Peregrine Pp

Cross-Cultural TOC

VARIATION IN STRATIFICATION

Peter N. Peregrine hy are social classes prominent in most of the world’s societies today? It is an intriguing question, particularly because humans lived in egalitarian groups (which lack W 1 social classes) for most of our genus’s two million year existence. It was only about eight thousand years ago that class-stratified societies began to develop, first in the Middle East, then in East Asia, India, Africa, and later, in the Americas.2 For example, in the period between 8000 and 5000 B.C. many of the people living in the Euphrates River valley altered their ancient lifestyle of semi- nomadic hunting and gathering in small, egalitarian groups to one centered on urban life under the rule of powerful kings.3 Why did this lifestyle change happen? Why, as the anthropologist-philoso- pher Maurice Godelier put it, did “social groups and individuals … cooperate in the production and reproduction of their own subordi- nation, even exploitation”?4 We need to have a basic understanding of what stratification is before we try to answer this question. Stratification, as I use it, refers to the extent to which a society maintains institutionalized differences in individuals’ access to resources, prestige, or power.5 By institutionalized I mean that stratification is built into the institutions or social structures of a society. In any society there will be differences between individuals—some will be stronger, faster, brighter, more charismatic—but while those personal differences may lead to differences in access to resources, prestige, or power, they are not the basis of stratification; nor are the virtually universal differences based on age and sex. Rather, stratification refers to the differentia- tion of individuals on the basis of social criteria, often the family they were born into, and not on personal abilities or biological char- acteristics.6 There is extensive variation in stratification among societies in the contemporary world, and it might help us better understand the origins of stratification if we first have some understanding of this diversity.

CONTEMPORARY VARIATION IN STRATIFICATION

The most common scheme used for classifying cross-cultural variation in stratification was developed by anthropologist Morton Fried. Fried’s scheme organizes societies into three types: (1) egalitarian; (2) rank; and (3) stratified.7 In egalitarian societies there are many individual differences in access to resources, prestige, and power, but

3 4 CROSS-CULTURAL RESEARCH these differences are based solely on personal abilities, and not on any formal social criteria.8 They are, in essence, non-stratified societies by the definition I gave above. The !Kung people of the Kalahari desert in southwestern Africa are a good example of an egalitarian society.9 Political life revolves around water holes that are controlled by a group of siblings, but in practice no one is denied access to water. Those who control the water hole are seen as leaders of a sort, but they have no real political power. What leadership does exist (and it is minimal) is based solely on perceived wisdom and charisma. Like leadership, prestige is minimal and comes from ability, usually in hunting. Sharing characterizes social relations, and when scarce resources (particularly meat) come into the group, they are distributed to all. Significant “leveling-mechanisms” are in place in !Kung society to ensure that no individuals are able to gain economic or political advantage over others.10 For example, boasting is met with active ridicule and, in extreme cases, aggression. These leveling mechanisms prevent individuals from gaining differential access to prestige, power, or resources in egalitarian societies.11 Rank societies have some institutionalized means of allowing particular individuals more access to prestige. However, individuals given a position of social prestige in rank societies must generally earn political power, and even individuals with great prestige or political power (or both) have to make a living for themselves; they have no special access to resources.12 On the island of Tikopia in east- ern Melanesia, for example, being the first born son conveys a special prestige to an individual, but does not convey any particular political power or access to resources.13 This simple system of primo- geniture creates a complex system of social ranking among the Tikopians, for not only are individuals ranked based on birth, but so are the island’s four primary lineages.14 Members of the oldest and hence highest ranking lineage have greater prestige than members of younger lineages. Elder males of each lineage are given a special rank of chief, and the chief of the eldest lineage is the highest ranking individual on the island.15 Again, this position conveys only prestige, and no special political power or access to resources. It does, however, convey a special status that makes the chief the cen- ter of ritual life on the island and the focus of a complex set of taboos.16 The chief’s body is sacred and cannot be touched; he may not do heavy work; he must not use an oven or cook food; above all, he must be treated with extreme deference and respect.17 However, the chief must still plant his own garden, build his own house, make his own utensils, and basically function as others in terms of making VARIATION IN STRATIFICATION 5 a living. Thus he does not differ from others in basic access to resources. He is like others in terms of his political power as well, for he cannot force or coerce others into doing things, beyond threaten- ing to make a behavior (or lack of it) taboo. If people want to violate the taboo and do not fear supernatural punishment for their trans- gression, the chief has no power to stop them. Stratified societies have some institutionalized means of allowing particular individuals more access to prestige, power, and, most important, special access to or control of resources (although ability often plays a role in the degree to which they actually maintain access to these).18 Usually there are well-defined strata (or classes) of differential access in these societies, which is why they are called stratified. The United States, even though it maintains the ideal that “all men are created equal,” is a stratified society.19 A child born into a poor, urban, minority family is likely to have very little access to resources, prestige, or power, even though he or she might have out- standing abilities. On the other hand, a child born into a wealthy, white, suburban family has better resources at hand (particularly educational, recreational, and medical) than the other child, is born with more social prestige, and will likely have more political power, regardless of his or her abilities. Of course, it is possible (although unlikely) for a poor urban child in the United States to acquire resources, prestige, and power. There are rare individuals who do move between classes in most stratified societies. Societies with castes represent stratification where movement between social classes is virtually impossible.20 Castes are often based upon an occupation or a group of occupations. Individuals in the caste are trained in that occupation and are prevented from learning another one, essentially freezing them into a particular place in society. If their occupation does not convey prestige, if it conveys no political power, if resources available to a person in that occupation are limited, then the person will never have access to them, for their occupation will never change. In addition, most castes are endogamous, that is, people marry within them exclu- sively. This means that marriage out of a caste is not an option for one to change social position. M. N. Srinivas describes the caste system in the south Indian village of Rampura as containing three primary levels (Brahman, “Tradesman” and Untouchable) and eighteen specific castes.21 While each caste has a traditional occupation associ- ated with it, in practice there is quite a bit of variety in the occupations of specific caste members, and virtually all castes have some members who are priests (at least serving the other caste members) 6 CROSS-CULTURAL RESEARCH and agricultural workers. However, caste endogamy is strict. Familial interaction with lower-ranking castes is repressed, and interaction with the Untouchable castes (who carry out “unclean” tasks such as sweeping streets) by Tradesman or Brahman caste members is virtually prohibited. These restrictions make movement between castes almost impossible. In many cases, societies with slavery also represent stratification where movement between classes is impossible, for slaves are frequently unable to release themselves from their position without being released by their owner (known as manumission).22 There are, however, some situations in which slaves are released after serving a particular period of time or in which freedom can be pur- chased or won. In either case stratification is clearly present, for the slave’s position conveys with it a particular access to resources, a particular prestige in society, and a particular set of powers. These are not always low, and there are some societies in which slaves have a wealth of resources, high status, and extensive political power. In early imperial Rome, for example, slaves of the Emperor held some of the most vital positions of power, including secretary of state and secretary of the treasury.23 Perhaps a more extreme example are the janissaries of the Ottoman empire, slaves who became the direct representatives of the Sultan and second in power only to him.24 But even in these cases it is clear that slaves have a social existence only through their owners, that it is because of their owners that slaves have any resources, prestige, or power. And in all cases, slaves are “natally alienated”—they cannot base power or prestige on that of their ancestors, nor can they pass it on to their offspring.25 Indeed, this inability to pass on status and power may be one reason why the emperors of Rome and Constantinople gave their slaves positions of great political power—because they posed no dynastic threat.

WHY IS THERE CONTEMPORARY VARIATION IN STRATIFICATION?

Fried’s classification of societies as egalitarian, rank, or stratified is widely accepted by scholars studying cross-cultural variation in stratification because it seems to be an accurate way to categorize contemporary diversity.26 But it also brings up an interesting series VARIATION IN STRATIFICATION 7 of questions. Why is there variation in stratification? What causes it? Why are some societies in the world living an egalitarian way of life, while others are stratified? There seem to be two basic models being used to answer these questions: those focused on ecology and those focused on political economy. Ecologically-oriented models focus on the environment and the way people make a living from it to explain variation in stratification. An egalitarian way of life, for example, has been linked to subsistence based on hunting and gathering, particularly in environments where there is unpredictable variability in the amount of resources available.27 The !Kung people, discussed above, are often used as an example. The !Kung’s resource base, particularly sea- sonal water sources and big game animals, is very unpredictable. Many of the !Kung’s resources are localized, many of them sea- sonal, and this means that the !Kung must continually move from resource to resource as they come into season or as they are used up. This patchiness of resources and the resulting nomadism, as well as their frequent unpredictability, are thought to work together to make !Kung society fluid.28 !Kung bands change their membership constantly as individuals move from areas with few resources to areas of plenty, continually shifting population to take advantage of the shifting resource base. As I mentioned earlier, sharing important or scarce resources (such as meat) with others is mandatory in !Kung society, and extreme social sanctioning awaits the stingy. Many scholars believe this adaptation to foraging in an unpredictable environment, based on fluid group composition and sharing, creates an egalitarian way of life. What if a sedentary population needs resources from other places? In this case, Elman Service suggests that the need for redis- tribution of resources may lead to the emergence of ranking and stratification.29 For example, the Kwakiutl people of the Northwest Coast of North America had a complex, hierarchical system of social ranking based on localized lineages and positions in those lineages (much like the system found on Tikopia). Each lineage had a chief, and these chiefs vied for power and prestige with one another by holding massive, redistributive feasts called pot- latches.30 The lineage as a whole worked together to create a fund of wealth, particularly blankets and copper plates, but also food. The chief then held a potlatch for another lineage chief (usually from another village), distributing these items to members of the other lineage. The other lineage chief was expected to reciprocate, and indeed outdo the wealth given, or he and his lineage lost pres- 8 CROSS-CULTURAL RESEARCH tige and power. Because the resources the Kwakiutl depended on tended to be localized and were often unpredictable, Service (among others) interprets the potlatch system as being a way for Kwakiutl lineages to even out discrepancies in access to resources. In the potlatch system, lineages with better access or ability to acquire resources constantly redistributed them to lineages with less access, balancing resources but creating a division in social prestige and political power in the process—creating a rank society.31 The other primary models being used to understand contemporary variation in stratification are focused on political economy. These models examine political ambition, pre-existing social cir- cumstances, and economic conditions present in a society at a particular point in time. An example is Ron Brunton’s explanation of the unusual case of chiefs on the Trobriand Islands in Melanesia.32 The presence of chiefs with great social prestige and some differential political power on the Trobriand Islands is unusual because Melanesian societies are, in general, egalitarian, as are societies near the Trobriands with similar environments. Brunton argues that the Trobriand’s position within an inter-societal exchange net- work known as the Kula Ring explains the presence of chiefs better than an ecological model. In the Kula Ring, shell arm bands and shell necklaces are exchanged between partners who vie with one another for social status through their ability to acquire particularly prestigious shells. Brunton posits that because the Trobriands are in a peripheral position in this exchange system, fewer of these goods reach them, and it is more difficult on the whole for individuals to actively participate in the system. Those individuals who are able on a regular basis to participate and acquire prestigious shells gain a “fund of power” with which to differentiate themselves from other members of society. For Brunton, hereditary rank and chieftainship in the Trobriands was not simply an adaptation to the environment, but rather “was dependent on the possibilities that the environment offered for control over resources and the exchange system. That is, certain political strategies could be suc- cessfully carried out … but were less effective or impossible else- where.”33 While the ecological and political economic perspectives of an egalitarian base might explain the conditions that give some individuals more access to prestige and other resources, Christopher Boehm offers a very different view. He believes what needs to be explained is how groups are able to control “natural” dominance VARIATION IN STRATIFICATION 9 forces; dominance forces that are particularly obvious in the social groups of the African great apes.34 Boehm asks why, if gorillas, chimpanzees, and other close primate relatives live in societies with marked dominance hierarchies, do we assume egalitarianism is the starting point or base of human society? He argues that it is more logical to argue that egalitarianism evolves from a basically stratified base. In this framework, Boehm considers group psychology to be the key to explaining the presence of egalitarian societies. He suggests that an egalitarian group ethos creates a “reverse dominance hierarchy” in which the group actively works together to prevent any one member becoming dominant, thus creating egalitarian societies. Boehm argues this group ethos is rooted in a fundamental aspect of human psychology—a profound dislike of being dominated—and this dislike is powerful enough to forge group solidarity in the preservation of individual autonomy. Boehm does not fully explain why this ethos develops and is main- tained in some cases and not others, but despite this limitation he offers a provocative alternative to current thought on variation in stratification. Most scholars concerned with variation in stratification dis- agree with Boehm’s point of view. It seems clear from the archaeological record that egalitarian societies are the basic human form, and that rank and stratified societies evolved from them.35 And this brings us back to the question we began with: Why did stratification evolve in the first place?

WHY DID STRATIFICATION EVOLVE HISTORICALLY?

A wide variety of theories for the origin of stratification have been put forward, and not surprisingly, they tend to fall into the same two camps in which theories for contemporary variation in stratification fall: ecological and political economic. Perhaps the most influential theories in each camp are those of Marvin Harris and Robert Carniero. Harris’s ecologically-oriented theory for the origin of stratification is based on the Malthusian assumption that all human societies tend to increase their numbers.36 Harris argues that in the face of growing population, human groups rely on tech- nological and social innovation to create ways to more efficiently 10 CROSS-CULTURAL RESEARCH use available resources. These two processes—population growth and innovation—create an ever-increasing spiral of intensification.37 Part of this spiral can be the more efficient organization of production and consumption, efficiency made possible by individuals who are granted political authority to monitor and control the economy. Stratification, therefore, emerges as these individuals emerge, separated from the rest of society by their control of resources, granted extensive political power by that control, and bearing great prestige because of their important social role.38 Harris uses this theory to explore the question of Trobriand chiefs I described earlier. Harris explains that when the need to intensify production arises, societies tend to create structures that reward those who are able to intensify. Through redistributive feasts in which the best producers compete for prestige and political power (as in the Kwakiutl Potlatch), these individuals display their productive abilities and both shame and coerce others into producing more. Harris explains that “Under certain ecological conditions, and in the presence of warfare, these food managers could have gradually set themselves above their followers and become the original nucleus of the ruling classes.”39 The Trobriand Islands form a highly constricted and isolated environment. Population density is high, and conflict between populations over access to resources was apparently common before European contact.40 Harris suggests that, under these conditions, individuals who were successful food managers (and likely also respected for their knowledge and success) became emergent leaders. They gained power by playing the role of “great provider”41 to the Trobriand people, and by passing on their skills and knowledge in food management to their offspring or descent group they initiated a system of hereditary chiefs. Carniero’s more politically-oriented theory for the origins of stratification is also rooted in the Malthusian assumption of population growth, but takes a very different tack from Harris’s. Carniero argues that as population grows, societies need more resources and will expand in order to get them.42 Once population in a given region becomes so great that it becomes “circumscribed” by other populations or by uninhabitable areas, expansion is no longer possible and conflict (rather than Harris’s innovation) is likely to occur. Conflict can lead to the conquest of one group by another, and this creates an initial stratification: the conquerors and the conquered. Further stratification and different varieties of stratification may develop through the administration of the conquered VARIATION IN STRATIFICATION 11 peoples, and as the conquerors themselves develop an internal administration, particularly for their military. Carniero offers ancient Peru as an example.43 Here the growth of population and the splintering of communities as they grew in size led to severe population pressure, for the communities were located in extremely restricted environments.44 Agriculture could only be practiced in the few narrow riverine valleys that led from the Andes to the sea. These were quickly filled up and agriculture was intensified, but intensification did not keep pace with demand. Warfare for land conquest resulted, and, in turn, social stratification emerged as those who conquered and those who were conquered became meaningful social categories. As Carniero puts it, those individuals “who owed their improved social position to their exploits in war became … the nucleus of an upper class. A lower class in turn emerged from the prisoners taken in war.”45 As with most aspects of the study of stratification, neither Harris’s nor Carniero’s theories are without controversy. Even though both have a different focus, both emphasize population growth as a “prime mover” in the origins of stratification. George Cowgill points out that population pressure models share two basic and unresolved problems. First, it is not an empirical fact that all human populations tend to increase, but rather an assumption that needs to be supported in each particular case. Second, there is no clear link between population pressure and innovative response; rather, death by starvation and cultural dissolution tend to have followed resource stresses historically, not new cultural innovations.46 Cowgill suggests that, rather than seeing population growth as the single “prime mover” of cultural innovations, we can find cases where cultural innovations themselves promote higher populations. For example, high population growth rates are found in contemporary peasant societies where it is difficult to be left in old age with no children or where children increase the family’s net income.47 In these societies children are a valuable economic resource, and their value promotes population growth.48 Cowgill perhaps sums up this idea best when he says that population growth “is not an inherent (or inelastic) tendency of humans. Rather, it is a human possibility which is encouraged in some situations and discouraged in others.”49 I have taken this view of population growth as a result rather than a cause of stratification in my own research. I describe it briefly now to give you one example of an alternative, politically- oriented perspective.50 My research focuses on the development of 12 CROSS-CULTURAL RESEARCH stratification among societies living in the central Mississippi River valley around A.D. 900, initiating what is known as the Mississippian period in North American prehistory. I suggest that Mississippian chiefs evolved out of an existing corporate lineage structure in which lineage elders, who controlled the lineage’s status symbols and ritual knowledge, actively encouraged intensification of the use of these symbols and knowledge in activities of social reproduction.51 As these symbols and knowledge came to be in greater demand, the elders’ power grew in direct proportion. Through this process the elders differentiated themselves from the rest of society and became emergent chiefs (in a way similar, perhaps, to chiefs on Tikopia or the Trobriand Islands).52 Population growth during this period certainly fos- tered their power, because it created greater demand for goods. Some have argued, using Harris as a guide, that it was population growth that created these Mississippian chiefs.53 I suggest, based on the unique positioning of large, palisaded Mississippian settlements at nodal points on trade routes, and on the distribu- tion of status goods both within and between Mississippian communities, that it was the emergent chiefs themselves who promoted population growth. I suggest these emergent chiefs would have desired, and actively promoted, larger populations among their own groups in order to develop a pool of labor to manufac- ture and transport status goods, and to conquer or defend important trade routes—activities that clearly had political consequences at this time.54

FUTURE RESEARCH ON VARIATION IN STRATIFICATION

We will probably never completely understand what led our dis- tant ancestors to give up their egalitarian ways of life for lives based on stratification, but scholars are working on more sophis- ticated ways of exploring this fundamental transformation in human history. Today many scholars seem to be rethinking and revising their understanding of stratification. Formal classification schemes, such as Fried’s, are being questioned on a variety of levels, both theoretical and empirical. New ethnological research is making it clear how complex and extensive variation in stratifi- VARIATION IN STRATIFICATION 13 cation is, and how inappropriate static classification schemes are for describing it. Gary Feinman and Jill Neitzel, for example, examined 106 societies, most of which Fried would classify as having ranking, and found virtually no commonalities among them in social, political, or economic organization, calling into question any classification scheme that suggests we should con- sider them as similar.55 New ethnographic research, particularly among groups previ- ously studied, is beginning to make clear the importance of temporal processes of change in understanding variation in stratification. The !Kung, for example, are finding it impossible to maintain an egalitarian way of life in a market economy.56 Leveling mechanisms no longer seem to function as they once did. Hoarding is becoming both common and a major source of conflict in the society, and individual families are beginning to segregate themselves as independent social and economic units. The ability to watch change as it is occurring is rapidly altering our understandings and explanations of variation in stratification. Archaeological and ethnohistorical research is also adding insight into temporal processes of variation in stratification. For example, Edwin Wilmsen has argued that the !Kung may not have been living in egalitarian hunting and gathering groups prior to European contact, but may have actually been living as pastoralists and perhaps in rank or stratified groups.57 While controversial, the archaeologist’s and ethnohistorian’s ability to delve into the past and examine long-term processes of change is also altering our understanding of variation in stratification. These new understandings and explanations seem to be com- ing together to form a vision of stratification that is not focused on forms or types of stratification, but rather focused on social processes that create or prevent stratification. While research with a primary focus on the environment and political economy, similar to most of the work discussed in this chapter, will certainly continue, I doubt that many scholars will continue to see stratification as a direct product of the environment or mode of subsistence. Rather, I think scholars will begin to understand stratification through the social processes of dominance, resis- tance, and mediation through which individuals form and continually reform their relations with one another and with society as a whole.58 I do not know what shape these new understandings may take, but I am certain future research on cross-cultural variation in stratification will be as fascinating as it is today. 14 CROSS-CULTURAL RESEARCH

NOTES

1. A basic introduction to early human societies can be found in Roger Lewin, In the Age of Mankind (Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1988), pp. 96–108. 2. Robert J. Wenke, Patterns in Prehistory, 3rd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990) provides a general introduction to the archaeological record of early inegalitarian societies; older, but still valuable, is Elman Service, Origins of the State and Civilization: The Process of Cultural Evolution (New York: W.W. Norton, 1975). 3. See Hans Nissen, Early History of the Ancient Near East, 9000–2000 B.C. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988). 4. Maurice Godelier, The Mental and the Material: Thought, Economy, and Society (London, UK:Verso, 1986), p. 13. 5. Resources, as used here, not only refers to economic resources but also to social ones. Prestige refers to the ability to command admi- ration, and is usually defined by a specific position of status in a society. In a similar way, power refers to the ability to command obedience, and is usually defined by a specific position of authority (often concurrently a position of status as well). 6. Morton H. Fried, The Evolution of Political Society: An Essay in Political Anthropology (New York: Random House, 1967), p. 28. 7. Ibid., pp. ix–xi. 8. Ibid., pp. 33–34. 9. For a general description of the !Kung, see Richard B. Lee, The Dobe !Kung (Fort Worth: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1984); and Elisabeth Marshall Thomas, The Harmless People (New York: Knopf, 1959). 10. Richard B. Lee, “Reflections on Primitive Communism,” in Tim Ingold, David Riches, and James Woodburn, eds., Hunters and Gatherers, Volume One: History, Evolution, and Change (New York: Berg, 1992), pp. 252–268. 11. Bruce G. Trigger, “Maintaining Economic Equality in Opposition to Complexity: An Iroquoian Case Study,” in Steadman Upham, ed., The Evolution of Political Systems (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1990), pp. 119–145. 12. Fried, Evolution of Political Society, pp. 109–110. 13. Raymond Firth, We, The Tikopia (London, UK: George Allen and Unwin, 1957), pp. 345–361. 14. A lineage is a grouping of individuals defined by descent from a common ancestor, with ties of descent traced through a single sex VARIATION IN STRATIFICATION 15

line. Lineages are vital elements of socio-political organization in non-state societies, for they often define an individual’s position in society, his or her allies, leader, and resources. 15. Raymond Firth, Primitive Polynesian Economy (New York: W.W. Norton, 1965), pp. 187–189. 16. Taboo refers to people, objects, or rules of behavior that are thought to bring supernatural punishment if touched or violated. 17. Raymond Firth, Rank and Religion in Tikopia (Boston: Beacon Press, 1970), pp. 36–44. 18. Fried, Evolution of Political Society, pp. 186–190. 19. A brief introduction to the class system in the United States is Edna Bonacich, “Inequality in America: The Failure of the American System for People of Color,” in Margaret L. Andersen and Patricia Hill Collins, eds., Race, Class, and Gender: An Anthology (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1992), pp. 96–110; a classic work is Christopher Jencks, Inequality: A Reassessment of the Effect of Family and Schooling in America (New York: Basic Books, 1972). 20. For papers on caste societies see Anthony de Reuck and Julie Knight, eds., Caste and Race: Comparative Approaches (Boston: Little, Brown, 1967); and the controversial book by Louis Dumont, Homo Hierarchicus: The Caste System and Its Implications, complete rev. English ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980). 21. M. N. Srinivas, “The Social System of a Mysore Village,” in The Dominant Caste and Other Essays (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1987), pp. 60–95. 22. For discussions of slavery see Orlando Patterson, Slavery and Social Death (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1982); and Frederic Pryor, Origins of the Economy (New York: Academic Press, 1977), pp. 217–247. 23. Patterson, Slavery, p. 301. 24. Ibid., pp. 308–314. 25. Ibid., pp. 5–10. 26. While Fried’s classification scheme is widely accepted by scholars interested in cross-cultural variation in stratification, there are still some points of debate. I, for example, am suspicious about rank societies. Many contemporary rank societies underwent tremen- dous social changes (colonization and two world wars for Pacific Islanders such as the Tikopia) before being ethnographically described. I believe that in many cases rank societies may actually once have been stratified, but existed at the time of their description with the political power of the ruling class having been bro- ken down by contact with a more dominant society. This concern does not, of course, negate the fact that rank societies as Fried 16 CROSS-CULTURAL RESEARCH

describes them do exist, nor does it suggest that they are in any way invalid or “unnatural.” It does suggest, however, that rank societies may not be a useful general category of human social organization, but rather more useful as an interesting subcategory of stratified societies. 27. Eric Alden Smith, “Risk and Uncertainty in the ‘Original Affluent Society’: Evolutionary Ecology of Resource-Sharing and Land Tenure,” in Tim Ingold, David Riches, and James Woodburn, eds., Hunters and Gatherers, Volume One: History, Evolution, and Change (New York: Berg, 1992), pp. 222–251. 28. Lee, Dobe !Kung, p. 57. 29. Elman Service, Primitive Social Organization: An Evolutionary Perspective (New York: Random House, 1962), pp. 143–147; see also Service, Origins of the State, pp. 74–80. 30. General overviews of Kwakiutl culture are Franz Boas, Kwakiutl Ethnography, ed. Helen Codere (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1966); and Stuart Piddocke, “The Potlatch System of the Southern Kwakiutl: A New Perspective,” in Andrew P. Vayda, ed., Environment and Cultural Behavior (Austin: University of Texas Press), pp. 130–156. 31. Service, Primitive Social Organization, pp. 146–147; see also Piddocke, “Potlatch System of the Southern Kwakiutl,” p. 131. 32. Ron Brunton, “Why Do the Trobriands Have Chiefs?,” Man 10 (1975): 544–558. 33. Ibid, p. 554. 34. Christopher Boehm, “Egalitarian Behavior and Reverse Dominance Hierarchy,” Current Anthropology 34 (1993): 227–254. 35. Service, Origins of the State, pp. 49–50; see also Fried, Evolution of Political Society, pp. 182–184. 36. Marvin Harris, Cannibals and Kings: The Origins of Cultures (New York: Vintage, 1977), pp. 6–7. 37. Ibid., p. 284. 38. Ibid., pp. 103–104. 39. Ibid., p. 104. 40. H. A. Powell, “Territory, Hierarchy, and Kinship in Kiriwina,” Man 4 (1969): 580–604; see also Bronislaw Malinowski, “War and Weapons among the Natives of the Trobriand Islands,” Man 10 (1920): 10–12. 41. Harris, Cannibals and Kings, pp. 108–110. 42. Robert Carniero, “Theory of the Origin of the State,” Science 169 (1970): 733–738. VARIATION IN STRATIFICATION 17

43. Ibid., pp. 735–736. 44. For an overview see Luis Lumbreras, Peoples and Cultures of Ancient Peru (Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1974), pp. 3–7. 45. Carniero, “Theory of the Origin of the State,” p. 736. 46. George Cowgill, “On the Causes and Consequences of Ancient and Modern Population Changes,” American Anthropologist 77 (1975): 505–526; see also Robert D. Drennan, “Regional Demography in Chiefdoms,” in Robert D. Drennan and Carlos A. Uribe, eds., Chiefdoms in the Americas (Lantham, MA: University Press of America, 1987), pp. 307–323. 47. Cowgill, “On the Causes and Consequences of Ancient and Modern Population Changes,” p. 520. 48. Moni Nag, Benjamin White, and R. C. Peet, “An Anthropological Approach to the Study of the Economic Value of Children in Java and Nepal,” Current Anthropology 19 (1978): 293–301. 49. Cowgill, “On the Causes and Consequences of Ancient and Modern Population Changes,” p. 521. 50. Peter N. Peregrine, Mississippian Evolution: A World-System Perspective (Madison, WI: Prehistory Press, 1992). 51. Ceremonies of social reproduction include such things as the pay- ment of brideprice, in which the groom’s family provides goods (often very specific status goods) to the bride’s family for the priv- ilege of marriage or funerary and initiation ceremonies, where specific status goods are often used to “pay” participants and organizers. 52. For a more theoretical discussion of this type of social system and how it may lead to stratification, see Jonathan Friedman and Michael Rowlands, “Notes toward an Epigenetic Model for the Evolution of ‘Civilisation’,” in Jonathan Friedman and Michael Rowlands, eds., The Evolution of Social Systems (London, UK: Duckworth, 1977), pp. 201–275. 53. See, for example, Jon Muller, Archaeology of the Lower Ohio River Valley (Orlando: Academic Press, 1986), p. 177. 54. Peregrine, Mississippian Evolution, pp. 98–100. 55. Gary Feinman and Jill Neitzel, “Too Many Types: An Overview of Sedentary Prestate Societies in the Americas,” in Michael B. Schiffer, ed., Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 7 (Orlando: Academic Press, 1984), pp. 39–102. 56. Toby Alice Volkman, The San in Transition, Volume 1: A Guide to N!ai, The Story of A !Kung Woman, Occasional Papers, Number 9 (Cambridge, MA: Cultural Survival, Inc., 1982); see also John E. 18 CROSS-CULTURAL RESEARCH

Yellen, “The Transformation of the Kalihari !Kung,” Scientific American 262 (April, 1990): 96–105. 57. Edwin Wilmsen, Land Filled with Flies: A Political Economy of the Kalahari (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989). 58. A discussion of this emerging perspective is given by Robert Paynter, “The Archaeology of Equality and Inequality,” Annual Review of Anthropology 18 (1989): 369–399.