ancient hunter gatherer & early chiefdoms social structures Short Thread!

one of the social technologies that ancient hunter gatherers honed to protect against food shortages was a strict taboo against overt selfishness, hoarding, and arrogance in one's own abilities to hunt, compile food etc.

risks and rewards of hunting and gathering are shared throughout the group. competition for resources tends to encourage over exploitation, and ownership disputes then cause bands to fragment. which means that hunter gatherers do not try to accumulate wealth & status goods.

a Bushman, for example, will go to great lengths to avoid making others in his tribe jealous of him. as a result the few possessions that Bushmen have are constantly circulating amongst members of the group. they are suspicious of self-promotion and attempts to create obligation.

the ideal hunter should be modest and understated, to prevent the hunter from regarding himself as superior. when the other men go to fetch his kill, they will express their disappointment at its size, and the hunter is expected to play along and not be offended

"When a young man kills much meat, he comes to think of himself as a chief or a big man, & thinks the rest of us are servants or inferiors. We can't accept this. So we always speak of his meat as worthless. In this way we cool his heart and make him gentle."

particularly skilled hunters are prevented from cultivating prestige for themselves by conferring large amounts of food on others and so creating an obligation. when a hunter has a good run of luck and produces a lot of food, he may stop hunting for a few days...

...so as to give others the chance to do well, and avoid any possibility of resentment. taking this time off also means that the hunter can allow /others/ to provide him with food, so that there is no question of an outstanding debt/obligation to him.

a particular group of !Kung people of the Kalahari desert regard lavish gifts as an attempt to exert control over others, curry political support, raise ones own status etc, which runs counter to their culture. this egalitarianism ensures social harmony & a reliable food supply

Part 2 Early Farming Societies
so as people started settling down into agriculture, villages began to transform from highly egalitarian to predicated on a mild social hierarchy. this is best illustrated by the figure of the "Big Man". The concept of private property emerges.

the adoption of agriculture leads to social stratification, as in the case of the northern iraqi archaeological site of Tell es-Sawwan. some graves contain carved alabaster, beads made from exotic stones, or pottery.. but others contain no grave goods at all.

variation in agricultural productivity amongst families & the ability to store food (a characteristic of agriculture) made people more inclined to assert ownership over their produce. and bc food was traded for other items it was equivalent to Wealth.

"big men" begin to emerge. these are men who win control of the flow of surplus food and other goods and so amass a group of dependents or followers. HOWEVER, the means of persuasion of the Big Man are not threat of violence, but rather his abundant generosity!

by bestowing gifts on others he places them in his debt, and they must reciprocate with more generous gifts in the future. such gifts usually take the form of food. (remember how early hunter gatherer societies eschew the accumulation of surplus and therefore of Obligations)

in melanesia, a "big man" might take several wives to increase resources at his disposal to give away: 1 wife to garden & produce food, 1 to collect wood, 1 to catch fish. then he deploys these resources & puts other people in his debt so they must repay him with even more.

the process intensifies food production and culminates in large feasts as the big man tries to build his name & status. he invites ppl from outside his circle, bringing them into his sphere of influence. his position does NOT operate in the same way as a king though.

the big man is not rich and lazy. for him wealth is not something to just sit on but rather is only useful if it can be given away. sometimes Big Men even end up being materially poorer than the people who depend on them.

in northern Alaskan eskimo groups for ex the most respected whaling captains are responsible for trading with inland caribou hunters, and end up controlling distribution and circulation of valuables within their group. they are the foremost managers of all the goods

however, because they must give away everything they receive, and cannot refuse a request for help, they are often materially worse off than their followers. this is so counterintuitive and interesting to me idk

"big men" have to work harder than anyone else to keep up their stocks of food. he cannot rest on his laurels alone but must go on holding large feasts and piling up credits. it is acknowledged by everyone that he toils early and late !

A successful big man integrates & coordinates the economy of the community & emerges as its deserving leader. in many groups, if the big man is not generous enough or fails to provide for his followers, he can be abandoned, deposed, or even murdered. he is more manager than king.

Fin!