence of this dubious ancestry Hmmi's offspring, the Ayt emr, are 'bad' or, more generally, 'inferior'. Again, a legend says that the dying Sidi Ihya u eisa asked God to confer his blessing on Brahim who preceded his brothers in granting their father's last wish, and this made his descendants thrive in comparison with those of his brothers. The legend is invoked to explain the numerical and political preponderance of the Ayt Brahim among the Ayt Ttlt. Indeed, they form (in AsifMllull district at least) the respected and powerful core of the Ayt Ttlt and have been able to impose their name on the whole segment. But one segment among them is also said to be inferior: the Ayt Musa u Issu are held to descend from the illegitimate son of an Ayt Brahim girl. This is conveyed by the expression, 'they don't have a father', and is considered most shameful.

Generation

[01 Aytlldiddu

1 i4>gau Ei5al

2 LkBrahim 1H{numi IkHddu

AytBrahim Ayt Grhur

3 1 lkku 1 l??u a 1 emr A Rku 1 SFid 1 Musa Emr LttU A. Ilkku u A. fUu u A. Musa u A.emr (u A. Ikk u A. Seid u A. Musa u A. emr u Musa Avt Brahim Brahim = Ik mmi) ddu Hddu Hddu H%ddu Etf uMusa

A. Wmzrf

4 Hddu Ikku ldi ettu A.dduu Alkkuu A.iuu A. etuu emr cmr Ikku lkku

FIGURE 1. Genealogy of the Ayt Ttlt.



10 WOLFGANG KRAUS

To assert that a segment is 'inferior' is essentially a moral statement, although it is not applied with much conviction to individuals belonging to the stigmatized segments. But it has evident social correlates, the first of which is that intermarriage with members of such groups is regarded as shameful. Broadly speaking, the segments in question are assigned a slightly inferior status that could be described as incomplete integration. Variable in degree, incomplete integration means that the equality of a segment's members (the basic assumption in relations among tribespeople) is contested. It occurs in several other cases, which I discuss below.

While the inferiority of the Ayt Musa u Issu is expressed in terms of agnatic genealogical logic - the line of patrilineal descent is broken by a step of matrifiliation - the example of the Ayt emr is particularly instructive because it highlights an ambiguity inherent in genealogy as an abstract model for segmentation. On one level, the genealogy is thought to establish relations of equality between collateral segments that correspond to the equality of brothers.15 On this formal level, only agnatic relations are relevant and maternal ancestry is disregarded. But on a different level, genealogical traditions may by virtue of their specific content establish inequality, so to speak, within the relation of equality, and here maternal relations may become relevant too. In discourse, both of these levels may be referred to according to circumstance. WVhen speaking of the Ayt emr, Ayt Brahim may either say, 'they are our brothers' or 'they are the sister's sons ofJews'. The differentiating content of genealogical relations relates more immediately to political relations between groups than the formal agnatic model: to treat a segment as inferior, it is essential to be in a stronger position. Thus it can be seen as a compromise between the formal model and a different level of more practical political relations.16

Political relations are described by informants as a rather stable structural disposition of segmented groups. A segment's position in this structure is considered decisive for its collective action, above all in fighting, but it is understood that segments may strategically diverge in action from the given arrangement. Nevertheless, the structure itself is held to be made up of 'actual' relations between segments, but these relations may themselves be rearranged. In contrast, genealogical relations are understood as being the 'original' and immutable relations between segments. Expectations of individual and collective behaviour tend to follow 'actual' political relations, but a plea for support or assistance may also be voiced in terms of an 'original' relation, for instance of brotherhood.17

Discourse concerning political relations between segments tends to produce a picture that differs significantly from the genealogical picture, although the two levels of the model of group relations are not always clearly separated and informants easily shift from one level to another. Despite its greater emphasis on practical relations, the political level is as much a representation as the genealogical level.18 Since most of the political group relations are conducted within the territorial framework of the district, their model representation tends to vary from one district to the next. Information on what I call the political segmentation of the Ayt Brahim in Asif Mllull is given in fig. 2. Segmentation is represented down to level III below the tribe. This is an important level of collective identity whose segments are portrayed as actors in many stories about



WOLFGANG KRAUS 11

Level

0 AytHdiddu

I AytBrahim Ayt La..

II Ayt BIku u Brahim Ayt ] 7 J ] III A.SEidu Ih A.UZdUZ AWEZrf A.Musau lMu A.(H, dduu)Emr A. liulkku gInagn Iwan

FIGuRE 2. Political segmentation of the Ayt Brahim of the AsifMIlull valley.

pre-protectorate times; for the sake of convenience, they might be termed clans.19 Incomplete integration is indicated by a dotted line.

Comparison with the first diagram shows that a number of the segments figuring in the genealogy are missing here. They are not represented in Asif Mllull district or only as small splinter groups which have been incorporated elsewhere. In some cases, this is due to emigration. Originally, the three segments descending from the three sons of Sidi Ihya u sisa are said to have lived close together in three neighbouring villages in Asif Mllull. Soon, owing to perpetual conflicts with the Ayt Brahim, the Ayt Ikku u smr, one of the two subsegments of Ayt smr, were driven away and left Asif Mllull. They settled in Anfgu district to the east, while their 'brothers', the Ayt Hddu u smr, stayed and secured the protection of the Ayt Brahim. Their dependent status correlates with their inferiority as explained in genealogical terms. Similarly, most of the Ayt Grhur were expelled from Asif Mllull and settled elsewhere. The Ayt d-i u Ikku, the only full-scale clan of the Ayt Grhur represented in Asif Mllull, have also attached themselves to the Ayt Brahim, although I have no details on the way in which they did so. But while they are counted with the Ayt Brahim in political terms, they share important symbols of identity, such as women's costume and marriage rituals, with the Ayt Iszza, whose immediate neighbours they are.

Figure 2 also makes it evident that political segmentation is simplified and modified in comparison to the genealogy. Generations are not directly translated into levels of segmentation but are rearranged, essentially according to the quantitative weight of segments. But relations of inclusion are also rearranged: although subsegments of Ayt smr and Ayt Grhur are present, both inclusive segments have disappeared, and their subsegments are directly linked to Ayt Brahim instead. But they are not seen as full subsegments ofAyt Brahim.

There are two further incompletely integrated segments which do not appear in the genealogy and are regarded as not originally Ayt Ttlt. The Imluwan are remnants of a fragmented tribal confederation formerly resident in the region. The clan-name of Iznagn turns up among both Ayt Brahim and Ayt Iszza. Among the Ayt Iszza, the Iznagn form a well-integrated clan, and some informants therefore assume that a part of this group has attached itself to the Ayt Brahim. But as the name Iznagn (or its Arabic counterpart, Zenaga) is quite frequent in southern Morocco, there need not be an immediate relationship between the two groups.20



12 WOLFGANG KRAUS

For reasons of space, I cannot discuss in detail the empirical manifestations of inequality that are found with incompletely integrated segments. They characteristically include an increased endogamy rate, a reputation as 'inferior', and an exclusion from certain institutional forms of political participation. Among the Ayt Brahim, only the members of the three fully integrated segments of level III were entitled to take part in the election of chiefs by rotation and complementarity. In some segments there is also a tendency towards occupational or ritual specialization, which is strictly avoided by other tribespeople and normally restricted to the categories of Black artisans and saints. But even the members of those inferior segments are broadly seen as peers by others. They are subject to the same behavioural expectations, and in pre- protectorate times they were not considered unworthy of being fought against (as Black artisans were, for instance). In terms of access to agricultural resources, there is no difference between fully and incompletely integrated groups. Therefore, one should carefully distinguish their gradual inequality from the more fundamental inequality of both saints and Black artisans.

Although the distinction between genealogical and political segmentation is an abstraction from the way segments and their interrelations are spoken about, it is to some extent reflected in the more empirical phenomenon of inequality. Incomplete integration is found precisely in those cases where the 'original' position of a segment has been rearranged in terms of its higher level affiliation, and the attached segments are known as imlqqmn, that is, those who have been 'grafted on'. The discrepancy between the genealogical and political positions of a segment, or, in more emic terms, between its 'original' and 'actual' affiliations, is expressed in a discourse in which its actual position and participation may be contested by reference to its origins, and in which inclusion or exclusion may be emphasized according to circumstances. Inversely, this discrepancy may also lead to conflicting claims to loyalty, which may become apparent in collective action. When the Ayt Ikku u emr of Anfgu district were at war with the neighbouring Ayt Brahim of Tilmi in Asif Mllull, the Ayt Hddu u emr, who had attached themselves to the Ayt Brahim, did not dare to side openly with their 'brothers'. They preferred not to participate in the fighting; but in secret they supplied their 'brothers' with material for making gunpowder.

Political segmentation is thus the result of rearrangements of the 'original' relations expressed in genealogical terms. It should be stressed that changes in relations of inclusion were not simply consequent on recurrent acts of behaviour diverging from the 'original' relations. They were formal readjustments involving pacts of protection which were concluded in accordance with tribal law and were a matter of public knowledge. As far as I know, they never entailed conscious adaptations of genealogies (as they might elsewhere among Middle Eastern tribes; see, for instance, Dostal 1985: 19).

There are two major historical factors giving rise to such rearrangements: demographic changes, and 'territorialization' of the segmentary structure. While tribal expansion tended to reproduce the tribal structure in a new area, with subsequent residential stabilization it also brought about a new territorial framework for social relations. If all segments did not participate proportionally in the collective movement, this produced imbalances in the relations between segments within the new district. Thus the predominance of the Ayt Brahim in



WOLFGANG KRAUS 13

Asif Mllull was partly linked to the fact that they left Imdgas altogether. Similarly, differences in demographic development (which naturally were more pronounced at the lower levels) would produce imbalances. The term 'balance' in this context refers to a local model that was consciously applied in the rearrangement of group relations. It required that collateral segments should be equal in political weight and force. This had two aspects. First, segmentation was utilized as an organizational structure for the equal distribution of rights and obligations, and this was based on the presumption of equality, both qualitative and quantitative. Second, segmentation was seen as an arrangement for the exchange of violence, and the need to be prepared for violence by seeking to attain a balance of forces was strongly expressed by informants. In a society where every adult tribesman was in principle a warrior, this was understood as meaning balance of numbers.

What happened if imbalances emerged? If they became disproportionate, the consequences could tend in opposite directions, either towards balance or towards total imbalance. A segment that became too weak to fill its place in the segmentary order would realign itself with others to restore balance, even if this produced incomplete integration. (It seems that at the lower levels, where there was no well-known genealogical conceptualization of group relations, this was not normally the case.) Or the balance was forcibly upset and the weaker segment driven away by a stronger one. Both meant rearranging previous relations. But although expelling a collateral segment might bring immediate advantage to the stronger one (the possibility of taking over land, for instance), it weakened the higher-level segment incorporating both, and thus was normally incompatible with the concern for balance. Only a segment in the course of expansion or a very strong one could afford to drive away its 'brothers'. When the Ayt Brahim expelled the majority of both Ayt emr and Ayt Grhur, this must have considerably weakened the Ayt Ttlt in AsifMllull. But it gave the Ayt Brahim an opportunity to expand, and they were still able to hold out against the Ayt Iezza. It is obvious that this must have been not only a major shift in internal relations within the Ayt Ttlt, but also a re-establishment of balance between the Ayt Ttlt and Ayt Iezza. Still, given the frequency of fighting between groups of all levels, it is striking how rarely this took place.

An alternative to these radical solutions was to accept a limited degree of numerical imbalance in order to restore a different kind of balance. Very generally speaking, once the balance of forces had shifted in favour of one segment, that group would benefit from the frequent exchanges of violence by taking over land (that is, village territories or pastures) from the weaker collateral group or groups. The resulting redistribution of resources, although unequal in formal terms, was in balance with the relative forces of the groups involved, and the overall strength of the higher-level segment would remain undiminished. Of course, this also left the given segmentary disposition unaltered.

These are, roughly, some of the ways in which segmentation was adapted to changing political relations between segments. In comparison to these changes, the genealogical representation of group relations is rather stable. It apparently reflects the situation at the time when the Ayt Ttlt began to move to Asif Mllull, but none of the later changes. This means that genealogical integration of political relations took place under certain historical circumstances but has not



14 WOLFGANG KRAUS

continued later on. Why was this so? As our knowledge of tribal history is limited to oral traditions which are strongly shaped by the local representations we wish to explain we are left to speculate, but the answer seems to me to be connected with the historical formation of the subtribe under conditions of high mobility and intense competition for land with other tribal groups. The massive migration of predominantly pastoral tribes from the arid pre-Saharan South to the mountains and further to the northwestern plains is a well-known fact of Moroccan history. While the groups that were to become the Ayt Hdiddu had presumably already taken part in this migratory movement before arriving in Imdgas, for the majority among them it ended soon with their settlement in Asif Mllull. It seems that under these historical conditions a genealogical model of political relations was a powerful symbol of cohesion and common interests and helped to strengthen the newly established tribal unity. Later, with increasing sedentarization and the ensuing internal competition, no need was apparently felt for a consistent adaptation of that model to changes in political relations.

In this context it is instructive to compare the Ayt Ttlt with the Ayt Iezza, the second subtribe of the Ayt Hdiddu (see fig. 3). Among the Ayt Iezza, we find no overall genealogical construct and no putative apical ancestor.21 According to some informants, there are genealogical relations between the clans of Ayt Iezza proper, but the three clans forming its collateral segment, Ayt Umnasf, do not claim any original relation. The name of this segment means 'people of the half', a frequently encountered designation (see Munson 1993: 273 for Ayt etta examples) which clearly indicates that the group so named is not regarded as forming an original unit but as being made up in order to complement another already existing segment. But the individual clans of both segments are considered descent groups, each having its own ancestor.

I have no explanation for this difference, except that it may antedate the unification of Ayt Ttlt and Ayt Iezza into a single tribe, and that the Ayt Iezza themselves may historically have been an ad hoc coalition formed at that time in order to complement and balance the Ayt Ttlt who had already constructed symbols of collective identity. It may also be related to the fact that according to oral tradition the expansion of the tribe was led by the Ayt Ttlt, who were the first to settle in Asif Mllull. But the example of the Ayt Iezza proves that a major segment may well do without an explicit ideology of common descent. Given the absence of emphasis on original relations among them, there are also no traditions about realignments at the clan level and no clear cases of incomplete integration.

Level

0 Ayt Jjdiddu

I Ayt Brahim... Ayt

11 Ayt lzza Ayt Umrif

m A. ettu u mr A. n Imu u eli A. LTazi I1un Jznagn i8dign Aytu .1

FIGURE 3. Political segmentation of the Ayt Iezza of the AsifMIlull valley



WOLFGANG KRAUS 15

Ironically, therefore, it seems to be genealogy that creates ambiguity, or at least makes it apparent and preserves it. This is not to suggest that the inequalities described above merely result from the fact that groups have rearranged their relations in a way that is at odds with their genealogical conceptualization. But when 'original' relations of inclusion have been rearranged through the institution of protection, the dependent status of the protected segment may be perpetuated by the apparent contradiction between genealogical and political relations. Inversely, the creation of agnatic genealogical ties to account for political relations has obliterated the memory of their prior rearrangement which must have taken place at some point in history when the tribal unit was formed, even though this rearrangement may have entailed similar relations of dependence and inequality. Genealogical integration has erased the fact of political integration from historical memory, which is very much aware of later rearrangements.

But even when no well-known genealogy is available there may be ambiguity. In that case, however, it is not expressed in shifting frames of reference but in doubt about the origins of specific segments. This is the situation we may find below the clan level. Although well defined, subclan identities tend not to be described in terms of a consistent genealogy. But the assumption of 'original' relations of agnatic kinship becomes apparent in its negation. I have been struck by recurrent statements of the following kind:

It is said that Ayt A and Ayt B are one. There were two brothers, A and B. A died and his son was raised by B. But according to another view they say that's just lies, they only attached themselves but the true ones are just Ayt B ... I don't know.

In this statement, two views are opposed to each other, one establishing a very mildly dominant relation - FB to BS - that is subordinated to the primary relation of equality between brothers, the other one suggesting a stronger form of dominance and inequality. Similarly, a few segments are said to be of Black origin, a very strong allegation of inequality, but, it is added, 'Probably it is only jealousy that makes people say so'. Here, ambiguity is essential in the definition of collective identity. In these cases, however, it is not ambiguity as to expectations of behaviour: there are no alternative group affiliations available. But still the status of some segments is open to doubt and may be contested. There may be situations in which a discourse of kinship-based equality is used to emphasize unity and foster common action; in other situations a discourse of inequality may serve a strategy of exclusion. Both discourses find the definitions of identities they need readily available.

As subclans tend to be dispersed over several villages and there are only few accounts in which they emerge as collective actors, it is difficult to judge the practical relevance of this ambiguity. More important in practical terms are the village communities, which have roughly the same numerical size. Although some villages consist of an entire clan or a localized fragment of one clan, the majority of them contains a number of clan fragments and can only be defined territorially, introducing further complication into the segmentary scale of identities. Localized clan or subclan fragments may act as segments within the village, but here segmentation tends to be rearranged to meet the requirements of the management of intra-village affairs. Generally, we find a number of segments, mostly three or four, of roughly equal size within the village, and all



16 WOLFGANG KRAUS

formal institutions display a most deliberate endeavour to keep the balance between them.22 In this context of day-to-day relations and practical exploitation of common resources, there seems to be no use for ambiguity. Here, persons and groups are ordered into segments without any doubt, and there are normally no allegations of inequality between the intra-village segments. There is no emphasis on 'original' relations, and the rearrangement of identities to meet the requirement of balance within the village or the realignment of individuals or families does not give rise to a discourse of exclusion.

How does my description of Ayt Hdiddu segmentary identities relate to Gellner's model? Superficially seen, there is an obvious contradiction with his insistence that segmentation places individuals without ambiguity or cross- cutting criteria of membership. But a close reading reveals that this ideal picture is qualified time and again: ' ... in asfar as obligations and loyalties are defined agnatically, there can be no ambiguity ... the social relation between any two individuals is (again, at least ideally) unambiguous and unique' (1969: 43, 44; my emphasis). The point is, of course, that Gellner's account must not be read as an unduly abstracted ethnographic description but as a formal model of logical relations which does not claim to describe social reality. I have already stressed that Gellner is less than clear about the assumed connexion between his ideal model and social action, but I take him to refer, among other things, to a model tribespeople themselves have in mind when talking about their society, and when acting in terms of their understanding of society.

Wright has recently suggested that, rather than using an 'increasingly "purified" model of segmentary lineage organization' among Iranian tribes, fieldworkers should 'devis[e] ... a different model based on indigenous idioms' (1992: 643). I would maintain that (at least in the central High Atlas) a 'purified' segmentary model such as Gellner's may well assist us in grasping local idioms. His attempt to isolate a logically pure segmentary model seems to me to be based on the understanding that formal logic shapes both local idioms and anthropological analysis.23 Simplifying matters to the utmost, there are two interconnected formal aspects to his model: an unambiguous tree-like structure of nested units of progressive inclusiveness and balanced opposition between collateral units. He adds a cultural feature that characterizes segmentation in the Moroccan Atlas - conceptualization of groups and group relations in agnatic genealogical terms - although he emphasizes that genealogy is useful but not necessary. That is, the formal aspects are essential, while the cultural aspect is contingent (Gellner 1969: 38-55). But he does not specify the relation between them and sees it as unproblematic.

These are, in my view, the central ideas around which Gellner's model is organized. How do they contribute to an understanding of the local idiom of segmentation, with all its contradictions? In terms of identity and differentiation, the Ayt Hdiddu clearly hold a model of complementary opposition. The tree-like structure created by this model is beyond dispute. It is conspicuous at both levels of the representation of collective identities. Likewise, balance has emerged as a major concern which is responsible for the occasional conscious re-ordering of relations. This local model is predominantly formal, but it is also political in so far as 'balance' is defined as balance of forces. The cultural emphasis on agnatic relations shapes this model in two distinct ways. First, membership in segments



WOLFGANG KRAUS 17

is legally transmitted by patrilineal descent (even though tribal law admitted voluntary changes of membership). Secondly, relations between segments tend to be conceptualized in terms of an agnatic genealogy. Although the legal fact (of agnatic group membership) may suggest the ideology of agnatic intergroup relations, there is no necessary connexion between them (as Gellner has repeatedly stressed). There is a third aspect of agnatism which does not immediately relate to segmentation. Important mutual rights and obligations laid down by tribal law (which remained partially in force until 1956), including co-responsibility for blood-vengeance or, alternatively, bloodwealth, and for collective oath, followed the lines of agnatic kinship but not descent.24 Pace Gellner, who relies on these institutions (among others) to justify his segmentary analysis (1981a: 71 sq.; 1983: 446; 1995: 824 sq.), they involved Ego-centred sets of agnates but not groups of persons linked by common descent. Munson (1993: 276; 1995: 830) makes a similar point, but while I argue in terms of formal rules he deals with actual behaviour or conflates the two levels of analysis. However, if informal common action (such as taking vengeance) was at issue rather than the formal application of rules (as in collective oath procedure), it tended to be understood as involving collective identities delimited by descent. In terms of meaningful action, if not in actual participation, vengeance related to segmentation as much as to kinship. Although distinct, therefore, in local awareness the three aspects of agnatism overlapped.

What Gellner's discussion in ideal terms suggests is that the local model of segmentation contains two levels, or rather, two submodels; one formal, specifying a segmentary structure of balanced political units, and one ideological, specifying an agnatic genealogy to account for political relations. As he emphasizes, such a genealogy is well suited to the conceptualization of segmentary political relations. Under the assumption of regular growth (at least duplication in every generation), an agnatic genealogy by itself produces the formal features of a segmentary tree. The structural equivalence of segments in the formal model or, in political terms, their basic equality, corresponds with the equality of brothers in the ideological model. Moreover, by equating the proximity of groups in the formal structure with agnatic closeness, the ideological model extends kinship obligations to political relations and thus provides a moral base for segmentary relations. The two models therefore largely coincide and mutually reinforce each other. However, my empirical discussion has also revealed some degree of contradiction between them. The ambiguity we have found in certain segmentary identities is partly due to those contradictions. When group relations are reordered to meet the requirements of the formal model, they tend to conflict with the ideological model with its emphasis on 'original' relations of agnatic kinship. A reordering of relations may take two forms: political alliance (as among the subsegments of Ayt IFzza), in which non- related groups join to form a new higher-level unit, and incorporation (as in the cases of the 'grafted' segments) in which a new relation of inclusion is created. Whereas political alliance results in relations of equality, incorporation may lead to limited inequality. Thus the concern with balance may even override egalitarianism which (gender inequalities apart) is an important value in relations among tribespeople.

The necessity to reorder political relations may arise from shifts in the relative



18 WOLFGANG KRAUS

power of groups, but also from historically shifting frames of reference. When a tribe expands or is territorially threatened by the expansion or movement of others, cohesion is favoured and competitive conflicts are directed outwards. When it successfully stabilizes in a new area, competition begins to turn inwards, and 'original' group relations tend to be rearranged by 'territorializing' wider segmentary dispositions in favour of intra-district balance. In these processes of adaptation to changes in historical context, the formal model of tribal society asserts itself against its genealogical conceptualization. The resulting contradictions are preserved in present-day ambiguities of group identities. Together with oral traditions, they make apparent how history enters into the segmentary disposition of the tribe, which presents itself as the immutable outcome of original kinship relations.

Ambiguity is in principle absent from both the formal model and the cultural model taken by themselves. It arises from the contradiction between 'original' and 'actual' relations. These contradictions may be overcome by the creation of new genealogical ties to account for the 'actual' relations, which may strengthen political relations and mask ambiguities (but may also serve to explain inequality). Under what conditions such ties are created is not fully clear from my data, although tribal history suggests a correlation with intense competition for land at the tribal level.

Segmentary identities may be contested; the ambiguities in their definition are more important than Gellner's ideal model would lead us to expect, and are clearly relevant to practical action in terms of such identities. A theory of social action among tribes such as the Ayt Hdiddu therefore must take them into account if it is to stand an empirical test. At the same time, however, Gellner's analysis of the underlying formal logic of the local model provides us with the key to understanding the ambiguities that he himself prefers to ignore.

If I have given precedence here to representations at the expense of practical action, it is not because I consider idioms and discourses the privileged subject matter of anthropological analysis. But representations are the first aspect of segmentation's reality that the fieldworker encounters among the Ayt Hdiddu, and the only aspect that is partly accessible without reconstruction, which is itself shaped by those representations. Furthermore, their careful analysis is a necessary counterweight to a formal and logical analysis as advocated by Gellner, and a prerequisite for further investigation into the effect of segmentation on social action. I have shown that segmentary representations themselves tend to be contradictory. Therefore any attempt to assess the fit between segmentation and practical action must carefully specify whether the relations it expects to see fulfilled in collective action are the ones relevant to the context in question. The recurrent ambiguities in the definition of segmentary identities already make it clear that these identities and the ideological models relating to them are by themselves insufficient to explain courses of action; they suggest that rhetoric and persuasion play a major role in mobilizing specific identities (Caton 1987). In addition to a close look at local representations of segmentary identities, an attempt to ascertain the effects of segmentation on social action under precolonial conditions would require considering various factors, such as the specific rights and duties attached to these identities, other local models independent of, or even conflicting with, segmentation, and the ties created by



WOLFGANG KRAUS 19

marriage, which only marginally enter into local conceptions of collective identity25 Although less conspicuous, supralocal factors relating to Islam and the state also must be considered. But putting segmentary identities into context is one thing; dismissing the importance of the idea of segmentation on empirical grounds is another. Even if its formal simplicity may not be apparent in social action, only a naive empiricism should deceive us into overlooking the more than just subtle ways in which segmentation structures and restructures society, demarcates rights and obligations, and posits persons ready for action.

NOTES I wish to express my gratitude to Andre Gingrich, Simon Harrison, David Shankland and Paul

Stirling for their most helpful comments on earlier versions of this article. My main fieldwork periods were eight months in 1985 (Kraus 1991) and nine months in 1995. My 1995 field trip and the research on which this article is based were carried out as part of a research project of the Austrian Programme for Advanced Research and Technology' (APART) of the Austrian Academy of Sciences. The transcription I use is based on the transliteration of the Deutsche Morgenldndische Gesellschaft, in Tamazigt Berber contexts, the symbol' is replaced by ?.

I According to Paul Stirling, his one-time supervisor, at first Gellner was not at all aware of the relevance of Evans-Pritchard's seminal Nuer study (1940) to his data (personal communication, 19 May 1996).

2 Although considered 'boring' and 'old' (Lindholm 1995: 811) by some, the controversy surrounding segmentation in the Middle East continues; see two recent exchanges in the pages of Man/JRAI (Barth 1992; Ganzer 1994; Gellner 1995; Munson 1993; 1995; Salzman 1995; Street 1992; 1995; Wright 1992; 1994; 1995).

3 Before Gellner, others, including Evans-Pritchard (1949) himself, had described various Middle Eastern tribal societies in segmentary terms; also, the applicability of the model in Middle Eastern contexts had already been questioned by Peters (1967) and others. A common view is that Evans- Pritchard (1949) merely transferred his earlier Nuer analysis to the Bedouin of Cyrenaica; cf. Dyson-Hudson's pun on Evans-Pritchard's book: 'its comments on social structure provided less a new look than a Nuer look at Bedouin society' (1972: 6; for a more recent statement to this effect cf. Conte 1991: 96). But it should be known by now that, on the contrary, as both Eickelman (1981: 37, 100) and Dresch (1988) have pointed out, Evans-Pritchard rather gave an Arab-inspired account of Nuer society that was profoundly influenced by Robertson Smith (1885) and his own personal experience among Arabs.

4 This is most obvious in Geertz's (1971) review of Saints of the Atlas, much cited as if it were a substantive critique of Gellner's vision, while in fact it just sketches out a counter-vision of North African society. For general epistemological statements see Geertz 1973; 1976; 1984; Gellner 1973; 1984 (to cite but two of his many publications on the subject).

5 That the empirical disagreement - segmentary versus dyadic ties - might be due to different research foci was suggested by Gellner himself (1981a: 70); cf. also Combs-Schilling (1985: 662 sq.) and Caton (1987: 89).

6 Considerations of space forbid a full discussion of what I hold Gellner's point of view to be; I have outlined my interpretation of his and the other main positions in the debate at greater length elsewhere (Kraus 1995).

7 Gellner (1969: 42) seems to have induced some critics to think that he believed actual societies to correspond closely to this ideal model (e.g. Dresch 1986: 321). He did indeed believe that certain relations within the wider society correspond to it, but it should not be overlooked that his own book mainly deals with a major divergence from the pure model, the social role of the non-tribal saints.

8 A similar but less ambitious critique is that of Hammoudi (1974), who admits the basic relevance of a segmentary analysis but argues that Gellner's model is too abstract to account for the complexities of empirical reality and the role of history.

9 Although the concept of 'tribe' has been seriously questioned in anthropology, in Middle Eastern and North African studies it is generally accepted as corresponding closely with specific local conceptions of political identity (e.g., Bonte 1987; Gingrich 1995: 147 sq.). Nevertheless, it would be difficult to give a general definition of the term, its local manifestations being highly variable. Furthermore, in the central High Atlas at least, the structural relativity of political groups makes it somewhat arbitrary to identify a specific level as that of the tribe.

10 This applies to AsifMllull district (see below). 11 For a fuller ethnography, see Kraus 1991. 12 Informants are aware that elsewhere in the region important saintly groups prefer not to give



20 WOLFGANG KRAUS

their daughters to tribesmen. 13 Ayt, which is found in many tribal or segment names and is frequently followed by a person's

name, literally means 'sons of' and refers to a claimed common ancestor. However, it can also be used in a looser sense, followed, for instance, by a place name, without implying the notion of descent. Traditions concerning a common ancestor Hdiddu, as mentioned by Guennoun (1939: 217) and Hart (1978: 56), are definitely unknown to my informants. For an interpretation of these rather literary traditions, see Kraus (1989).

14 In Imdgas they are known as Ayt rbdrraziq, but this name is not in use in Asif Mllull, and no one could explain it to me.

15 In actual relations between brothers, this formal equality is expressed, for instance, in inheritance. While the elder brother has an indubitable authority over the younger, it is significant that genealogies never specify the relative age of brothers. I use the term equality for both relations between individuals and between groups. The two uses are locally linked by the genealogical model of group relations which extends the basic equality of males to the groups derived from them, but this link is, of course, not self-evident.

16 For a discussion of the relation between genealogy and inequality, see Hammoudi 1974: 157 sq. 17 The terms 'original' and 'actual' are deliberately vague in order not to overstate a distinction

that is inherent in local discourse but not made in abstract terms. I should stress that they are not translations of local terms.

18 It should perhaps be stressed that neither of these representational levels is to any significant degree linked to 'tribal elite centers', as in Eickelman's opinion (1976: 107) the 'agnatic conceptual grid' of group relations is elsewhere in rural Morocco.

19 Local terminology does not clearly distinguish between levels of segmentation. All smaller segments are termed ihsan (sg. ibss, literally 'bone'), while larger groups (mostly levels 0 and 1) tend to be termed taqbilt (from Arabic qabtla, normally rendered as 'tribe'). But this latter term is also used for the village communities.

20 Zenaga is held to be derived from the famous Sanhaga, one of the large Berber groups distinguished by medieval Arab historiographers.

21 Ayt Brahim informants sometimes credit the Ayt Iezza with a 'Portuguese' ancestor; c? Gellner (1969: 175), who plausibly interprets the frequent references to 'Portuguese' proto-inhabitants as meaning 'Christian'. The contrast between the highly prestigious sharifian descent claimed for themselves and the rather disreputable non-Muslim ancestry attributed to others is certainly striking and constitutes itself a case of contestation, but does not seem to have much practical relevance.

22 For details on intra-village organization, see Kraus 1991: 37-52. 23 In a parallel argument, segmentary taxonomies are taken as the outcome of universal

'metacultural cognitive principles' of classification by Maynard (1988: 105), who refers to Evans- Pritchard (1940) but not to Gellner.

24 For a precise and sophisticated definition of descent see Scheffler 1985; 1986; cf. also Kraus 1997.

25 Apart from a vast body of literature on FBD marriage, the question of marriage alliances in Middle Eastern tribal societies is pursued in two important recent French publications, Bonte et al. 1991 and Bonte 1994; see Gingrich 1995. Marriage among the Ayt Hdiddu merits separate treatment since it diverges in significant respects from more common patterns in Middle Eastern tribal societies. Let me just state that there is no pronounced tendency towards lineage endogamy but a strong emphasis on personal choice of mates by both women and men.

REFERENCES Barth, F. 1992. Method in our critique of anthropology. Man (N.S.) 27, 175-7. Bonte, P. 1987. Introduction. LHomme 27, 7-11.

(ed.) 1994. tpouser au plus proche: inceste, prohibitions et strategies matrimoniaks autour de la Mediterranee. Paris: Editions de l'Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales.

et al. 1991. Al-Ansab: la quete des origines: anthropologie historique de la societe tribale arabe. Paris: Editions de la Maison des Sciences de l'Homme.

Caton, S.C. 1987. Power, persuasion and language: a critique of the segmentary model in the Middle East. Int.. Mid. E. Stud. 19,77-102.

Combs-Schilling, M.E. 1985. Family and friend in a Moroccan boom town: the segmentary debate reconsidered. Am. Ethnol. 12, 659-75.

Conte, f. 1991. Entrer dans le sang: perceptions arabes des origines. InAl-Ansab: la quete des origines. (by) P Bonte et al. Paris: Editions de la Maison des Sciences de l'Homme.

Davis, J. 1991. An interview with Ernest Gellner. Cufr. Anthrop. 32, 63-72. Dostal, W 1985. Egalitat und Klassengesellschaft in Sudarabien: ethnologische Untersuchungen zur sozialen

Evolution (Wien. Beitr. Kulturgesch. Ling. 20). Horn &Wien: Berger. Dresch, P 1984. The position of shaykhs among the northern tribes ofYemen. Man (N.S.) 19, 31-



WOLFGANG KRAUS 21

49. 1986. The significance of the course events take in segmentary systems.Am. Ethnol. 13,309-

24. 1988. Segmentation: its roots in Arabia and its flowering elsewhere. Cult. anthrop. 3, 50-67.

Dyson-Hudson, N. 1972. The study of nomads. In Perspectives on nomadism (eds) W Irons & N. Dyson-Hudson. Leiden: Brill.

Eickelman, D.F. 1976. Moroccan Islam: tradition and society in a pilgrimage center. Austin: Univ. of Texas Press.

1981. The Middle East: an anthropological approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 1989. The Middk East: an anthropological approach (2nd edn). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-

Hall. Evans-Pritchard, E.E. 1940. The Nuer: a description of the modes of livelihood and political institutions of a

Nilotic people. London: Oxford Univ. Press. 1949. The Sanusi of Cyrenaica. London: Oxford Univ. Press.

Fortes, M. 1945. The dynamics of clanship among the Tallensi. London: Oxford Univ. Press. &E.E. Evans-Pritchard 1940. Introduction. InAfrican political systems (eds) M. Fortes &E.E.

Evans-Pritchard. London: Oxford Univ. Press. Ganzer, B. 1994. Constructing tribal identity in Iran. Man (N.S.) 29,182-3. Geertz, C. 1968. Islam observed: religious development in Morocco and Indonesia. New Haven: Yale Univ.

Press. 1971. In search of North Africa. N.Y Rev. Bks. 16, 22 April, 20-4. 1973. Thick description: toward an interpretive theory of culture. In The interpretation of

cultures: selected essays (by) C. Geertz. NewYork: Basic Books. - ~ 1976. 'From the native's point of view': on the nature of anthropological understanding. In

Meaning in anthropology (eds) KH. Basso & HA. Selby. Albuquerque: Univ. of New Mexico Press.

- ~ 1979. Suq: the bazaar economy in Sefrou. In Meaning and order in Moroccan society: three essays in cultural analysis (by) C. Geertz et al. Cambridge: Univ. Press.

1984. Distinguished lecture: anti anti-relativism. Am. Anthrop. 86,263-78. Geertz, H. 1979. The meaning of family ties. In Meaning and order in Moroccan society: three essays in

cultural analysis (by) C. Geertz et al. Cambridge: Univ. Press. Gellner, E. 1969. Saints oftheAtlas. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.

1973. Cause and meaning in the social sciences (eds) I.C. Jarvie &J. Agassi. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

1981a. Flux and reflux in the faith of men. In Muslim society (by) E. Gellner. Cambridge: Univ. Press.

1981b. The distinctiveness of the Muslim state. In Islam etpolittque au Maghreb (Table ronde du CRESM, Aix,Juin 1979) (by) E. Gellner &J.-C. Vatin et al. Paris: Editions du CNRS.

1983. The tribal society and its enemies. In The conflict oftribe and state in Iran and Afghanistan (ed.) R. Tapper. London: Croom Helm.

1984. The scientific status of the social sciences. Int. social Sci.]. 36, 567-86. 1991. Tribalism and the state in the Middle East. In Tribes and statefornation in the Middle East

(eds) PS. Khoury &J. Kostiner. London: Tauris. 1993. Review of Die Ayt .Ididdu: Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft im zentralen Hohen Atlas by W

Kraus. SocialAnthrop. 1, 1634. 1995. Segmentation: reality or myth? [Comment on Munson 1993].J. Roy. anthrop. Inst. 1,

821-29 [modified version in Hall &Jarvie 1996]. Gingrich, A. 1995. The prophet's smile and other puzzles: studyingArab tribes and comparing close

marriages. SocialAnthrop. 3, 147-70. Guennoun, S. 1939. La Haute Moulouya (Part I). Renseignements coloniaux (Supplement a L'Afrtique

Francaise) 49, 209-24. Hall, JA & I. Jarvie (eds) 1996. The social philosophy of Ernest Gellner (Pozn. Stud. Phil. Sci. Hum.

48). Amsterdam: Rodopi. Hammoudi, A. 1974. Segmentarit6, stratification sociale, pouvoir politique et saintet6: reflexions sur

les theses de Gellner. Hesperis-Tamuda 15, 147-79 (English translation in Hall andJarvie 1996). Hart, D.M. 1976. The Aith Waryaghar of the Moroccan Rf: an ethnography and history. Tucson: Univ. of

Arizona Press. 1978. Notes on the sociopolitical structure and institutions of two tribes of the AitYafalman

confederacy: the Ait Murghad and the Ait Hadiddu. Rev. l'Occid. Musul. M6diterrande 26, 55-74. 1989. Rejoinder to Henry Munson,Jr.Am. Anthrop. 91, 765-9. 1994. Faulty models of North African and Middle Eastern tribal structures. Rev. Monde

Musul. Mediterranee 68-69,225-38. Holy, L. 1976. Kin groups: structural analysis and the study of behaviour. Ann. Rev. Anthrop. 5, 107-

31.



22 WOLFGANG KRAUS

(ed.) 1979. Segmentary lineage systems reconsidered (Q. Univ. Pap. social Anthrop. 4). Belfast: Queen's Univ. Press.

Jamous, R. 1981. Honneur et baraka: les structures sociales traditionelles dans le Rtf Cambridge: Univ. Press; Paris: Editions de la Maison des Sciences de l'Homme.

Kraus, W 1989. Segmentation and genealogy: the Ayt Hdiddu of the central High Atlas, Morocco. VIenna Contrib. EthnoL Anthrop. 5, 87-100.

1991. Die Ayt Ididdu: Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft im zentralen Hohen Atlas (Veroff. ethnol. Komm. 7, SBph 574). Wien: Osterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften.

1995. Segmentierte Gesellschaft und segmentAre Theorie: strukturelle und kulturelle Grundlagen tribaler Identitat im Vorderen Orient. Sociologus 45,1-25.

1997. Zum Begriffder Deszendenz: ein selektiver Uberblick. Anthropos 92, 139-163. Kuper, A. 1982. Lineage theory: a critical retrospect. Ann. Rev. Anthrop. 11, 71-95. Lindholm, C. 1995. The new Middle Eastern ethnography.J. Roy. anthrop. Inst. 1, 805-20. Maynard, K 1988. On protestants and pastoralists: the segmentary nature of socio-cultural

organisation. Man (N.S.) 23, 101-17. Munson, H. Jr 1989. On the irrelevance of the segmentary lineage model in the Moroccan Rif. Am.

Anthrop. 91,386-400. 1993. Rethinking Gellner's segmentary analysis of Morocco's Ayt'Atta. Man (N.S.) 28, 267-

80 [Reprinted in Hall &Jarvie 1996]. 1995. [Reply to Gellner 1995].J. Roy. anthrop. Inst. 1, 829-32.

Peters, E. 1967. Some structural aspects of the feud among the camel-herding Bedouin of Cyrenaica, Afiica 37,261-82.

1984. The paucity of ritual among Middle Eastern pastoralists. In Islam in tribal societies:from the Atlas to the Indus (eds) A.S. Ahmed & D.M. Hart. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Rabinow, P. 1975. Symbolic domination: culturalform and historical change in Morocco. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.

Rosen, L. 1979. Social identity and points of attachment. In Meaning and order in Moroccan society: three essays in cultural analysis (by) C. Geertz et al. Cambridge: Univ. Press.

1984. Bargainingfor reality: construction ofsocial relations in a Muslim community. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.

1989. 7he anthropology ofjustice law asc culture in Islamic society. Cambridge: Univ. Press. Salzman, PC. 1978a. Does complementary opposition exist?Am. Anthrop. 80,53-70.

1978b. Ideology and change in Middle Eastern societies, Man (N.S.) 13, 618-37. 1995. Understanding tribes in Iran and beyond.f Roy. anthrop. Inst. 1, 399-403.

Scheffler, H.W. 1985. Filiation and affiliation. Man (N.S.) 20, 1-21. 1986. The descent of rights and the descent of persons. Am. Anthrop. 88, 339-50.

Seddon, D. 1979. Political ideologies and political forms in the eastern Rif of Morocco. In Segmentary lineage systems reconsidered (ed.) L. Holy (Q. Univ. Pap. social Anthrop. 4). Belfast: Queen's Univ. Press.

Smith, WR. 1885. Kinship and marriage in earlyArabia. London. Street, B.V. 1992. [Reply to Barth 1992]. Man (N.S.) 27,177-9.

1995. [Reply to Salzman 1995].J. Roy. anthrop. Inst. 1, 4034. Wright, S. 1992. Method in our critique of anthropology: a further comment. Man (N.S.) 27, 6424.

1994. [Reply to Ganzer 1994]. Man (N.S.) 29, 183-6. 1995. [Reply to Salzman 1995].J. Roy. anthrop. Inst. 1, 404-6.

Identites contestables: structures tribales dans le Haut Atlas Marocain R6-ume' Certains auteurs ont considere la version qu'Ernest Gellner a donnee de la theorie segmentaire comme simplistique et facilement refutable par la demonstration que la realite empirique ne s'y conforme pas. Apres une breve discussion du debat sur la segmentation dans les societes tribales du Moyen Orient, je montre que chez les Ayt Hdiddu du Haut Atlas, les identites segmentaires sont plus ambigues et moins clairement definies que le modele de Gellner ne nous le conduirait a penser. Les identites se referent a plusieurs principes sous-jacents qui incluent descendance, g6n6alogie, incorporation et alliance politique, en contradiction partielle les uns avec les autres. De ce fait, inclusion et exclusion relevent parfois de l'interprdtation et les identitds segmentaires peuvent etre contestees. Je soutiens cependant que cela ne refute pas necessairement la contribution theorique de Gellner. Au lieu d'opposer une rdalit6 sociale complexe a un modele d'un haut niveau d'abstraction, nous ferions bien d'utiliser les idees centrales de son modele, qui peuvent certainement contribuer a notre comprehension de la structure tribale.

Singerstrasse lIc, A1O10 Wwen, AUSTRIA



contestable identities: tribal structures in the moroccan high atlas

Documents