the segmentary lineage

8/4/2019 The Segmentary Lineage

1/18

~t:Hvnt A. {C J > '7 b fL '\ /v? 'lN /,..; / J . b ' 1 pmri D N ,{)(jtL -l S ( 1 1 i.u. U J , . . , PMI'y; Cuic c : : I), I q G g

be roughly estimated. A government surveycarried out in I 958 uggested that there werebetween two and three pigs per man inaregu. This would be about fifteen months

after the 1956 pig ceremony, when pigs werestill few and mall. On the same survey, inKarnanegu I and ndugwa 1, which held pigceremonies in 1960, the family average was4.5. When we witnessed pig ceremonies in1959 and 1950, the number of pigs killed inboth Endugwa 1 and Siku tribes was notgreater than one per head of the tribal popu-lation. At least 90 per cent of the grown pigsare killed in the pig ceremony. It seemsthere-fore unlikely that the maximum pig popula-lion of a tribe greatly exceedsone grown pig

16.ANOF

THE SEGMENTARYORGANIZATIONPREDATORY

SAHLINS: The Segmentary Lineage I 187per head: allowing for piglets, we might as-sume 1.5 adult pigs per head asa maximum.Though Chimbu pig husbandry is to some

degree integrated with cultivation, the systemcannot be termed mixed farming. In theupper Chimbu Valley, where pigs grazemain-lyon temporary fallow and are regularlyadmitted to exhausted gardens, their drop-pings may to some degree assist in rebuildingsoil fertility. In the central and southernareas, however, there is a clear separation be-tween cultivation and grazing, and such bene-fit as the soil derives from pig droppings isgenerally wasted. We have never -observeddroppings being COllected and used as ma-nure.

LINEAGE:

EXPANSIONMARSHALL D. SAHLINS

Reprinted from American Anthropologist, 63 (/961): 32243. Marshall D. Sahlins is Professorot A ntltropology, University oi Michigan. His prlnclpal research interests are cultural ecology,primitive economics, and peoples of the Pacific. He is tile author oj Social Stratification inPolynesia,Evolution andCulture (with Elman R. Service and others), Moala: Culture andNa-ture on a Fijian Island. and Tribesmen.

As we have seen, the habitat to whichpeople must adapt Is multi-faceted. In thisselection, recalling Hallowell's analysis of thesize of hunting territories in Selection 8, Sahlinsexpands the concept of habitat to include asocial dimension: the presence or absence ofneighboring groups. Hecontends that (all otherthings-such as tschno'ocy and natural factorsin the habitat-being equal) a group's orqanlza-tion of social relations will be strongly affectedby having come as the-flrst settlers in an area(and thus not being surrounded by othergroups) or as intruders into the midst of othergroups.The organization 01 social relations that

Sahlins examines is the "segmentary line-age" in tribal societies. By "tribal" Sahlinsmeans a level of sociopolitical developmentthat is midway between the band and thechiefdom; this level includes most statelesshorticulturists and pastorallsts, Segmentation,

which Sahlins treats as anadaptation to specificpressures, refers to the fact that each segmentof a society Is an autonomous replica of all theothers, withoutcenlralization of control. Thisreplication denotes organizations 01 people, notnecessarily numbers of people, which can varygreatly in each of the segments.A tribal society, as Sahlins uses the phrase,

is a collection of kinship and residential unitslarger than those found in bands; tribal seg-ments are made up of many nuclear families.These segments are criss-crossed by otherkinds of groupings, such as clans, age-gradeassociations, curing societies, war groupings,and secret societies. The segments are eco-nomically aswell as politically autonomous.Sahlins finds that the segmentary lineage is

an adaptive form taken by a tribal society whenit settles in an area that is already inhabited byother groups. Under these conditions, for rea-sons he discusses, the segment of a lineage


2/18

188 / HORTICULTUREbecomes the decision-making unit. However,segments often unite to form larger decision-making and implementing units. The frequencywith which segments unite depends on socialrather than physical conditions in the habitat:the presence of habitually aggressive neighborsor the existence of a group on which it ispossible to prey and at whose expense thesegment can expand. If there is no pressure toestablish a confederated defense or offensethere will be little inclination on the part of thesegments to unite. There are several types oflineage segmentation, but Sahlins concentrateson what he calls the "Tiv-Nuer segmentarylineage system."Besides illustrating the concept that a

group's organization of social relations is anintegral aspect of its adaptation to social aswell as physical pressures in the habitat,Sahlins points to another important lesson. It isnot enough to say that a society is charac-terized by one or another type of organizationto which we have given a name (clan, lineage,village, or social class); although these desig-nations are not without value, it is alsonecessary to determine what people do withthese groupings in their everyday lives. Whatwe often designate as a "lineage," as Sahlinsmakes clear, does not operate in the same wayin the lives of all people. This caution alsoshould apply to those who use such terms asextended family, secret society, or initiationceremony to describe modern industrial soci-eties.

The reader who wants to learn more aboutNuer culture should consult The Nuer, by E. E.Evans-Pritchard (New York: Oxford UniversityPress, 1940). One of the best-known ethno-graphic monographs (and deservedly so), itprovides a systematic attempt to relate theorganization of social relationships to the totaladaptation of a people. An excellent intro-duction to Tiv culture is Return to Laughter, byEleanor Smith Bowen (Laura Bohannan) (NewYork: Harper, 1954), which is a fictionalizedaccount by a contemporary ethnag rapher. InVoyagers of tile Viti,lZ Strait: A Study of NewGuinea Trading System (Seattle: University ofWashington, 1967), Thomas G. Harding appliesSahlins' basic concepts to show how inter-group relations intertwine with factors of thehabitat to stimu late and also set limits onadaptations in northeastern New Guinea thatare based both on horticulture and large-scaletrading .

THERE HAS BEEN a broad inclination in socialanthropology in recent years to apply thedesignations "segmentary system" and "seg-mentary process" to a wide variety of soci-eties. Only slightly narrower is the applicationof the concept to lineages or societies withlineages. While granting certain general simi-larities in all the organizations popularlycalled "segmentary lineage," it seems moreuseful to restrict the term to a very few soci-eties, most notably the Nuer and the Tiv,The argument can be made on purelyformal grounds: Tiv and Nuer are in criticalrespects organized differently from either so-cieties that have been placed in the category"segmentary lineage system." Thus, in Tribes

Without Rulers, Middleton and Tait weremoved to classify Tiv and Nuer=along withLugbara, which seems inaccurate-as a sub-type of segmentary lineage systems, at onepoint as the "classical" variety of such sys-tems. But the type can also be considered inan evolutionary perspective; Tiv-Nuer, thesegmentary lineage organization properly so-called, is a specific adaptive variety within thetribal level of society and culture. (The cri-teria of "tribal level" and the meaning of"specific adaptive variety" will be spelled outbelcw.)This evolutionary perspective is adoptedhere because it furnishes a practical basis fordistinguishing Tiv-Nuer from other "segmen-tary" societies and, at the same time, it hasthe power to suggest the circumstances whichproduce segmentary lineage organization, to"explain" it, at least partly. Conversely-and

contrary to the vision of Radcliffe-Brownfor a comparative-structural approach-for-malism alone has only tended to obscurethe salient characteristics of the segmentarylineage organization. Focusing on such gen-eral structural and functional resemblances as"segmentation" and "complementary opposi-tion," the formal definition of "segmentarylineage" threatens to become as broad as theformal view of the "lineage" itself. For seg-mentation and complementary opposition arevery widespread-nearly universal-featuresof human social organization. It is then nowonder that Tiv and Nuer have been lumpedwith societies that virtually run the evolu-


3/18

tionary gamut from simple tribes to proto-states, such as the Alur. Our dissatisfactionwith this procedure parallels Fried's discon-tent with the use of "lineage" in current socialanthropology:When the analytical framework which is so con-ducive to functional study is ... transferred with-out modification to problems involving compari-sons of greater or lesser scope, complications aresure to follow .... What happens when societiesare classified together merely because they utilizekinship as an articulating principle without de-termining the nature of their particular kin rela-tions or their quality, may be seen when Forteslinks the Hopi with the Nuer, the Beduin, theYako, the Tallensi, the Gusii, and the Tikopia ontbe basis of their common pas ession of unilinealdescent groups. While this is correct, it is of littlemoment since we can also add, inter alia, theorthern Tungus and the Chinese, thereby givinga series that ranges from a simple pastoralist andhunting society to a sophisticated world power.

The argument for an evolutionary view ofTiv-Nuer segmentary lineage organization-and for the taxonomic distinctions drawn forthe purpose of argument-does not rest sim-ply on the existence of differences betweenTiv-Nuer and other so-called segmentary line-age systems. The importance of perceivingTiv- uer as a specific tribal form is that thisleads to certain empirically testable conclu-sions about its genesis and incidence. Theevolutionary perspective, moreover, does notsupersede structural analysis, but com-plements it and adds to it certain under-standings which structural analysis by itselfseems incapable of producing. There is hardlyneed to repeat the oft-made observation thatconsideration of the relations between partsof a system does not account for the existencef the system (or its parts) =unless one is

willing to accep the tautology that the systemis what it is because that is the way it is. Yetwithout wishing to light the magnificence ofEvans-Pritchard's work on the Nuer-theposition of The Nuer as an ethnographicclassic is certainly secure-nonetheless, hedoes not break out 0 f the circle:Physical environment, way of livelihood, modeof distribution, poor communications, simpleeconomy, ctc., to some extent explain the in-cidence of [ uer] political cleavage, but thetendency towards segmentation seems to beinherent in political structure itself.

I i

SAHLINS: The Segmentary Lineage / 189Or, perhaps even more explicitly, Evans-Pritchard writes that ecological factors:. . . to some extent explain the demographicfeatures of Nuer political segmentation, but thetendency towards segmentation must be definedas a fundamental principle of their social struc-ture.In brief, Evans-Pritchard seems to reject

the adaptive view as of limited value, leavingthe impression that the Nuer have a seg-mentary organization because of the seg-mentary "principle" of their organization.

The alternative advanced here is that asegmentary lineage system is a social meansof intrusion and competition in an alreadyoccupied ecological niche. More, it is an or-ganization confined to societies of a certainlevel of development, the tribal level, as dis-tinguished from less-developed bands andmore advanced chiefdoms. Finally, the seg-mentary lineage is a successful predatoryorganization in conflicts with other tribes,although perhaps unnecessary against bandsand ineffective against chiefdoms and states;it develops specifically in a tribal societywhich is moving against other tribes, in atribal intercultural environment.

THE TRIBAL LEVEL OFCULTURAL EVOLUTIONThe evolution of culture can be viewed as

a movement in the direction of increasingutilization of the earth's resources, or, al-ternatively, of increasing tran formation ofavailable energy into cultural systems. Thisbroad movement has two aspects. On the onehand culture tends to diversify into specificcultu~es through selection and adaptation.This is specific evolution, the ramifyingdiversifying, specializing aspect, from homo-geneity to heterogeneity. On the other hand,higher cultural forms arise from, and surpass,lower. Culture produces successively higherlevels of organization as new forms capableof harnessing increasing amounts of energyemerge. In popular terms, this is culture'smovement toward complexity, the general,progressive aspect of evolution.

We are concerned here with the tribal level


4/18

190 / HORTICULTUREof general progress, and for comparative pur-poses with the preceding band level and suc-ceeding chiefdom level. All of these are belowthe general level of state, or civilization, andare justifiably referred to as "primitive." Thediscussion focuses primarily on social andpolitical matters, leaving aside other char-acteristics of general evolution; thus the des-ignation of levels in social terms is par-ticularly apposite.In the general evolution of society there ismovement in the direction of multiplicationand specialization of social groups, parts ofsociety, and increasing integration of thewhole. In these respects, band societies areclearly least developed. Bands are small au-tonomous territorial groups of 20 to 50 or sopeople. They are undifferentiated, consistingof only two kinds of social units: families andthe band of related families. They are rela-tively unintegrated. There is limited socialcontrol of the economy, relative economicand political autonomy of families, and forintegration and direction there is DO leader-ship beyond the "moral influence" exerted byelders and skilled hunters. Band society wasthe dominant type of the Paleolithic; it sur-vived until recent times among marginallysituated hunters and gatherers such as theBushmen, Eskimo, Shoshoni, Semang, andothers.The tribal level may have emerged in a fewexceptionally favorable environments in thefood-collecting, Paleolithic era. However, itwas the Neolithic Revolution that ushered inthe dominance of the tribal form, that pre-cipitated great sectors of the cultural world toa new level of general standing. Even inmodern times tribes operating on a simpleneolithic base have comprised a Significantproportion of ethncgraphically known cul-tures. Well-known examples include mostorth American Indians-excluding bands ofCanada and the Great Basin, and chiefdomsof the Southeast and the orthwest Coast-many groups of the South American forest,most Melanesian societies, most Siberiangroups, peoples of highland regions of south-east Asia, and a number of African societies.A band is a simple association of families,but a tribe is an association of kin groups

which are themselves composed of families. Atribe is a larger, more segmented society.Without implying this as the specific courseof development of tribes, we may nonethelessview a tribe as a coalescence of multifamilygroups each of the order of a band. In thisthe general evolution of society parallels over-all biological progress: what is at one stagethe entire organism (the cell, the band) be-comes only the part of the higher organism(simple metazoa, the tribe).A tribe i a segmental organization. It iscomposed of a number of equivalent, un-specialized multifamily groups, each thestructural duplicate of the other; a tribe is acongeries of equal kin group blocs. The seg-ments are the residential and (usually) pro-prietary units of the tribe, the people thatsettle or wander together in a given sector ofthe tribal domain and that separately exploita sector of strategic resources. It is sometimespossible to speak of several levels of seg-mentation. Among Plains Indians, for ex-ample, the primary segments, small groups ofrelatives acknowledging a leader, wanderedseparately from fellow tribesmen some of theyear, combined with like units into largerbands (secondary segments) in other seasons,and the whole tribe gathered briefly forannual ceremonies. "Primary tribal segment"is defined as the smallest multifamily groupthat collectively exploits an area of tribal re-sources and forms a residential entity all ormost of the year. It is hazardous to speak ofabsolute numbers in view of the great specificdiversity of tribal societies, but in most casesthe primary segment seems to faIl between 50and 250 people. The structure of primary andhigher (if any) tribal segments likewisevaries. The primary segment may be a lineage(e.g., Iroquois), a nonlineal descent group(Malaita, Carrier Indians), or a loosely or-ganized local kindred (Lapp, Iban, Plains In-dians). This is another product of adaptivediversification, specific evolution. It is ratherthe general characteristics of tribal segmentsthat concern us now.Small, localized ~ often primary - tribalsegments tend to be economically and po-litically autonomous. A tribe as a whole isnormally not a political organization but


5/18

rather a social-cultural-ethnic entity. It is heldtogether principally by likenesses among itssegments (mechanical solidarity) and by pan-tribal institutions, such as a system of inter-marrying clans, of age-grades, or military orreligious societies, which cross-cut the pri-mary segments. Pan-tribal institution make atribe a more integrated social organism (evenif weakly so) than a group of intermarryingbands, but tribes as such virtually lack or-ganic solidarity. A tribe may well consideritself one people, often enough the people,but a system of order uniting the various kinsegments and representing the interests of thewhole rather than the several interests of theparts is at best only ephemerally achieved-character] tically it is never achieved.

The simple eolithie mode of production isthe key to the fragmented character. of tribalpolity. In most areas of the world the Neo-lithic did not immediately bring forth tech-nology requiring intensive division of labor orsocialization of the productive process over awide region. Neolithic economic cooperationis generally localized; usually it is limited tocooperation within primary tribal segments. Inaddition, such common eolilhic techniquesas shifting agriculture and simple pastoralismtypically disperse a population and confineconcentration ("nucleation") at a low level.Tribal unity suffers in consequence.

In many tribes the economic autonomy ofprimary segments is formally expressed bycorporatene s: the primary segment is a self-sustaining perpetual body exercising socialcontrol over its productive resources, Thegroup manages its own affairs and is highlyunified against the outside, acting as a col-lectivity in defense of its property and per-sons. But even where it is not expressed byincorporation, the small kin-territorial seg-ments of a tribe tend to be self-sustainingeconomic and political bodies. Each has anequivalent organization; none is functionallydependent on another, but each does for itselfwhat the others do for themselves.

Political solidarity is not necessarily com-pletely cenfi ned to small tribal segments. In-sofar as ecological conditions force segmentsinto contact during certain seasons, a feelingof unity and of necessity to terminate feuds

SAHLINS: The Segmentary Lineage / 191may develop over a wider or narrower rangeof the tribe. Thus secondary and higher seg-ments may exist as territorially defined tribalsections (subtribal groupings). But this in it-self rarely requires organized confederation inthe sense that the subtribe has a structurewhich is more than the sum of its parts.Moreover, the subtribe is not normally theunit of political action.

As a matter of fact, considered as the terri-torial entity that collectively defends itselfagainst the outside while maintaining thepeace internally, the political unit of tribalsociety is typically variable ill extent. Thelevel of political consolidation contracts andexpands: primary segments that unite to at-tack or repel an enemy at one time mayfragment into feuding factions at another,quarreling over land or over personal injuries.Moreover, the degree to which political con-solidation proceeds typically depends on cir-cumstances external to the tribe itself. Theexistence of a well-organized predatory neigh-bor, or, conversely, the opportunity to preyupon a nearby society, will give impetus toconfederation. Local autonomy breaks down,on a greater or lesser scale, proportionate tothe amount of-and during the extent of-concerted action possible against other soci-eties. In an uncontested environment, on theother hand, the primary segments of a tribewill show little inclination toward consolida-tion. And if, at the same time, internal popu-lation growth places a premium on land,pasturage, or other vital resources, the tribemay exist in a virtual state of anarchy, ofperpetual feud among small-scale segments.

We take the following then as fundamentalfacts of tribal political life;

1. Because small, equivalent tribal seg-ments lend to be economically and sociallyself-sustaining, equal, and autonomous, thenormal political state is toward disunityamong them. There is no permanent organ-ized confederation of these segments.

2. Small segments of a tribe will, however,consolidate to meet external competition. Thespecific nature of tribal structure of coursepermits greater or less consolidation in differ-ent cases. But disregarding this for the mo-ment, the level of political consolidation with-


6/18

192 I I-II"1~TtCU l11kain 1 .11~'Irlh!!: 1$ gene ra l ly pmpcniOnIlh! tn th er '! : 'quil'!;:U1Cfll'A ('If e x l or ll S ! I c:omr l ) : r in a n ., YI;;'l II h'"h~ ~ , ' m IHiI~ou1i l l icn l iy rtUlm to

~ Nil(ah: of disYl1h~'-lo"'lI1 l!IlIlnllOrnlo'-lI.ndrellil~11I then: wh et l c Ol lip el j, t, j,c ln I il l jn ubc,,UIlCI!...h ijJlI{ lw ,~ 'Ih~( l l: a d~ ' rs ll il l i s, W~Nlkly de-\ ! eh )~J : l l i Ih ~ lr i" ll ll e'l j'd , r A n de r~ n ip I~v{(ndIh' $ lIllllli- 'l lo mu illy , 'Ih I: prim(llT)'-Se'gmcnlI:::m only be 1: ; ! I :n~mierOr bel .:'~'L I:!jeor gJl li,izc d lie-I, jo n : lh p \r e I'hb h! \ '~ l h C ' p h ' e i i l l l ; n i l . Thert' is lI.iJ'n e ed . :unl 00 C ie ld , to r p:nmmenf ' Ir iba]let1dl:l- h il: l ' \ V h e : n n l e I :I lT l\ rh l 'l di fi v, ," , u biet:Til\l'c~th at il l ,Ju L.'! .: ~nnrederu~ton h. Ii - be ' '' 1 1 1 H t : com-pli~M~iI , ~ h t : ~ o n h ~ dC l ia ! iOn J I ! . Imao dibOIve:sin.to li A Stll."efllll .egJllltnl", illid Je o.de n;. th n blJirJcmer~.:dnm\! rilll ~;,ld,;.n l 'l ) '~ ( lIc .i g l a h : r i v ! i I ' I [ h . (I." bClIt mtllin m~ l y leeal ififl'l.U:tu:li:. nm : : ~ 'Illa de rsh lp is ID ~ -n Hz eC i.U11.l'n1CVet, it lClld~ tobl :c f . )m~ t heJCb~ ' ~UIJ ! " tn~Wi i . 1 \ pri! l l \ory }:t:g-m~ ' n t I~ :1 ~ r .c e -Io - ft 'l or : o r g .a ll iz !1 1 i o n (I f killi-men: l l> o o , for cumple). trn~!i pnIHil:lll :litrm::III,fei "I c !;C lmes l :uLe rm i noU5 with ~uei. II I lnd i.'\lllurnloo lTl lC lf i ri c s . .

TIV-NU~I~ SEGMENT 'f:;1YU'EbQ'E Ol \ lCAi I '>o ' I IZt \TTON

IlI l! l { i~n i fLc l I l l l lCI ! n r~ h e ..m:~d i l ' 1 :G d i~C 'm~ i ! Jd1 li~~ tn r l ' 1 l ~ : I he Tfv ami' th e Ni l e r are~rjbl!! ~i:ldelilll"l,,dapti\'e 1'. rh:lies uf Ihl: ~n-'Il'f. T type. T h l . l i r cCOJ]Clmi ' . : s lJi' l'C NCQ,l i , l i l iL: ' ; t h oTi" , :UI\ ' s m ! I - s e . r~ ! ! ihif 't i l lS. :IS r ic u f lu r u .1 ! il > u ;,1 ' l l I c NIJar fli')IHtiulJ:llIfll mi.'(~d r.'iUTlile'r~ wn n 'IfM 'S 'I( !. I' lI 1 b 1 1 a o : 8(11t II 1111 ' 1 : ~(llidll ry. 31uhmo-mOU $ p 'r iu H lty :li~llmC', ,~: Ul~Nllcr \'i!iillllt: and~ he ; Ill,' "l 1.1 ln im n lMf'" (Ii ,!:jJl.'llpi'l1g 0' 1 rdL\ l I i l dccrnpounds}, Like II'fI:lTI)1 !ripl. 's, Il~ith!!r ,au'penllilm:nll)' orguniz d l ( 11 'J I~ g ru ~ l: d) :(b(liV'eII'Ii$ l e v e l , Y ' t , n hOlh fit(: l l. 1> :p l 'I ll d In i l, ! J r ~a1hc r ,i, ,_troC!i~s. ialo an ' ~ lOl! i l t : : l~1 df. lmub~ lIlfl:lJd~ro' :C1I1l ' l id hy ulher r~ r )pleso . Alld ! l . t1CC' f t ! . !O inU~. .. , in lnt 'obH~ rlJSll ro r ';h vIIIS IP ,iJ t: e depends:rreciSely rmd ( I 1NcHy !J'n Ilh lilY &0 mobil'i~abllve ~Il~pfi'mary ! i ~ g ;me I1 l , Ic:"el. 1 .0 dcpJolo 'the I. :Ul lcel1et l p,r!:l>~tI'~ of Illiilny Im;:nl , 8 : IIOl.lpS1 : 1 1 1 tht: I(i 'blll lxIrdt:n. 'fhe T",,-Nt~"1 fll't'*Ini.


7/18

".'l.Wlil1~L EV,LlG:~-Pri~h~'H'dvlt'i\~ d tbT..~ .~l~. r . 1 1 1 J : n 1i l~e~Hidon 10. f! 'ud., 1 I ri Ii i n ~''ll&eJwhereas i,he' LiI :T sy~ , .1 1 : : 1 1 1euts rl f below t.ln:lcl,ld o f l i n ! W I lt r a s , " 'p~l,}ph:"

]15111 '1 ,] .11 be . ' < l r e d lI,t Ol\~ ' [hill "', linl:l. ' lj!I,e"do~ no tll!!;c'rihc lhl! h:l~ic aegrmml amollg,,e .i ' rho!!r the . n v 01" lhL . :NUL. : r . Th~ ' l i . i leOige sY$~u :m" I : ' , I . . L :'.I:t. u l 1C'II. I~ioJ]sbe :twe e l1 , pr im a r y~1:~mi: 'ul ' ,S. ~ h ( : T iv , i !l in Q J n ( ' 1 1 t~; and tlin e ~u~J'v n lu gE ' ,1 re IIlQm~~h'~ Q"RS .i d :~ l I1 t i: d ,C ' cmp o : ii t c~( I I : f ,d:mere rH[ll!.! .riH 1 l B . 1 > . '[hose H[lI:~of th~ l . o c u _ ig n :m p ,o th e r U fiill1 th e Ie cn l e n e a r e r e i fltt'~ toi. t CI}P"I~ a li cu l l ~ !J'[ in o !.l1 Cl w a r y s , which: Ts[he: .tK :iu l r nt ieD i l lI e f o r t h e l r pa rt [ ci ,p a U o ,l l, i n th eOi.ltSide connections of [he focal ]inc.The set:.men(arylin~a,gil SYllulm CQfisiliJL5ur

this: l'hil f(l~al llaes of pnm!'li1' segrnents canbe placed un u ! i . ingle u,8LI:111k' ge ll !eO l lo g ;' t ha~m: :CULm js ' f o , mueh b,B. il l the Ti...case) o fth e r r ibe , Th e clo se r 'I h e g ! ! f l e < l J r o g i c i l , 1 n! : la l IlI'Ib etwe e n f oc .i l! Il l l l S , th e c I ose r fn .c :ir re.sp~ct~veW'grnelll~ ;w~ C ! n ~he ground, I'Ii~m~ry (or"m inImlll" I S%rmim~ \1 ;/ 'h Olie f~ cn .~ lin e MI-cexloTlj. an: ~ i b , l i I J l . S $ comprise !I. l e t . i ~ o r i l l lmliLy ur higl- iel order, a m .iflQf ~e'Stnefl,~u i l . l l y IHlm,ed a fte r ttlc.ir co m mo n ~l'IC' wr.

5J\J,1U'S,S: The .~;egm(}Jltl1 'ry ' L!l 'Ii t,,,,j '~' !193t he ; ~a l. lr it !; tr f the siblin gs. 1 1Ie }' Cn]llpnltC :1'1 '1c~l l~! y " I :U )~~"C""e r . .IOIl'ly \x'ith " il tcn ::r ll :~ 1 1 '1 1 inoppo.~ i t io . ! l to , an c:q.1ltv,~:Ij!n l ~in!!::iI!,!!: ~-i:,gmt:nt;'O ! l :~ de: ! iIC 't . !. I' I, r :1'! .'1 fm m lhl.: b ro lhe.r o f [be l!com mClfl '-I1'\~~wr. ~'I:' I l'U 1 m , m i gw,f ' '~egmlCrll. . ' lenmprise :I. h i l t ! h ~ J r ~ ! L ! ' . .e] ~. 'm(hY. a mt\ jo i l i T l e . ~age, ill upp.osi~j,on ~o the delScenrl ;mlX of t h L :b J : ! O I , I \ e . O il ~ lle ir cn m m n lJi1 n c ollilOl", " he b uil l! -l'I'[l o f i .n i cln r .! 'R l~~!lm!miJ!; C.QJ1 p ,r oc cc d 'r o' ! he,r ! ! : .V! ] ! ct UD~trihl: i ~ d t j\lw~ys the level otcaIDIoii.1u.tio,n 1 1as 0 : s pl \H . . l " n u n t~ r p< l. rt : all~ eg l 'l l~ lU S of ~ h p . : s .~ mi ! ! ; i n I :' l u :! : i1 1 1 ' : mu: 0 ,1"111 II.g on ,S 'm pn ie al b1 uc. 1 'Comp];L :r .m:.m l f l L 1 " o,pp~irl i o n" e n d s ln l ,cU.md ,wtnli~t!IY" $ I : ! o l i l r l a t sobe suessed; 00 etlfilY ~bov , e ~'ht;lrim~ry 8,eg.-m en t ,e Kisl .~ a s ~l! (:;h, :bl i l l ' th ll ! o:n~ y catlci!l tl'llDCOI'\;!l.CmlJ.~fU~S;;or b dlJ ig : b y r efereece to il$g!; ::r t l:lI lo:,gi! .f t l l ]y ,equivalen t ~ a : l & m e ~ l l lt .

To m cik e th is de_~ cr il 'l ,t in n mClr~ concrI11~.we ' ' l1:l01- ~[~11'*"0l1)' from (l'1l~ or ~Pl I .u1Buhannan's KeWI'D.1 Illl::id disCll'iiliiOIl~ 0,[ 'Lbl! Tiv,abn , 1 I p p c .: n d lu g C \ I 1 IL:o f h i$ dii'lgrill'IU ( F ig .. l ) < '

1:~(iURI.I' f ,l Ie l in e al ~ wll~; a p 1 . : t 1 nllt.c ~Ul" i! . &Cllle lhN:C'[0 s tx ~enemUtUi~ r m n o . . . .cll from ll v i o n l ! dders a r idw'ho m;C' !'I=cll1t~d'Wlt h l h e ' ~man;''ild r~j !~I.oCa"'- IT iaory ~m j) [ ':III the ml nimal S ~ II :n :I .l :r .t t . u tcall, vary ill pO,P~ll titm (rom 20Q' I.~oille to w~l Iover a a i 1 0 1 J s r m l i : ! 1'he furitlJ;ry u f u , mimmillSC ,I !m ( l' .I !I l !W jc ,I lI s t he terri tOr)I o f ill> ~iblin{il l i in i l .na l . seglUl!lIlif. Thus, the, l i l le!l l );l : l cum:p r i ~B


8/18

HI'4 I HO!!,-,nC;UL TUKEILwo u -il il lm a I se gm e nts a lso 'Il: '! ! ;Q diw re Te re r-1i~",!Y. 3i l l ld l'l In H1 rn ! , ! , C.gmCl l l t nf l'L mol ' ! :i l 1 . d u s i \ l' ~ 1 i 1 l. c [ L 8 . ~ .. an d o r i l ~ m o w 1 n c l r l i ! s i ~ 'er~HilO;Y. J -n Fig. 1, t h e . whetc iYlitc 'rn c : l : n b~een t I L ln : , r~d ! l l - r o r oollllltJt:r o f s cg ru e l:i J tl J,' ,";H.IIbmr'~~l:" n'l' tnt: fQ'Il'rtd~r C l i f ~!:!llll'l(mt. b. i!:Ich is. :Iminl ' lnll . ! : iC l i :m :nt , t o d l l Y ; um ! \;''l,dl 1 1 0 J ! ~ i U i . ~W~ lI'e:rrifi:! 1 I' l'l1 m . t\),'rI !~.gmr:nt~ l~k~n r.()g~'lh!!ranall d'l:S[l~~Q Jrom 1. llild om: kUQWfI by hisl'L."m_the children D f J. I n the: S l im e WlIIY. ilI~ten '.to!)' o t o o l l I i J : l M ~ I. lind!'! 1 1 1 ' 1 ,l!;' 11 i! l nf 'tltll'Cco l: J, bT l lr o m i n ima l 'I:'r,rHtlm:~ t1 l ind b. cembiaeswLtb th e t en i l ( ! r y o f l i n e . : J g o 2. fI\:\do U1 ' l ,of ,th.~oombtncf! min Lm:ll l'c.rril.orit:5 IJJ e tm d ". tu iQr~m~~rrrtQ~i. : I . . o C " C l D p i e d Il)r Iini'l~l - L J . ~ ~ i l n M t A. ~ 1 1d e~C '~ nD , l !d f r o .m ;0. 'l in S ic ,m:e.~h:l'r "A :" 'Th is~roceu f 'S 'C:t!!:Il'CI~t1iruLdilli"'l~ r . 1 ! l . h r ~g p '[(I th eap ex . O lE ' IM S\~i1l!:alc>m'" 'b~c.k In I'~me to ih c: f , c 1 . Inccr whc,bt. :!1JL ' thll: e n t i 1 1 : J l o o I 1 1 ~ . !\Ild ~11H~""'W~~ in ~ p.: '! .::e 'ltl 'Ihli tJdgt!~~ o f 'Nvlan .d. 'fh l! 'c:nli :rc l i i O O , O U : O 'ri", [~m u II! ~ i ! 1 g l e "Hne~&B"Cno n g n j tlilfi a ~ fn ~ 1 1 l L n dil cal. led till" '"iii. l1R:I ! l i:0 l ilm pb i :cu l P U S l U U l l Ql lelliiol1es foUcm"'llhtg e n ! ) . ' ! l Qf,i~"I1ili\li~il'lll fll~D Ijl1ea~e3.

Th e KC!?f1iH:nlary l im: :a , l !c ~)'slcm l ! O [I ,,"Din'plt!~ u . f f onnu l - f l l n lZt ionn l characre r l sucs .S o m e o r u ie e l emen r s (I'r ofs.nn7~1tinn e 3 ' 1 ' l 1 a'lIIado aW e:B r s:lT ilg ly o r m '\fUI(l'U~ ClJIl1bina lc iu:n ino c h l u so el ~ l i e s . , wi -m :h n : : s inc ,~P:~illlI[tut1 . 1 l .I ; IS e : o fj be p~pul m: lendel lcl !1 ,Q a p ply ' 's e ; , .r rl " l1 t 'l nl' l ! r y$Y~lJl '" qu i t e w .id ei.y , n is nU1 i ~1i ! I t : an ' l i n" .Ilnwever, I'hOit the f l1 l r cornpJ~mli:nL oecursIilnl:l' ine!>:pllnd!nl!' t,dillJ:1~o~i C l i ~ " : ! o . 1 . [ 1 ethercaJlt:~ t i l ! ; : : ' ~cgJm:nLaj"y t!:lI:di.:nCie~ re milin tn -OUlj;llc,te. i.lfll] be e . .use riley a re em bc:rIde .d jn

dif te:relH o :oda l CQ1 i i' lo - x t f. . ~ l ' le~ h . ve d i r f e : r t = ! 1 1 . ."f L1nl : t i aDl l l vallies," diJfc:n:nl r l ll .! . .' 5 i ll s o ei c ly.

'W e' Im yc sepll.ru~ed ou t !iix silliell~ e l emen t so !' s eg m e n T a ry Uj l : ( i < lE , t ! o rg , . 't n i z~ ' \ t io n~ I inea l it}'.s.egm~n:1atlol'l, 101 : 11 ]ge m::a iog icD.1 ~1Cg,mt:n : l t l 1 t io l1 .2; :gm~[IUuy socli lbiI l ty. C(l rnp l~ 1 l ' l C 1 I I t L l ry . ; l ' ,PjXJ~~ i L i . o l l 1 , (or lh~m~sin.g eft:ect). and sxrucU, lmlre]at ivity.

'W h ere .a s a -SIngle s e~uml t : : d l il l. c . 'L ~ e . e x t e J I ! l : l $lh i01 l, lg h 1 '!~ uch o r a l l o f Ih i: tr ibe ",none: Tb ~T ill ! l l ld ltll~Ll i ! . I ", l ilJe,dity ilCtYillb' l ia 'S co m -'r :l ll nll ive ly lim it.t: d ' fUllct tOI1'S, Th e T n w andN \ l e 1 ' d . o ' i l 'O it h a v e cotp{ltatC ' ! i " n C i i lg~. i: n t i l e~e:m, ' le ' ' I . !, '!S I ' . . k", ' I h : l J t le rm . .rh~ "{HF{)mU ::. f : I T 0 1 J p . ~ iI.~ Icc,al a l l J : ! r e l : ! : J , t ' ~ O [ 1 f J i i of d iaJt:re~ua.paLic l i[ l~ . . li f i, ~ :E I 'l u l : .' lh u do es J!lQl' de 'Unet b~ p .r im ,~1Y ~s id e .n l la l p rop 'r icMr 'Y ' lI~mllfl!bu t rn thw' 0rs; l ! i !kzc& r cl:lt ll.ln b et.w e.e n Lh l :m.

m.-cordin,1! l!J l! !cn ea Io giiO ul tie s be tween Lhei[!O~-il~i nes ,

O n e n ~ d 1 l0 [ l L ' l s l s T OIl lhi 't . 1 b ~ e n c l $ . n r toc.llcotpora: te nl ' lOlIr~,es JS .UI. i n d;L1 '~H \ i' e c h a r a e -tCTi~l~c r : D ' r ttle ~l:jJ:mllnt.Try HflL:llil!!!Ii: ~y~ ru r fmIt ] > ' 1 lhe presence ,of ! i i , IiTII : l l l ! !~ ~ul.ler~a~llChJII eIIl l ! l l i t juJ!! l , o ' 1 . ' i 1 1 g roups L l l " l is cr i t ical . On tileo th er h o,u dJ" th e m ere , pre se n ce of ~e6Lil ntedIIll, ag , e s in , .1 ~r , lc i~IY ii i f i n t '1 . 11 [ -1 I C ci! : 1 1 '1 ' In r In -c l' U I~ i cm 11 '1 'LIlit t pe , AmI f:liluTe to u rgan i1 ."Cl h l: : p ll l ' i t U'I:I II uni I a . r y l i T i ! : H . I ! I 1 . : tiloi!~1 dCl.!'l,~ / i l l1imJijy , 110 IIHLlwt 11()1W"m,,"y other "~(lg-mema r y " e~ em . e .n ' ts ,I lH '1 J :N$ t 'n t ("&-' fh T :< III-~n~i and. in T", 'b, ' f ~ ,vIml l r n,,1('FIr, Ihe, [ l i n k ! l , I~ w ", m b. ~, : m d KO l:l ka m b a) .

l il : l' L: il l ~ lY :> I1EY! .: : li l~~\ltm: ~~n~ ,nL[ l : l' Q o J 1 0 l l ~o;1I1p r e C Q J n ! J . i~ i o ,) ll !1 > ( c r ~egm .cl I'BI[Y l ineng t de-velnpm.e:l'lt Llneages a n d I1 [i~ n U lYM"r . [)'p;c~,Hv'f,nnnfil wHh :I m r n : ! ~ . , f prarht1:i inn inv'lJl", a n ! , !rep.:lm",c or pcriu.dic use of n:1iirict!:d. lecul-ized rCl!.\)UiI:Ct.'S. S hI, :;~",oml:iry forest 0)[ irri-go .[ io n l l, g ri .c IJ 'i tu r e \ L nd many rOnil~. o f pn~ QI1 l1 i~ m T he ru le o r de.';reni T l l c H l i " i ' Ia ln~_~:I~ il1 ,e! :I!1 1 l ~ s o n ~ liiO C c laI a &p !Ilc '[ o f :lon~['l::rm L I ~Cof L I : I I : nllm:: n: ' . lo1!J'I:m;. '~::; ' , Ilmiltlll:.r ~p - L : ~ t b e l n g ,(h e- d.e v~ :;lo .pm en t o f co lle ct ive pn'lprle.t a ryrI~bts,ii ' l Ihese T!: l "~ : lu rce: ,~ ,1 rh e : m i t t d " ' j f de.~t:~tr:reo1le,~,:l i p~r(Hl.'IIl!~ I ~ m : :l al Rr'f~UPI i r l k~d . i~p~'r.pt;:~IJ,u,II)' \ l ' l . Ihm.bT~ :.lr~h:gi~ I?rc~rty; ! O J , .li'.icwdl al10/till: f way" .i t ~II]OC ttl; p:e"plf wit hRsprcfo rhet r men,m of' liiteHbMd. I' ,in";!,, ..tlOiilOi I'nrmr in he


9/18

equivalent parts (fission). Tiv-Nuer organiza-tion is segmentary in the sense that higherlevels of political organization are achievedthrough integration of equivalent, lower-levelparts. It appears also to grow by segmenta-tion.

But all kinds of societies and many vari-eties of social groups are segmentary in thisgeneric sense. The University of Michiganhas minimal, departmental segments (An-thropology, Chemistry, etc.), which are partsof semi-official divisions (Social Science,Natural Science), which are parts of colleges(Literary College, Engineering School, etc.),which together comprise the University-excluding the Administration (an oversight).Obviously, the existence of segmentationalone does not qualify a society as a seg-mentary lineage system. And even if a unitarylineage system is the organization of politicalsegmentation, it is not a segmentary lineagesystem unless certain other elements, espe-cially structural relativity (see below), arepresent.

LOCAL-GENEALOGICAL SEGMENTATIONA political structure is often a system of

local segmentation. That is, segments of thesame order within the same inclusive politicalbody are contiguous, Among the Tiv and theNuer, local segmentation i,s Simultaneouslylineage segmentation (see Fig. 1). It is notsimply that each territorial entity is identifiedwith a lineage segment, but also that con-tiguous segments of the same inclusive terri-torial entity are identified with equivalentbranches of the same inclusive lineage.Higher political levels are at the same timehigher lineage levels. Thus the lineage systemcan be said to provide the structure for politi-cal consolidation-although there is plenty ofevidence for the Nuer, at least, that in originthe process sometimes works the other wayaround, that the genealogy is fitted to politi-cal realities. (Among the Nuer, also, local-genealogical segmentation is cut off at a high,subtribal level. but as there is rarely confed-eration beyond this level, political allianceconsistently remains lineage alliance.)

A society may have local political segmentsand at the same time segmentary lineages.

SAllUNS: The Segmentary Lineage / 195However, if genealogical segmentation doesnot consistently correspond to local segmen-tation, it does not have a segmentary lineagesystem.

SEGMENTARY SOCIABILITY (LOVETHY NEIGHBOR)The closer the social position of two groups

in a segmentary organization, the more soli-dary their relations; subgroups of the sameinclusive group are more sociable than sub-groups of different inclusive segments. Thisvery general (and vague) sociological factcan be applied in many contexts. However,segmentary sociability is particularly markedif segmentation is organized genealogicallybecause kinship itself connotes sociability,and in many societies it more specificallyconnotes "peace." The closer the kin relation,the greater the sociability and peacefulness;the more distant, or more nearly unrelated,tbe less,

This is not to say that hostility is absentfrom close kin or close segmentary relations.It is probably easier to prove-consideringinterpersonal relations as such - that thecloser the social bond, the greater the hostil-ity. However, it not hostility that is at issuebut the necessity to repress it or, conversely,the possibility of enjoining it. The closerthe relationship, the greater the restrainton belligerence and violence, and themore distant, the less the restraint. Amongthe Tiv and the Nuer, given the kin quality ofsegmentation, segmentary sociability is par-ticularly striking; it is virtually institution-alized. Hostility is put down effectively withinthe Nuer village and the Tiv minimal tar: iffactionalism erupts the difficulty is eithersettled or one party will have to emigrate.These are groups of close kin who must main-tain their integrity against the outside, and anunsociable action in this context is sinful. Themoral injunction is accompanied by a pro-hibition on the use of dangerous weapons.But the greater the lineage-segmentary dis-tance, the more dangerous the permittedmeans of violence-from fists, to clubs, toarrows, poisoned arrows, etc.-and the moredifficult it becomes to repair a feud. Corre-spondingly, violence becomes more honorable


10/18

J 96 I Ul'IliTlem.TUIU'i : 1 i J . 'P'ropn.rl'fon 1 .0 ",e~'rmmt;j.r1" d~:IIl!l[lc~.e;II,;'h,h(ljg U 'I e 'U h 1 L l : m ~ i ' l i lIull l! l1 i , n j . ! : S whb f 0 1 1 : i L :ig nIiMl!, l!I~.[e v i a T l . : m . ' C j~ nn ,"~(eemedac]-I here are p . r a C : l k , . f I l l y nO 1 1 . o ' Id l l b " r J 'e d O'n, f M u t : i t y . I l f l d ~ s t n t e o f wa r I 1 J . ! ; I Y w ( ! : 1 1 b ~ th ea s s umed ~omHl.l re lw io n, Th e v:,"Ihtll 0 f s eg -lIuel!l:~ilTy 5Q!:i(ll)iliry n r! ile Ta ck t~ ercQ r-io rp'rcdi!lllM!" Cl\plI.lIIsjnn is f:lhvious:"'io~i1n,cc: 1~fo i l, ! " ir ed C(lnr,.~[lehdl'YI :nuon!:! al~li~lI[JLlli:,Gk"!.~ly n:j illti:d .lF~)1JPi'l, hu t i~ (Hlit;t:~cd cenld, fu J ,! iu H y a g n ~ n ~ 1 Ii Il i~ t u .n L 1 l I~ o IIJ I l ' i " n .m ] u e i; gi hb o ~ ~ulJg poo',p']es.Seg~ aI'I lwry ~(I;(;K~~iil t) " '0'[ hM]1 rs ;I CIDf1&

I'Il QI! 1 p Olif l cat phe flJll"ll I1 .no1 1 1 1 ],1 lt ~,I 1 '! 1 e n n-~it:t l ld ~l'Ig i 1 : l ~ ' il e 'l n n e n t: ll ') ' I t! lc .' I. .g c : ; ;Y: ; '~I : ! til~ bt:~c[ll lJs~,i !l t Ii l!: n b :; ;; !: n or : u f II, pt:n],llll1.!:'IU l rib l1l: p o ~ ~ l i C ' . t i . 1o ~ r u e t u 1\:'. ~li: . I l l + : ~iltklHm e t : h : l u i ~ l ' I ~~j,f Ihe pC'Il;;tl1!'~I~p t~~ . Q~r,1i]n~ : :un l,or' l lJ l l i -C."IH:r ' 1'0 dellillrm~ " !i ). hi ." l ~ v l: l1 ! " i " ClIITI( ! l l~ iv,c. poh~~," e g r M I U . w ySOc'i .~bil i l l - ' 1l1a~l~l , :1nz :~ il ) cOlll'plem(m~.t\ry o p-l~ osh ioU il. the m ~ i'U I,~ n f ~qllj~al~!'Ilsl1gIll1~ntcsil~ dc:fenlle ~ l : r ~,hm~ion D r t lUl:k r~:!l~ct'uvept i" ' !I 'Q.g~. In .:Iiny o p po si liu : cl b etw e en p:L1rt ics,A and '0, ilU these UlOt iC dosely ['dilled to Atll~n [0 0 wHl ~I[\nd wflh A ~Si'lilJll:l1:t[I, OIllc lVI-I::c .".C~. xglTIt.'nls are plt~ed aga.tnsl equ~v&g I'cilt J.eW nl: Rll!: i ln}l' t:I PP'DliIbOn 1lid!,l1!i:il:n.~ r o l l r 5 (If m ~ m bi!: ! ,$ !h e re t'! r ) e 1 < p . . nd!S .nHO-!!Ultit':ln'l '10 0rftOsHifi'ii! hI/;HM~'r! Ihc'~ilrgl!Sl~q'lhl'lrlll'lt Mn ~;'g !! ;~ ,n t w l: :! h:: h ~ .h e: C'OI ' l I1i : . ,< j ;~ l ' !nl~otrl!i nJ'p~r:lb',r'l:t mllm~n:r... Tha : !1li~il]lg dr~Li . ' l f I o c l f ' :H m i t iD ! l ,1 :1 weH ~~(!I (.cx~umtll l lg . ,[tI; ;'u ts u f ! w lu :n ~ibliilg g,fOUps, : i r e . jC'ined be -c..r~u."c J 'i ae n&~~ cqu .i . .."h: ' fnl t!J ~hill ,iflclusiw QrI~C(i1i}!OIinil')g QJPl ' lo~d '~il ;1~il lg ~fr l I : lPS- OlL~ equa l ly: I ' l lJDld (g;r ' . ,qu I1Uy U" re:l~I:! i :d j U1 UUl. ' oon -h:lIitlllll:>.E:~l l I f l ' ! ' Pr i l ,chl l , fd , ' : h : = > ; c l ' i ~ ; : : 1 1 1 I!!Jmplem~ntln)l'o ~ Jf os l! io n ~~ 'T1~ l a [ : lo ,,~ l. l l i !~ !ir El~ s~ m en ~ ~ ,o ri l ' i c : NMU in tim "1ay (~'!~,.Prih:h:3iLtl~ "~I!C-ik D n." in Ih l~ p:lX !la g~ ' ~ : l 1 : I h e. u ndcl! '\!1 (tm d inl : i , I j , J : . i l j I ! ! : : as w,~I~as kml.o.ri:d t.:.l"ffiS)l!

A Bx yXl )'1

2:1Xi ~'3Z1

nil p r i n l l : ; p t ~ of !f'!l:mel1t.'~i'o.l'I t 1 n d the "'l'~ijliguL~lWtel'l ~~lI,n':lH~i..IlI: '~.lInn: in I:VCICli":il!:t~~gl"l of:1 Ir ilJli! [ou" "~ubl l b e , " 'l f i lm l cx.,~I~d~ h " l i ' o . n d~hI:' I dt ~ ~or r i ll t iu m : bc-lt~':~Jl h 'l I :n :: 5 . . . M (:,~'rl bo ''KI.:lllttl i m hypnth~Ue."IJ Utrn~, hy I'h!!l Nn~r 11IuQ~!' ' I 'C' .:t lliid ~un bl : rt'ptCKilUcd Ju Lh[,3 W:I)'. h i! 'th edi.!lillr~ln. WJt~{1 Z~:lill"l1~.V nn "'tl'lo.j~~H!:!jlI; .. iIH /Q I" 'td . W J'~ n ,; N Jillb.b'; }'J. Zl tm~1 'l.) mlit~a s '1'1' ''Ii'h~'l1 , l e t n",!U; x r . 1 '1 ~n~ ~'.1' Imh~! u r n l


11/18

~'Ulr ,e: withoutoprn~iHofi thr- h l E : l l e r ">egm~fII l . '>d t l l rl!lJt c!1 '{h1, M ! , u , o , e . I l ; fi r p c n p T c iI~ 110 '1 o r g a : n i l - l : ,n , DjI' l 'I { lC i l: ! 1 ~trL~ ~~r~ ~n m n e i i i ~ (HEan t -2.nHOl'I li ~~' mi:l~~ b:'l' m.iL~il1g. 'fh~:!I t~~dli1 ~~~lli : t : ! I jI ' lli,) M i l : : fi:rlt!,1,CI,I1It i1L:f i l ' lhiv'~L:'hl l .f"IIA::r l f ! r-h l iC ' ~r I 1 1 ' . : ~~gniem.1l.1 )'I~lICII~J: il"lit'llm, . i l ln le bU l l ' o l i ft'1QJ[~'" i l )1- Bu~ I1IHe t'Ulll'l1Q't ref rn i HI fm.f r i l .nnting lu~rori:!h:ltld ' I~t. l ' ~f"'t a"'\!ii~H!lge~l:ril'~goll.'it~s~them,' More ~ltDI'l that, !! iie ~m;:i!~'n{l~11n t i e r . . H a c k d o no t 'T orEtl ; ; ; u c : h c :~ . I ' n ;S . i ' l: i u / l ta tr il 'l ll l o m "n '(;e ~; h e l 1 c : e it i& u l i u a l l j ~ ' - 'nil o 'rU~' :J~lI.ln~t ".1 lew 0" t il 1 m '! . ,~TIl'UCTTJ~l'" L ~ 1[L~"IVlnr

T f~ ' ''N 'i I: !c : r l l n ~ge l l ' du nOl e eme 1nlO es-Ist~!'II:~ ~~C ' ! ) [ l i !'IUl'l1!Sh Uw m : \ . . . .~lIilS c U C i : i. hiuppn.~ !Iliolll 'In ~qUI\II.1eml ~n:IUp..\. lih!:)' ;Ii~'i;: !'1m~tma1]~rH. ilih'.:rdldc ~ 1 0 1 I . : l a 1 I : : n l i l i ~ . b u t , . d a -r i lo't1 ,Oll( ; : . ,~ . C{j]~,~dl l ~Q b~iM byex~l , l ' r t l l1 ldr~~um.~IO!n ( : le ' . .~ . t h~ ~ ,~ vlil o f 0rS i I Oi:Zilli(n ll[I.c.hLe\'ed :i i i l l . din:ct Flmportiu!l l!l)~h~!>odatorder o r 1 &,-= Oppo si~ iO l" IU 1 .U I,h~ liltlca.ll;c ~1:g . '1 ' 1 ' 1 I:fI[ (eas~. to f~!l12'~LOll I.!~, su ch wbe n OPI)O'snle n; ] is Im:Jb:llY


12/18

198 / HORTTCUL TUREsolidating otherwise autonomous primarygroups for concerted external action. Thereare no permanent lineage segments beyondthe primary group, but only temporary seg-ments of different size, developing to the levelthey have to in order to meet opposition.We [Evans-Pritchard] would . . . suggest thatNuer political groups be defined . . . by therelations between their segments and their inter-relations as segments of a larger system in anorganization of society in certain social situ-ations, and not as paris of a kind 0 / fixedframework within which people live [emphasisours].

Structural relativity in a segmentary lineagesystem is paralleled by relativity of leadership.A man may achieve some fame-personaland charismatic-beyond his primary group,enough perhaps to be influential among near-by, related segments. Insofar as these seg-ments combine with his own in opposition toother groups, such a man may act as thespokesman and leader of the whole. But whenhis own primary segment stands against anequivalent, closely related one in feud or in aland dispute, then he is not heeded by theoppo ed segment but is only leader of hisown. The Bohannans describe relativity ofTiv leadership very well:

I

~A BILeader X

II

FIGURE 3The same segmentary principle which allowsvery large units to appear in opposition toequivalent units make it impossible for any unit,from the internal viewpoint, to have unity. Thusin any affairs beween 1and II, X appears as theleader of I. In any affairs solely the concern ofI, X appears as the leader of A ... any accountof Tiv leadership must discuss leadership in thesetwo aspects: "against" and "within," or, ifone prefers and will remember that the lineagelevel concerned is contextual, "foreign" and"domestic" affairs. However, the lineage struc-ture itself, by an association of union withopposition, brings it about that emotively thefeeling of "within" and of unity in any given

segment is strongest when "foreign" affairs areconcerned, and that the emergence of latentcleavages is most prominent and the achievementof unity most difficult in "internal" affairs.That is, a leader wields his greatest influence"within" when he is a leader "against." Thisprinciple needs no modification if one remembersthat the lineage span is variable. Only if oneattempts to pin leadership 10 a definite lineage(I), does it break down, unless one specifies thatwithin T, X is the leader of A; within A, he is theleader of "i," and so on, literally to the pointat which he is himself "against" his fullbrother.

The Tiv and the Nuer, as many other tribalsocieties, are militantly equalitarian-a corol-lary of a fragmented kin economy and polity.The Tiv, in fact, have periodic purges ofwould-be tyrant. While the Tiv are capableof mass opposition to other tribes. even herethe inherent weakness of their tribal polityshows through. Small clusters of close kinfight parallel to each other; there is no co-ordinated deployment, no master strategy, nodivision of military labors' and the scope ofleadership thus remains restricted. As for theuer, the most influential men in the tradi-

tional system, the "leopard-skin chiefs," char-acteristically stand outside the lineage system.They are usually not agnatic members of thefocal lines of their region and are not egmentleaders, Theirs is ritual office, virtually with-out secular power, and their function is tocompose feuds between lineage segmentsrather than to organize feuding factions.

Structural relativity reveals the tribal char-acter of the segmentary lineage system. Theone-sided function of the system, organiza-tion for external opposition, also suggests thespecific adaptive circumstance which itmeets: intertribal competition.

PREDATORY EXPANSION:"WE DO THAVE A BOU DARY;WE HAVE AN ARGUMENT"

The Tiv are centered in the orthernProvince of igeria, straddling both banks ofthe Benue River. According to traditions, theTiv moved into this area from the southeast:their occupation of the plain north of theBenue is comparatively recent and Tiv in-trusion in this Sector is still progressing. Yet


13/18

(I

Tiv expansion is not characterized so muchby movement in one direction as it is bymovement in all directions: "When seen fromthe periphery, and more especially when seenfrom the viewpoint of surrounding peoples, acentrifugal migration is the most importantsingle factor about the Tiv." Only in thesouth has the Tiv advance been inhibited, andthis by boundaries drawn by the British, notfor Jack of inclination on the Tiv's part to gofarther.Tiv migration has been accomplished spe-

cifically at the expense 'of a number of otherpeoples, who have either been rolled back bythe Tiv wave or else have suffered infiltrationof their lands by growing colonies of Tiv,sometimes to the point that the e peoples nowexist as isolated enclaves within Tivland. Thisfantastic predatory encroachment is morereminiscent of conquering nomad hordes thanof a simple eolithic peasantry:To their east they are living intermingled with"Uke": the Hausa-speaking Abakwariga, Ju-kun, Jukunized Charnba and other peoples; theyhave even begun to push into Adamawa Prov-ince. To their north they are moving into (andleaving behind as enclaves) such groups as theArago and Ankwe, who are linguistically relatedto the Idorna. _ .. To the west they are exertingpressure on the Idorna and on the other groupscalled "Akpoto" by the Tiv; Tiv in adjoiningareas say they dispossessed the Akpoto of the!and on which they now live.Many Tiv have migrated south into the EasternProvinces and set up their homesteads among thevarious small tribes of Ogoja Province, known tothe Tiv collectively asthe dam.British administration encountered Tiv migrationalmost as soon as they encountered the Tiv, in1912. As a result the "Munshi [i.e., Tiv] Wall"was built between Gaav of Jechira [a large Tivlineage) and the contiguous peoples of Ogoja, awal! meant to "keep the Munshi in his place-north of the wall" but which "the Munshimerely climbs over."

The Tiv evidently intrude themselveswherever they can cultivate and where theiropposition is weak. They now number over800,000 people, by far the largest pagantribal grouping in Northern Nigeria. The de-cisive factor in this phenomenal successseems to be the Tiv segmentary lineage sys-tem: the Tiv are able to exert mass pressureon their borders, while the peoples subjected

SAHLINS: The Segmentary Lineage / 199to this pressure are incapable of defendingtheir territories on a commensurate scale.Many of these hapless peoples are small tribal-groups, the "broken- tribes" of the north, forexample, or the "congeries of small, semi-Bantu speaking tribes" to the south. Speakingof the Tiv's neighbors in general, L Bohan-nan remarks:Most of these societies seem to be made up ofsmall descent groups-sometimes territoriallydistinct, sometimes dispersed-crossed and i n t e -grated by ties of reputed kinship, chiefship andreligion .... In political organization the Tiv arein no way typical of the region in which theylive.,

Tiv expansive thrusts germinate at lowerlevels of the segmentary structure and de-velop upward through higher levels and out-ward toward the borders of Tivland. Therearc no natural or artificial boundaries be-tween Tiv minimal segments (tar), as distinctfrom holdings under cultivation: "We don'thave a boundary; we have an argument."Every year new plots are Cleared, as usedones are left fallow, and, as P. Bohannan putsit, every compound headman within the mi n -imal segment holds a right against the worldto sufficient farming land. The existing fallowbetween adjacent minimal segments is likelyto be disputed when such rights are exercised,and disputed by comparatively large groups atthat. For the direction of expansion of cul-tivation is governed by tactical considera-lions: one moves against the bounding seg-ment most distantly related to one's own, thusbringing the massing effect into maximalplay.

ow when it is considered that lineage seg-ments are at every level localized, it followsthat an expansive push thus instigated mayreverberate through a great part of the seg-mentary structure, inexorably building up in-tense centrifugal pressure. Minor, major, andhigher-order segments are mobilized-through complementary opposition-againsttheir equivalents, Those who are beingpushed from the inside are induced to expandoutward, which movement automaticallyallies both pushers and pushed, as companionsegments, against still higher-order Tiv line-ages, and ultimately a large ector of Tiv arepressing foreigners. The Bohannaus present


14/18

200 I HORTICULTURE

I " c t ! ~ q S H I L L U K . D I N K A ! f i A N U A K

FIGURE 4

an interesting hypothetical model of this pro-cess, too long to quote here, in which a mantrying to expand holdings against companionsegments is reminded at every turn that thesegments are brothers and one should takeland from the neighboring, higher-levelequivalent lineage instead, until it becomesrelevant that "All Tiv are brothers; youshould take land from foreigners." The seg-mentary lineage system consistently channelsexpansion outward, releasing internal pres-sure in an explosive blast against other peo-ples.A border lineage may be forced by internal

pressure to move en masse against anothertribe; the Bohannans aptly call this "steam-roller expansion." A "long and bitter war"will follow. The concerted movement of aborder village may be entirely against its will:the lineage is simply crowded out as the Tivside of its land is consumed by the appetitesof other Tiv, Of course, at the border internalTiv lineages join their brothers in the goodfight. Having advanced the border lineage,the internal lineages then fill in the vacatedland, always keeping the same relative posi-tions, Every lineage that does not bound

foreigners knows "just which lineages they'follow' (chir), and-though they are likelyto push or shove (kpolom)-they will assistthose in front to take over from foreigners."Steamroller expansion is most characteristicof Tiv expansion in the south, where there isintensive competition with neighboring tribes.In the north, "leap-frog" migration is morecommon: a group from an internal segmentcatapults over the border and infiltrates a newarea. The invading nucleus is eventuallyjoined by people of related segments and alldistribute themselves according to genealog-ical distance, paralleling their original posi-tions.Across Africa, in the periodically flooded

grasslands around the Upper Nile, a similardrama of expansion is played out. The prin-cipal protagonists in this arena are the Nuerand their principal victims, the Dinka. TheNuer invasion of Dinkaland=and also ofAnuak territory farther east - can be de-scribed as a Drang nacli Osten. This is themain trend, although there is a tendency toexpand in other directions, especially againstsouthern and western Dinka. If the tribal mapof the area can be used to decipher its his-


15/18

tory, it appears that the Nuer have simplydismembered the Dinka, divided them intoseparate sections southwest and northeast ofthe Nile (Fig. 4).The major outlines of Nuer incursions 'i n

the pper ile are summed up by Evans-Pritchard:As far as history and tradition go back, and in thevistas of myth beyond their farthest reach, therehas been enmity between the two peoples. Almostalways the uer have been the aggressors ..Every Nuer trite raided Dinka at least every twoor three years, and some part of Dinkaland musthave been raided annually .... The earliest travel-lers record that Nucr held both banks of the Nile,but it is probable thai all the entire Zeraf Islandwas at one time occupied by Dinka and it is cer-lair! that the whole of the country from the Zerafto the Pibor and, to the north of the Sobat, fromthe confines of Shillukland to the Ethiopian scrap,was, with the exception of riverain settlements ofAnuak, still in their hands as late as the middle oflast century, when it was seized by the Nuer. ...The conquest, which seems to have resulted in ab-sorption and miscegenation rather than extermi-nation, was so rapid and successful that the wholeof this vast area is today occupied by Nuer, ex-cept for a few pockets of Dinka .... Some Dinkatribes took refuge with compatriots to the south,where the Gaawar [Nucr] and Lou [Nuer] con-tinued to raid them. The Western Nu e r likewisepersi tently raided all the Dinka tribes that bor-der them, particularly those to the south and west,obtained a moral ascendancy over them, andcompelled them to withdraw farther and fartherfrom their boundaries .... Of all the Dinka onlythe gok , to the south of the Sobat, were leftin peace, probably on account of their povertyof stock and grazing.

Nuer expansion represents the successfulconquest of a particular ecological niche: thetrue savannah of the Sudan. Nuer relationswith neighboring peoples have been directlypredicated on the potentialities of their areasfor the Nucr mode of production. Thus, notonly did the riverain Anuak and gok Dinkaescape Nuer ravages, but the uer have hadlittle to do with the powerful Shilluk kingdombecause it is situated in poor pasture land.(Conversely, the Shilluk have probably toler-ated the Nuer rather than moved againstthem because uerland is marginal to theShill uk mode of production.) The Anuakwere driven east into tsetse-infested forests;the Nuer wave then spent itself against thisecological barrier. The Dinka have been theconsistent victim of Nuer predation precisely

SAliLINS: The Segmentary Lineage / 201because "of all neighboring areas Dinkalandalone opposes no serious. ecological handicapsto a pastoral people." (It may be then thatthe Western Dinka display considerable in-genuity in reconciling their fate, for theycontrast themselves to the savannah-dwellingNuer as primarily "a people of savannah-forest settlement. '')I uer expansion is perhaps an outstanding

instance 0 1 ' the Law of Cultural Dominance,the principle that the cultural system mo teffective in a particular environment willspread there at the expense of therrnody-namically less effective systems. In any eventit is clear that the Nuer have been able toexpel the Dinka because of the superior mili-tary potential of the Nuer segmentary lineagesystem. While the uer and Dinka are alikein culture, there are differences in social Of-ganization. On the Dinka side these differ-ences amount to the tragic flaw that has con-demned them to a history of withdrawal.

The Dinka are, to use Lienhardt's terms,divided into a number of "tribal groups,"each further subdivided into "tribes," "sub-tribes," and yet smaller segments. However,these are not genealogical segments-theycannot be placed on a single agnatic gen-ealogy-nor are they disposed in local gen-ealogical segmentation: in fact the "tribes"are not necessarily geographic blocs. Politicalunits among the Dinka arc not fixed by com-plementary opposition. Instead, subtribes, andeven smaller segments, display a notable ten-dency to fragment into absolute, independententities. Subtribes crystallize about two ormore unrelated lineages, one a priestly groupand another a warrior line, standing for andrepresenting the subtribe, which is itself acamping unit in the wet season and is alsoconcentrated (in one or two sites) in the dryperiod. The critical thing is that thi divisive,segmenting tendency is not matched by fu-sion with lineage-equivalent segment in high-er-order, relative groupings, The Dinka lackthe thermostatic mechanism for massingagainst the outside, a deficiency that has beenfatal.In the 191h century, when much of WesternDinkaland was pillaged by slavers and adven-turers, there was little wide-scale co-operationagainst the common enemies. It is known that


16/18

202 / HORTICULTUREneighbouring tribes of Dinka harried each otherin temporary alliances with the invaders until theybegan to understand the scale of the subjectionwhich they were all inviting. Even now, however,mallY Dinka recognize that Nuer are able 10unite on a larger scale than are Dinka.

This difference between Nuer and Dinkais, we think, related to differences attendingtheir respective occupation of the Sudan. TheDinka appear to have spread without greatopposition. They were first. They naturallygrew by segmentation, and Iissioning unitscould, in the absence of external threat, af-ford to organize as small, virtually self-con-tained entities. The Dinka themselves supposethat small settlements inevitably grow andbreak up into discrete groups, each able tostand by itself. Lienhardt remarks that "sucha theory . . . could only develop among apeople who know themselves free to moveaway from each other; to occupy furthertracts of empty or weakly occupied country,and to find new pastures" (emphasis ours).There is 110 independent confirmatory evi-dence, according to Lienhardt. However, theenormous population of the Dinka-about900,00O--coupled with the weak, fragmentedpolity, certainly does suggest that they movedinto a large uncontested domain.The Nuer, by contrast, were invaders. Theyspread through an already occupied niche,one held by Dinka, and the very large Nuerpopulation, over 200,000, is testimony oftheir success. The Nuer had different adap-tive problems than the Dinka, precisely be-cause the Dinka were already there. Thisselective circumstance placed a premium onthe ability to fuse as well as to segment, oncomplementary opposition. Nuer segmentarylineage organization was the adaptive re-sponse. The Dinka, whose development in anopen environment had favored segmentation butminimized fusion, then found themselves social-ly ill-equipped to cope with Nuer predation.

The well known seasonal movements of theNuer impose a particular form of expansion.The outward push seems to originate fromdry season dispersal in search of water andpasturage. It is significant that lineage seg-ments of relatively low 'level-Evans-Pritch-ard's "tertiary sections," composed of a num-ber of villages, or else higher-order "seccn-

dary sections"-characteristica1ly fan out indifferent directions in this critical period. Onthe one hand, of course, this minimizes com--petition for water and pasturage amongequivalent segments of larger Nuer lineages.On the other hand, each Nuer segment is thusbrought into juxtaposition with outsiders,typically Dinka. The Nuer are too scatteredat this point in the cycle to take full ad-vantage of the potential massing effect. Butsome fighting with foreigners during the dryseason dispersal-or at the least something inthe nature of a probe or reconaissance-isindicated.Full-fledged wars and raids prosecuted bylarge sectors of Nuer (the component sec-tions of a "tribe," in Evans-Pritchard's terms)

occurred at the end of the rainy season. TheNuer chronically raided the Dinka for cattleand iron tools, but a raid might transformitself into an actual invasion. The raiderswould settle in and systematically extend thesphere of terror until the Dinka were com-pelled to withdraw. The ranks of the invadersmight be swelled by additional immigrantsfrom their homeland, and also by Dinkacaptives and enclaved settlements. These Din-ka were integrated into the lineage arrange-ment of the invading nucleus. (Conquest andabsorption of this sort, as opposed to con-quest and rule, seems typical of the triballevel, where political and economic meanswhich would make the latter feasible have notyet been achieved.)As a final note we might consider whetherpopulation pressure can be held responsiblefor Tiv expansion in Nigeria and the com-parable Nuer incursions in East Africa. Cer-tain resources, notably dry season water andpasturage, are evidently in short supplyamong the Nuer, and Evans-Pritchard is pre-pared to agree that Nuer expansion is due tooverpopulation, which is also the Nuer ex-planation. Among the Tiv, population densityis extreme and land has been SUbjected todangerously intensive use in some parts of thesouth, evidently in consequence of modernchecks on Tiv migration. But in the sector ofrapid recent expansion, the northern frontier,population density falls to levels below one-half of the general Tivland average of 64 persquare mile.


17/18

Perhaps population pressure in critical cen-tral locations gives impetus to both Tiv andNuer predation, Yet it seems to us that acertain relativity is required in assessing landhunger among societies competing for occu-pation of a specific habitat. Because the suc-cess of one contestant is necessarily to thedetriment of the other, neither has enoughland until the other has been eliminated. Theneed for "living space" is built in: it becomesa cultural attitude and theory, particularly inthat society which has the decisive competi-tive advantage, Among the invaders a naturalincrease of population beyond the carryingcapacity of present resources will be taken forgranted, and at least for them land hungerexists-the idea is adaptively advantageous-even if, by objective standards, there isenough land to support the present popula-tion. Thus, in northern and extreme south-eastern TivJand, "where no land shortage ex-ists," the search for more land is prominentlyarticulated by Tiv as a cause for migration.From an adaptive viewpoint, this is no para-dox,

CO CLUSIO SThe segmentary lineage system is an insti-tution appearing at the tribal level of general

cultural evolution; it is not characteristic ofbands, chiefdoms, or the several forms ofcivilization. It develops among societies witha simple Neolithic mode of production and acorrelative tendency to form small, autono-mous economic and political groups. The seg-mentary lineage system is a social means oftemporary consolidation of this fragmentedtribal polity for concerted external action, Itis, in a sense, a substitute for the fixed polit-ical structure which a tribal society is in-capable of sustaining.

It will not, however, be found among alltribes. Certain social conditions are presup-posed-for one thing, the existence of line-ality or lineages. In tum, lineality is aproduct of repetitive, long-term use of re-stricted resources, If this ecological factor isabsent, it seems unlikely that a segmentarylineage system will appear,A segmentary lineage system develops in a

SAHLINS: The Segmentary Lineage / 203tribe that intrudes into an already occupiedhabitat rather tban a tribe that expands intoan uncontested domain. Expansion in anopen environment 'may well be accompaniedby segmentation, the normal process of tribalgrowth and spread. But in the absence ofcompetition small segments tend to becomediscrete and autonomous, linked togetherprimarily through mechanical solidarity.These circumstances, in other words, favorfission but select against complementary op-position or fu ion, and long-term occupationwill eventually fix this structure, make itcomparatively inflexible. By contrast, growthin the face of opposition selects for comple-mentary opposition a s a social means of pre-dation. Thus the first tribe in an area is un-likely to develop a segmentary lineage system,but the second tribe in that area is more likelyto.That the segmentary lineage system occursamong intrusive tribal societies also suggests

that, from a long-term view, it is likely to beepherrneral. Once a society has succeeded indriving competitors from its babitat, theselective force favoring fusion disappears andtbe fragmenting tendencies of the neolithiceconomy are free to express themselves. Inother words, the segmentary lineage system isself-liquidating. It is advantageous in inter-tribal competition, but having emerged vic-torious it has no longer raison d'etre and thedivisive tendencies of tribal polity reassertthemselves. This helps to explain why seg-mentary lineage system, contrary to thepopular View, have a relatively limited eth-nographic distribution.Finally, the segmentary lineage system de-

velops in a specifically intertribal environ-ment, in competition between societies of thetribal level. Expansion of a tribe againstsmall, weakly integrated band socreueswould normally not call for special mech-anisms of tribal consolidation, And, on theother side, a segmentary lineage system wouldbe ineffective in competition with chiefdomsand states. To oppose-let alone to preyupon-societies of this order requires large-scale, organic integration of economic andpolitical, especially military, effort. Limitedeconomic coordination, the relativity of lead-ership and its absence of coercive sanction,


18/18

204 I HORTICULTUREthe localized, egalitarian character of thepolity, the ephcrrnerality of large groupings,all of these would doom a segmentary lineagesystem if brought into conflict with chief-doms or states.The Nuer themselves provide a convincingillustration. When faced with Arab aggressionat the turn of this century and with later Eu-ropean intrusion, their segmentary system be-gan to collapse, or rather it was transformedinto something else. The Nuer were ralliedagainst their common and formidable en-

17. SUR P LUS

ernies by prophets who transcended the sec-tional oppositions of lineages, and acted, touse Evans-Pritchard's phrase, as "pivots offederation." A system of hereditary politicalleadership and extensive political unificationbegan to emerge. If this revolution had notbeen checked by European dominance-andalso if it had been able to muster adequateeconomic support-the Nuer would not simp-ly have overthrown the segmentary lineagesystem, but catapulted themselves to thechiefdom level of evolutionary progress.

MARTIN QRANSReprinted, by permission of the author and the Society Jar Applied Anthropology, from HumanOrganization, 25(l) (1966): 24-32. Martin Orans teaches anthropology at the University otCalifornia, Riverside. His primary interests are ill economic anthropology and social organ-ization, He is the author of The Santa): A Tribe in Search of a Great Tradition.

One aspect of the principle that everytechnology is also a particular kind of socialsystem is that in every society there are clearlydefined criteria according to which people areprovided with a livelihood. Once food has beenacquired or produced, it is distributed andallocated according to established rules. Acorollary of this principle is that every fun-damental change in technology results in acorresponding change in the society's criteriafor the allocation of livelihoods. In nomadichunting-and-gathering bands, as we have seen,a frequent rule is that meat is shared equallyamong all the members of the band. Amongmany sedentary horticulturists, each householdconsumes what it has grown or acquired inexchanges with kin-related households; inthese societies, everyone is obliged to con-tribute to the support of particular kinsmenwho, for one reason or another, may not havesufficient food. Everyone is assu red a livelihoodin most of these societies.But what determines how much food will be

produced? The Kuikuru (Selection 11) have thecapacity to raise more food than they do, andthis is true of many other people. About adecade ago Marshall Sahlins explored thehypothesis that when productlvity rises to arelatively high level, an adjustment will occur inthe organization of social relations to give riseto a system of social stratification, The chief, in

this system, is able to maintain considerablepower because one of his principal roles isgoverning the distribution of surplus food.In this selection Orans challenges Sahlins'

interpretation by asking why should peopleproduce more food than they need for theirpersonal and immediate social needs. If theydevelop more efficient techniques, would theynot tend to work less, unless there were aspecial reason for them to work more andproduce more? To appreciate the significanceof these questions, as well as their analysis, itis necessary to remember that Orans is notinquiring into individuals' motivations; instead,he is examining food production as an aspectof social relations within and between groups.One of the assumptions that seems to underliehis paper is that people's behavior is largelydetermined by their group rnernbersh ips as wellas by the interests they share as members ofthe total society. Social classes within a systemof elaborate stratification are among the groupmemberships that strongly affect people's eco-nomic behavior, in addition to their othermodes of action.Orans' contention is that the degree of

elaboration in a society's system of socialstratification is in large measure a result ofpopu lation size and density, and he bases hisanalysis on the data that Sahlins used fromPolynesia. (Orans does not apply Carneiro's

/

I1I -I~If!I'!,IJ -

I\)IlI

the segmentary lineage

Documents