Tribe

From New World Encyclopedia


A tribe is a social system where human society is divided into small, roughly independent subgroups. Tribal societies lacked any organizational level beyond that of the local tribe, with each tribe consisting only of a very small, local population. The internal social structure of a tribe can vary greatly from case to case, but, due to the small size of tribes, it is always a relatively simple structure, with few (if any) significant social distinctions between individuals. Some tribes are particularly egalitarian, and most tribes have only a vague notion of private property; many have none at all. A shared sense of identity and kinship encourages the development of kin selection. Tribalism is the very first social system that human beings ever lived in, and it has lasted much longer than any other kind of society to date.

Definition

A tribe, viewed historically or developmentally, consists of a social group existing before the development of, or outside of, states, though some modern theorists hold that "contemporary" tribes can only be understood in terms of their relationship to states.

The actual word, "tribe," is of uncertain origin before the Roman usage. The "tri" part of tribe referred to three tribes or political ethnic divisions (Tities, Ramnes, and Luceres), in the ancient Roman state. Properly, in Latin tribus means "by three."[1] Gregory Nagy,[2] notes that the Umbrian trifu (tribus) is apparently derived from a combination of *tri- and *bhu- where the second element is cognate with the phu- of Greek phule, and that this was subdividing the Greek polis into three phulai.


The term is often loosely used to refer to any non-Western or indigenous society. Many anthropologists use the term to refer to societies organized largely on the basis of kinship, especially corporate descent groups (see clan and lineage).

In common modern understanding the word "tribe" is a social division within a traditional society consisting of a group of interlinked families or communities sharing a common culture and dialect. In the contemporary western mind the modern tribe is typically associated with a seat of traditional authority (tribal leader) with whom the representatives of external powers (the governing state or occupying government) interact.

Terminology

A band is the simplest form of human society. A band generally consists of a small kinship group, no larger than an extended family or small clan. Bands have very informal leadership; the older members of the band generally are looked to for guidance and advice, but there are no written laws and no law enforcement seen typically in more complex societies. Bands' customs are almost always transmitted orally. Formal social institutions are few or non-existent. Religion is generally based on family tradition, individual experience, or counsel from a shaman.

Bands are distinguished from tribes in that tribes are generally larger, consisting of many families. Tribes have more social institutions and clearly defined leadership such as a "chief," or "elder." Tribes are also more permanent than bands; a band can cease to exist if only a small group walks out. Many tribes are in fact sub-divided into bands; in the United States, some tribes are made up of official bands that live in specific locations.

A clan is a group of people united by kinship and descent, which is defined by perceived descent from a common ancestor. Even if actual lineage patterns are unknown, clan members nonetheless recognize a founding member or "apical ancestor." As kinship based bonds can be merely symbolic in nature some clans share a "stipulated" common ancestor, which is a symbol of the clan's unity. When this ancestor is not human, this is referred to a totem. Generally speaking, kinship differs from biological relation, as it also involves adoption, marriage, and fictive genealogical ties. Clans can be most easily described as sub-groups of tribes and usually constitute groups of 7000 to 10 000 people.

A chiefdom is any community led by an individual known as a chief.

In anthropological theory, one model of human social development rooted in ideas of cultural evolution describes a chiefdom as a form of social organization more complex than a tribe, and less complex than a state or a civilization. The most succinct (but still working) definition of a chiefdom in anthropology belongs to Robert Carneiro: "An autonomous political unit comprising a number of villages or communities under the permanent control of a paramount chief" (Carneiro 1981: 45).

Chiefdoms are characterized by pervasive inequality of peoples and centralization of authority. At least two inherited social classes (elite and commoner) are present, although social class can often be changed by extraordinary behavior during an individual's life. A single lineage/family of the elite class will be the ruling elite of the chiefdom, with the greatest influence, power, and prestige. Kinship is typically an organizing principle, while marriage, age, and gender can affect one's social status and role.

A single simple chiefdom is generally composed of a central community surrounded by or near a number of smaller subsidiary communities. All of these communities recognize the authority of a single kin group or individual with hereditary centralized power, dwelling in the primary community. Each community will have its own leaders, which are usually in a tributary and/or subservient relationship with the ruling elite of the primary community.

A complex chiefdom is a group of simple chiefdoms controlled by a single paramount center, and ruled by a paramount chief. Complex chiefdoms have two or even three tiers of political hierarchy. Nobles are clearly distinct from commoners and do not usually engage in any form of agricultural production. The higher members of society consume most of the goods that are passed up the hierarchy as a tribute. Reciprocal obligations are fulfilled by the nobles carrying out ritual that only they can perform. They may also make token, symbolic redistributions of food and other goods. In two or three tiered chiefdoms, higher ranking chiefs have control over a number or lesser ranking individuals, each of whom controls specific territory or social units. Political control rests on the chief's ability to maintain access to a sufficiently large body of tribute, passed up the line by lesser chiefs. These lesser chiefs in turn collect from those below them, from communities close to their own center. At the apex of the status hierarchy sits the paramount

Chiefdoms have been shown by anthropologists and archaeologists to be a relatively unstable form of social organization. They are prone to cycles of collapse and renewal, in which tribal units band together, expand in power, fragment through some form of social stress, and band together again.

An example of this kind of social organization would be the Germanic Peoples who conquered the western Roman Empire in the 5th century C.E. Although commonly referred to as tribes, the Germanic Peoples were by anthropological definition not tribes, but chiefdoms. They had a complex social hierarchy consisting of kings, a warrior aristocracy, common freemen, serfs and slaves.


Considerable debate has taken place over how best to characterize tribes. Some of this debate stems from perceived differences between pre-state tribes and contemporary tribes; some of this debate reflects more general controversy over cultural evolution and colonialism. In the popular imagination, tribes reflect a way of life that predates, and is more "natural," than that in modern states. Tribes also privilege primordial social ties, are clearly bounded, homogeneous, parochial, and stable. Thus, many believed that tribes organize links between families (including clans and lineages), and provide them with a social and ideological basis for solidarity that is in some way more limited than that of an "ethnic group" or of a "nation."

However, anthropological and ethnohistorical research has challenged this view. In his 1972 study, The Notion of the Tribe, Morton Fried provided numerous examples of tribes the members of which spoke different languages and practiced different rituals, or that shared languages and rituals with members of other tribes. Similarly, he provided examples of tribes where people followed different political leaders, or followed the same leaders as members of other tribes. He concluded that tribes in general are characterized by fluid boundaries and heterogeneity, are dynamic, and are not parochial.

Proposed Origins of Modern Tribes

Archaeologists have explored the development of pre-state tribes. Their research suggests that tribal structures constituted one type of adaptation to situations providing plentiful yet unpredictable resources. Such structures proved flexible enough to co-ordinate production and distribution of food in times of scarcity, without limiting or constraining people during times of surplus.

Fried, however, proposed that most contemporary tribes do not have their origin in pre-state tribes, but rather in pre-state "bands." Such "secondary" tribes, he suggested, actually came about as modern products of state expansion. Bands comprise small, mobile, and fluid social formations with weak leadership, that do not generate surpluses, pay no taxes and support no standing army. Fried argued that secondary tribes develop in one of two ways.

One possibility is that states could set them up as means to extend administrative and economic influence in their hinterland, where direct political control costs too much. States would encourage (or require) people on their frontiers to form more clearly bounded and centralized polities, because such polities could begin producing surpluses and taxes, and would have a leadership responsive to the needs of neighboring states. The so-called "scheduled" tribes of the United States or of British India provide good examples of this.

Alternatively, bands could form "secondary" tribes as a means to defend themselves against state expansion. Members of bands would form more clearly bounded and centralized groups. These would have a leadership that could coordinate economic production and military activities, and thus could support a standing army that could fight against states encroaching on their territory.

Structure of tribes

File:Kaiapos.jpeg
Brazilian indian chiefs

The head of a tribal form of self-government is generally known as a "tribal chief." The most common types of tribal leadership are the chairman of a council (usually of "elders") and/or a (broader) popular assembly in "parliamentary" cultures, the war chief (can be an alternative or additional post in war time), the hereditary chief, and the politically dominant medicine man (in theocratic cultures). In some cases they merely lead a traditional consultative entity within a larger polity, in other cases tribal autonomy comes closer to statehood.

The term tribal chief is usually distinct from chiefs at still lower levels, such as village headman (geographically defined) or clan chief (an essentially genealogical notion).

Historical examples of tribes

Twelve Tribes of Israel

1759 map of the tribal allotments of Israel

The Israelites descended from the twelve sons of the Biblical patriarch Jacob who was renamed Israel by God in the book of Genesis, 32:28. His twelve male children were Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, Zebulun, Dan, Gad, Naphtali, Asher, Joseph, and Benjamin.

The families and their descendants of these twelve sons comprise the Twelve Tribes of Israel. These tribes were recorded on the vestments of the Kohen Gadol (high priest). However, when the land of Israel was apportioned among the tribes in the days of Joshua, the Tribe of Levi, being guardians and priests, did not receive land. Therefore, when the tribes are listed in reference to their receipt of land, as well as to their encampments during the 40 years of wandering in the desert, the Tribe of Joseph is replaced by the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh (the two sons of Joseph by his Egyptian wife Asenath, whom Jacob elevated to the status of full tribes).

According to the Torah, after the civil war in the time of Solomon's son Rehoboam, ten tribes split off to create the northern kingdom of Israel. Judah, the southern kingdom, had Jerusalem as its capital and was led by King Rehoboam. It was populated by the tribes of Judah, most of Benjamin, some of Levi (who acted as priests and guardians at the Temple of Jerusalem) and also remnants of Simeon who probably were assimilated into the tribe of Judah early on.

In 722 B.C.E. the Assyrians under Shalmaneser V and then under Sargon II conquered the northern Kingdom of Israel, destroyed its capital Samaria and sent the Israelites into exile and captivity. Together with the Tribe of Benjamin and elements of the Tribe of Levi, the descendants of Judah, the Tribe of Judah, eventually formed the southern Kingdom of Judah in the ancient Land of Israel. The Judahites were not among the "lost" ten tribes of the northern Kingdom of Israel when it fell to the Assyrians in 722 B.C.E. Instead, the people of Judah were exiled to Babylon about 586, but were eventually able to return and rebuild their nation. In time, the tribe of Judah became identified with the entire Hebrew nation and gave its name to the people known today as the Jews.

India

During the period from 600 B.C.E. to 200 B.C.E., there were many tribes in India. The Tribal Chief, also known as Raja in those times, led the tribe and was generally the oldest and wisest individual.

Europe

Europe in ancient times was inhabited by various tribal groups of peoples. Several used violence and earned the epithet "barbarian" in their dealings with others, particularly the more "civilized" Greeks and Romans. Such tribes were either destroyed by the more powerful nation-states, such as Ancient Rome, or were more peacefully subsumed into new or existing kingdoms.

An example of such a people, preceding and during the time of the Roman Empire, were the Gauls. The fundamental unit of Gallic politics was the tribe. Each tribe had a council of elders, and initially a king. Later, the executive was an annually-elected magistrate. Among the Aedui, a tribe of Gaul, the executive held the title of "Vergobret," a position much like a king, but its powers were held in check by rules laid down by the council.

Although the tribes were moderately stable political entities, Gaul as a whole tended to be politically-divided, there being virtually no unity among the various tribes. Only during particularly trying times, such as the invasion of Caesar, could the Gauls unite under a single leader like Vercingetorix. Even then, however, the faction lines were clear.

The tribal groups, or pagi as the Romans called them (singular: pagus; the French word pays, "region", comes from this term) were organized into larger super-tribal groups that the Romans called civitates. These administrative groupings would be taken over by the Romans in their system of local control, and these civitates would also be the basis of France's eventual division into ecclesiastical bishoprics and dioceses, which would remain in place — with slight changes — until the French revolution.

Gauls and Celts in other parts of Europe survived for a considerable time under their own leadership. For example, in Gaelic Ireland, up to the sixteenth century, hundreds of families organized as clans like tribes, were ruled by tribal chiefs or taoisigh, titled according to their family name as The O'Neill, The O'Flaherty, and so forth.

A few tribal or clan-based societies, mostly nomadic groups such as the Roma and those in remote areas such as the Nenets people of Northern Russia, and have continued to live autonomously in Europe.

Contemporary tribal governments

Many minority ethnic groups in many countries have founded semi-autonomous regions in their part of the country, such as the Kurds in Iraq. Also, some governments in Africa have little control over far-flung regions with ethnic minorities who function as relatively autonomous tribal societies.

Indigenous peoples

In some countries, such as the United States and India, tribes are indigenous peoples that have been granted legal recognition and limited autonomy by the state. Tribal governments can consist of one supreme ruler, a tribal chief, or some form of a tribal council, which usually consists of a group of elders.

United States

Goyathlay, or Geronimo, Apache chieftain for the Chiricahua

There are distinct differences between the modern day "Chair" of a sovereign Indian Nation's governing body and the role of "Chief". Generally speaking, while each is organized in its own distinct way, there are loose similarities to the British system blending ceremony and government. The individual who "chairs" the governing body is akin to Prime Minister and the "Chief" is more akin to a monarch or spiritual leader.

Many Native American tribes in the United States have formed a leadership council, often called the "Tribal Council", and have a leader of the council who generally carries the title of "Chair" (Chairman, Chairperson, Chairwoman). Some simply appoint a "spokesperson" for the Tribal Council. Generally the leadership position is either elected by popular vote of the tribal membership or appointed/elected from among his/her elected tribal council peers in a more parliamentary type of approach. Many of today's tribal chairs are women.

All too often non-Native Americans naively refer to the individual who chairs the governmental organization as "Chief", incorrectly. Presumably many are familiar with the mystic of a "Chief" as he is often portrayed on film or in literature. That individual is recognized because of birthright or perhaps some spiritual circumstance.

Many Tribes do still recognize the rightful "Chief" as part of ceremonial and culture events in a way somewhat similar to the role of, or difference to, a modern-day British monarch.

There are over 100 tribal governments in the United States.

There are 563 Federally recognized tribal governments in the United States. The United States recognizes the right of these tribes to self-government and supports their tribal sovereignty and self-determination. These tribes possess the right to form their own government, to enforce laws (both civil and criminal), to tax, to establish membership, to license and regulate activities, to zone and to exclude persons from tribal territories. Limitations on tribal powers of self-government include the same limitations applicable to states; for example, neither tribes nor states have the power to make war, engage in foreign relations, or coin money.[3]

According to 2003 United States Census Bureau estimates, a little over one third of the 2,786,652 Native Americans in the United States live in three states: California at 413,382, Arizona at 294,137 and Oklahoma at 279,559.[4]

As of 2000, the largest tribes in the U.S. by population were Navajo, Cherokee, Choctaw, Sioux, Chippewa, Apache, Lumbee, Blackfeet, Iroquois, and Pueblo. In 2000, eight of ten Americans with Native American ancestry were of mixed blood. It is estimated that by 2100 that figure will rise to nine of ten.[5] In addition, there are a number of tribes that are recognized by individual states, but not by the federal government. The rights and benefits associated with state recognition vary from state to state.

Composition of the tribes

A tribe can be considered to be composed of bands or clans, which are understood to be smaller than a tribe. Thus, the five ancestral clans of the Menominee tribe: the Awaehsaeh (Bear clan), Kene (Eagle clan), Mahwah (Wolf clan), Otea ciah (Crane clan) and Mos (Moose clan), are examples of the seats of traditional power in the tribe. Conversely, a "nation" can be considered to be composed of tribes. In the US the nations were treated as sovereign; thus the Navajo and Cherokee nations, for example.

Tribal council

A Tribal Council is an association of Native American bands in the United States or First Nations in Canada. They are generally formed along ethnic or linguistic lines.

Several Sovereign American Indian Nations are organized as Tribal Councils. The Navajo Nation, or Dineh, were formally governed by the Navajo Tribal Council, known today as the Navajo Nation Council. The Crow Nation in Montana was once organized as the Crow Tribal Council. Currently, the Crow Nation, after a change in constitution whose legality is disputed, is organized as a three branch government with a ceremonial Crow Tribal General Council.

Tribal councils in the United States and Canada have a somewhat different status. In the United States, the term usually describes the governing body of a tribe, where the tribe is the basic unit of government. In Canada, the Indian band, usually consisting of one main community, is the fundamental unit of government. Bands may unite to form a tribal council, but they need not do so. Bands that do not belong to a tribal council are said to be "independent." Bands may and do withdraw from tribal councils. Furthermore, the authority that bands delegate to their tribal council varies, with some tribal councils serving as a strong, central organization while others are granted limited power by their members.

Historical cultural differences between tribes

Generally, a tribe or nation are considered to be part of an ethnic group, usually sharing cultural values. For example, the forest-dwelling Chippewa historically built dwellings from the bark of trees, as opposed to the Great Plains-dwelling tribes, who would not have access to trees, except by trade, for example for lodgepoles. Thus the tribes of the Great Plains might typically dwell in skin-covered tipis rather than bark lodges. But some Plains tribes built their lodges of earth, as for example the Pawnee;[6] the Pueblo people built their dwellings of stone and earth.[7]

Political power in a tribe

A chief might be considered to hold political power, say by oratory or by example. But on the North American continent, it was historically possible to evade the political power of another by migration. The Mingos, for example, were Iroquois who migrated further west to the sparsely populated Ohio Country during the 18th century. Two Haudenosaunee, or Iroquois, Hiawatha and the Great Peacemaker, formulated a constitution for the Iroquois Confederation.

The tribes were pacified by units of the US Army in the nineteenth century, and were also subject to forced schooling in the decades afterward. Thus it is uncommon for today's tribes to have a purely Native American cultural background, and today Native Americans are simply another ethnicity of the secular American people. Since education is respected, some like Peter McDonald, a Navajo, left their jobs in the mainstream US economy to become chairman of the tribal council.

Not all tribal leaders need be men; Wilma Mankiller (1945- ) was a well-known Chief of the Cherokee Nation. Also, though the seat of power might be the chief, they were not free to wield power without the consent of a council of elders. For example: Cherokee men were not permitted to go to war without the consent of the council of women.

Tribal government is an official form of government in the United States[8] and in other countries around the world.

Historically the US government treated tribes as seats of political power, and made treaties with the tribes as legal entities. But frequently the territority of the tribes fell under the authority of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) as reservations held in trust for the tribes. Citizenship was formerly considered a tribal matter. For example, it was not until 1924 that the Pueblo people were granted US citizenship, and it was not until 1948 that the Puebloans were granted the right to vote in state elections in New Mexico. In Wisconsin, the Menominee Nation has its own county Menominee County, Wisconsin with special car license plates; 87 percent of the county's population is Native American.

Economic power in a tribe

Since the Nations were sovereign, with Treaty rights with the Federal government, the Wisconsin tribes innovated Indian gaming, that is, on-reservation gambling casinos.[9] This has been imitated in many of the respective states which still have Native American tribes and has developed into a multi-billion dollar industry nationwide.

Many of the tribes use professional management for their money. Thus the Mescalero Apache have renovated their Inn of the Mountain Gods to include gambling as well as the previous tourism, lodging, and skiing in the older Inn, as of 2005.

Canada

In 2003, there were 633 Native American tribal entities (First Nations, or formally, Indian Bands) recognized by Canada under the Constitution Act, treaties, statutes and court decisions as "self-governing aboriginal nations within Canada." They have formal government-to-government relations with the Crown, enjoy limited internal self-government and administer their territories, the Indian Reserves.

India

Adivasi ("original inhabitant" in Sanskrit, Adi meaning first and vasi meaning inhabitant) refers to indigenous people in north eastern states of India. These tribes have "chiefs" and they are referred by various names. The Indo-Aryan tribes mentioned in the Rigveda are described as semi-nomadic pastoralists, subdivided into villages (vish) and headed by a tribal chief (raja) and administered by a priestly caste.

Oceania

File:Aus map covered text lined.JPG
Indigenous Australian communities, past and present


Before the British colonization, there were a great many different Aboriginal groups, each with their own individual culture, belief structure, and language. At the time of European settlement there were well over 200 different languages (in the technical linguistic sense of non-mutually intelligible speech varieties).[10] These cultures overlapped to a greater or lesser extent, and changed over time. Indigenous Australian Aboriginal communities are often called tribes, and there are several hundred in Australia, although the exact number is unknown, because in many parts of Australia, there are no clear tribe, nations or boundaries. The word "community" is often used to describe Aboriginal groups as a more acceptable word. Sometimes smaller communities are referred to as tribes, and other times many communities are included in the same "tribe." Sometimes the different language groups are called tribes, although it can be very difficult to distinguish between different languages and dialects of a single language. The situation is complicated by the fact that sometimes up to twenty or thirty different names (either spelled differently in English, or using a different word altogether) are used for the same tribe or community.

The Aboriginal people in Tasmania were divided into nine main tribes. Each tribe consisted of groups of forty to fifty people who lived in adjoining territory, shared the same language and culture, socialized, intermarried and fought wars against other tribes.

The Tasmanians, estimated to number between 4,000 and 6,000 people in 1803, was reduced to a population of around 300 by 1833, mainly killed by disease, although killings by British settlers and soldiers, and also cultural disruption contributed.

n the space of thirty years (1803-1833), the population of the Tasmanian Aborigines was reduced from around 5,000 to around 300. Twentieth-century historians, scientists and anthropologists held that they had become extinct with the death of Truganini in 1876. Many still hold this view especially outside of Australia. Some modern aborigines can claim ancestry to the indigenous Tasmanian population but they have interbred heavily.[11]

George Augustus Robinson, a Christian missionary, befriended Truganini, learned some of the local language and in 1833 managed to persuade the remaining peoples to move to a new settlement on Flinders Island, where he promised a modern and comfortable environment, and that they would be relocated to the Tasmanian mainland as soon as possible.

Once on Flinders Island, Robinson abandoned the Aborigines. Of the 300 people who arrived with Robinson, 250 died in the following 14 years in poor conditions. In 1847, the 47 survivors were transferred to their final settlement at Oyster Cove, where — no longer perceived as a threat — they were often dressed up and paraded on official engagements. In 1859 their numbers were estimated at around a dozen; the last survivor died in 1876.


The Cook Islands' pre-European culture was a chiefly system based on traditional legends of migration and settlement. These stories enshrined the power of the chiefs as inheritors of a "heroic" culture, similar to that of the heroic period of Greece around 1200 B.C.E. The Polynesian hero acquired mana, meaning “power” and “prestige” by the deeds he accomplished. Allegiance to chiefs was fundamental. The chiefs' titles were passed down through the senior male line, while land rights were inherited via the mother's line. Chiefs were responsible for war leadership, carrying out important discussions with other groups or clans, land allocation, dispute settlement, and intercession with the gods. A chief organized and paid for feasts. A chief, or indeed, any man, was judged by his ability and willingness to bestow gifts and to host festive gatherings.

Africa

Bedouin

The Bedouin were traditionally divided into related tribes. These tribes were organized on several levels- a widely-quoted Bedouin saying is: I against my brothers, I and my brothers against my cousins, I and my brothers and my cousins against the world. The individual family unit (known as a tent or bayt) typically consisted of three or four adults (a married couple plus siblings or parents) and any number of children, and would focus on semi-nomadic pastoralism, migrating throughout the year following water and plant resources. Royal Tribes traditionally herded camels, whilst others herded sheep, and goats.

When resources were plentiful, several tents would travel together as a goum. These groups were sometimes linked by patriarchical lineage but just as likely linked by marriage (new wives were especially likely to have male relatives join them), acquaintance or even no clearly defined relation but a simple shared membership in the tribe.

The next scale of interactions inside tribal groups was the ibn amm or descent group, commonly of 3 or 5 generations. These were often linked to goums, but whereas a goum would generally consist of people all with the same herd type, descent groups were frequently split up over several economic activities (allowing a degree of risk-management: should one group of members of a descent group suffer economically, the other members should be able to support them). Whilst the phrase descent group suggest purely a patriarchical arrangement, in reality these groups were fluid and adapted their genealogies to take in new members.

The largest scale of tribal interactions is obviously the tribe as a whole, led by a Sheikh. The tribe often claims descent from one common ancestor- as above, this appears patrilineal but in reality new groups could have genealogies invented to tie them in to this ancestor. The tribal level is the level that mediated between the Bedouin and the outside governments and organizations.

Dinka

The Dinka are a group of tribes of south Sudan. The Dinka have no centralized political authority, instead comprising of many independent but interlinked clans. Certain of those clans traditionally provide ritual chiefs, known as the "masters of the fishing spear", who provide leadership for the entire people and appear to be at least in part hereditary.

Pygmy

There are many African Pygmy tribes throughout central Africa, including the Mbuti, Aka, BaBenzelé, Baka, Bing, Efé, Twa, and Wochua. Most Pygmies are nomadic, and obtain their food through a mix of foraging, hunting, fishing, and trading with inhabitants of neighboring villages. Their cultural identity is very closely tied to the rainforest, and likewise their spiritual or religious views. Music, as well as dance, is an important aspect of Pygmy life, and features various instruments and intricate vocal polyphony.

Pygmies are often romantically portrayed as both utopian and "pre-modern," which overlooks the fact that they have long had relationships with more "modern" non-Pygmy groups (such as inhabitants of nearby villages, agricultural employers, logging companies, evangelical missionaries, and commercial hunters.) It is often said that Pygmies have no language of their own, speaking only the language of neighboring villagers, but this is not true. Both the Baka and Bayaka (also known as the Aka), for example, have their own unique language distinct from that of neighboring villagers; the Bayaka speak Aka amongst themselves, but many also speak the Bantu language of the villagers.[12] Two of the more studied tribes are the Baka and the Mbuti (who were the subject of the well known book The Forest People (1962) by Colin Turnbull.

There is no ruling group or lineage within the Mbuti, and no overlying political organization. The Mbuti are an egalitarian society where men and women basically have equal power. Issues in the community and decisions are made by consensus, and men and women engage in the conversations equally. Little political or social structure exists among the Mbuti.

Tuareg

Traditionally, Tuareg society is hierarchal, with nobility and vassals. The work of pastoralism was specialized according to social class: imúšaɤ, warrior-aristocrats who organized group defense, livestock raids, and the long-distance caravan trade; ímɤad, vassal-herdsmen who pastured and tended most of the confederation's livestock; ìnhædˤæn, blacksmith-clients who fabricated and repaired the saddles, tools, household equipment and other material needs of the community. After the adoption of Islam, a separate class of religious clerics, the marabout, also became integral to Tuareg social structure. Traditionally, the traders had a higher status than all but the nobility among their more settled compatriots to the south. With time, that difference has eroded, corresponding to the economic fortunes of the two groups.

Formerly - like most other Africans - the Tuareg also held èklan "slaves", often war prisoners darker than the generally brown-skinned Tuareg, who are also known as the Bella.

Before French colonization in the early nineteenth century, the Tuareg were organized into loose confederations, each consisting of a dozen or so tribes. Each of the main groups had a traditional leader called Amenokal along with an assembly of tribal chiefs (imɤaran, singular amɤar). The groups were the Kel Ahaggar, Kel Ajjer, Kel Ayr, Adrar n Fughas, Iwəlləmədan and Kel Gres.

Following the independence of African countries in 1960s, Tuareg territory was artificially divided into modern nations: Niger, Mali, Algeria, Libya, and Burkina Faso.

Long-standing competition for resources in the Sahel has impacted Tuareg conflicts with neighboring African groups, especially after political disruption and economic constraints following French colonization, tight restrictions placed on nomadization, and desertification exacerbated by global warming and the increased firewood needs of growing cities. Today, some Tuareg are experimenting with farming; some have been forced to abandon herding, and seek jobs in towns and cities.

New understanding of tribal life

In the past 50 years, anthropologists have greatly revised our understanding of the tribe. Franz Boas removed the idea of unilineal cultural evolution from the realm of serious anthropological research as too simplistic, allowing tribes to be studied in their own right, rather than stepping stones to civilization or "living fossils." Anthropologists such as Richard Lee and Marshall Sahlins began publishing studies that showed tribal life as an easy, safe life, the opposite of the traditional theoretical supposition. In the title to his book, Sahlins referred to these tribal cultures as "the Original Affluent Society," not for their material wealth, but for their combination of leisure and lack of want.

This work formed the foundation for primitivist philosophy, such as that advocated by John Zerzan or Daniel Quinn. These philosophers have led to new tribalists pursuing what Daniel Quinn dubbed the "New Tribal Revolution". The new tribalists use the term "tribalism" not in its traditional, derogatory sense, but to refer to what they see as the defining characteristics of tribal life: namely, an open, egalitarian, classless and cooperative community, which can be characterized as primitive communism. New tribalists insist that this is, in fact, the natural state of humanity, and proven by two million years of human evolution.

Whether life in this natural state was better or worse than life in modern society is a question that remains open to debate, and the answer may depend on each person's preferences as well as on the particular tribes that are used as a point of reference - because tribal life itself was not (and is not) the same for all tribes; the natural environment where a tribe lives has an especially important influence.


Notes

  1. Tribe, n. [L. tribus, originally, a third part of the Roman people, afterwards, a division of the people, a tribe; of uncertain origin: cf. F. tribu.], Webster's 1913 Dictionary Retrieved February 7, 2007.
  2. Nagy, Gregory. 1990. Greek Mythology and Poetics. Cornell University Press. Citing the linguist Émile Benveniste in his Origines de la formation des noms en indo-européen
  3. The U.S. Relationship To American Indian and Alaska Native Tribes. usinfo.state.gov. Retrieved February 08, 2006.
  4. Annual Estimates by Race Alone. US Census.gov. Retrieved February 08, 2006.
  5. Mixing Bodies and Beliefs: The Predicament of Tribes. Columbia Law Review. Retrieved February 08, 2006.
  6. The Field Museum in Chicago, Illinois has an exhibit on the Pawnee earth lodge.
  7. The Field Museum has exhibits with artifacts, dress, tools and pottery of the Pueblo people, the Pacific Northwest tribes, the Plains tribes and the Woodland tribes, especially those of the Midwest.
  8. Tribal Governments Retrieved February 7, 2007.
  9. Tribal casino dispute heats up By Steve Schultze. Posted: Dec. 28, 2005. Retrieved February 7, 2007.
  10. Australian Aboriginal languages. (2006). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved October 28, 2006, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online: http://www.search.eb.com/eb/article-9109808
  11. Tension in Tasmania over who is an Aborigine The Sydney Morning Herald. October 17 2002. Retrieved February 12, 2007.
  12. Daniel Duke. Aka as a Contact Language: Sociolinguistic and Grammatical Evidence. Retrieved October 23, 2006.

References
ISBN links support NWE through referral fees

  • Benveniste, Émile Indo-European Language and Society, translated by Elizabeth Palmer. London: Faber and Faber 1973. ISBN 0870242504.
  • Benveniste, Émile Origines de la formation des noms en indo-européen, 1935.
  • Birkhan, Helmut. 2000. Kelten/Celts: Bilder Ihrer Kultur/Images of Their Culture. Verlag Der Osterreichischen Akademie Der Wiss; Bilingual edition. ISBN 3700128142
  • Carneiro, R. L. 1981. The Chiefdom: Precursor of the State. The Transition to Statehood in the New World / Ed. by G. D. Jones and R. R. Kautz, pp. 37–79. Cambridge, UK – New York, NY: Cam-bridge University Press.
  • Carneiro, R. L. 1991. The Nature of the Chiefdom as Revealed by Evidence from the Cauca Valley of Colombia. Profiles in Cultural Evolution / Ed. by A.T. Rambo and K. Gillogly, pp. 167–90. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
  • Earle, T. K. 1997. How Chiefs Came to Power: The Political Economy of Prehistory. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
  • Fried, Morton H. The Notion of Tribe. Cummings Publishing Company, 1975. ISBN 0846515482
  • Nagy, Gregory, Greek Mythology and Poetics, Cornell University Press, 1990. In chapter 12, beginning on p.276, Nagy explores the meaning of the word origin and social context of a tribe in ancient Greece and beyond.


External links


Credits

New World Encyclopedia writers and editors rewrote and completed the Wikipedia article in accordance with New World Encyclopedia standards. This article abides by terms of the Creative Commons CC-by-sa 3.0 License (CC-by-sa), which may be used and disseminated with proper attribution. Credit is due under the terms of this license that can reference both the New World Encyclopedia contributors and the selfless volunteer contributors of the Wikimedia Foundation. To cite this article click here for a list of acceptable citing formats.The history of earlier contributions by wikipedians is accessible to researchers here:

The history of this article since it was imported to New World Encyclopedia:

Note: Some restrictions may apply to use of individual images which are separately licensed.