Early Power Structures

Early Power Structures

Lecture 28

If you nd infants that are buried with a lot of wealth around them, then you know not only that there were wealthy people in that society, but you know something else as well. You know that wealth could be inherited. In other words, this is not just one individual who built up their wealth during their lifetime; they could pass on their wealth to their children. And that suggests the existence of institutionalized hierarchies of wealth and power.

The previous lecture described the appearance of the rst tributetaking states and offered a simple de nition of power. Now we ask: How did the rst and simplest power structures evolve? The evidence we need to answer this question comes mainly from archaeology and anthropology. Archaeological research offers many indirect hints about early power relations. The relative size and wealth of houses and burials hints at inequalities of wealth and power. An example is the huge burial mount of Arzhan in the Inner Asian steppes, dating from the 8th century B.C.E. Such structures demonstrate the presence of a very signi cant degree of institutionalized power, enough to mobilize the resources of many hundreds of people, some of whom were required to sacri ce their own lives to honor a dead leader. Rich infant burials demonstrate the presence of inherited wealth and status. Evidence such as the terra-cotta army buried with the rst ruler of a uni ed China, or extensive forti cations and walls, shows the presence of armies and organized coercion. The stone gures (or ahu) of Easter Island, or Britain’s Stonehenge represent more modest forms of “monumental architecture.” Anthropological studies of modern “early Agrarian” societies, such as those of Melanesia or the Amazon basin, suggest ways of interpreting the archaeological evidence. But we must always remember that these are modern models and we may be missing important differences between them and the rst early Agrarian societies.

Why did power relations develop so rapidly in the early Agrarian era? The key was population growth. As communities became larger, more productive, and more interdependent, new problems arose, and also new forms of

The Stonehenge in Britain is a modest example of “monumental archaeology.”

Corel Stock Photo Library.

wealth, which created new opportunities and temptations for would-be leaders. Whenever complexity increases, new coordinating mechanisms are needed, like the nervous systems in multi-celled organisms. Like modern families, Paleolithic communities could deal with con icts face-to-face, or simply by splitting. In early Agrarian villages, relations were often less personal and splitting was more dif cult because households had invested labor and resources in crops and farmed land. Leaders were needed to resolve disputes within the community or with neighboring communities. As communities expanded, their gods generally became more magni cent and specialist priests took on the role of communicating with them. Their privileged relations with the gods gave them in uence and prestige that could be parleyed into real power. In large communities, new tasks arose such as garbage collection, wall building, or the maintenance of temples and irrigation systems. These, too, required leadership. The appearance of specialists, such as warriors or artisans or scribes, made it necessary to organize exchanges of goods and services between them and the groups that produced the food and other resources they needed. The rst rulers ruled because they could offer services to those they ruled. So power relations arose as a form of symbiosis.

How were leaders selected? Some acquired followers through their charismatic personalities or their skills in dispute resolution, warfare, organization, or mediating with the gods. As communities expanded in size, ideas of kinship began to be used to create hierarchies of birth. In large communities, those who traced descent to founding ancestors (real or

mythical) through senior ancestral lines claimed the deference due to seniors in all kin-based systems. High birth provided a seemingly natural basis for authority. The decoration of ancestral skulls, evident even in Natu an communities, suggests how important lineage was even in the very earliest Agrarian communities.

Males dominated leadership roles in most early Agrarian communities, laying the foundation for the asymmetrical power relations known as “patriarchy.” What were the sources of patriarchy? Clearly, they re ect no innate differences in political ability, for in many different societies women have shown themselves as capable as men of wielding power. The key may lie in the demographic rules of peasant societies. In peasant communities, having many children was vital to a household’s success. But this demand tied women to their roles as reproducers and child rearers. Consequently, men generally found it easier to take on specialist roles, including power roles. In turn, the overrepresentation of males in public power roles encouraged the presumption that males were natural leaders, even if in most households power relations were quite variable.

Modern anthropological studies offer helpful models of how power roles may have been constructed within small communities. One in uential model is that of the “big man.” In a classic 1955 study, Douglas Oliver described the “big men” or mumis of the Solomon Islands, which are east of Papua New Guinea. Ambitious young men collected food from relatives and allies and then threw huge feasts of pigs, coconut pies, and sago puddings for local men. Those whose feasts were judged impressive enough could acquire enough of a following to become mumis. As in modern “pork-barrel” politics, gift-giving was a form of political investment because it created loyal followers. Mumis could become powerful war leaders. One old man in Oliver’s study remembered that, “In the olden times there were greater mumi than there are today. Then they were

The decoration of ancestral skulls, evident even in Natu an communities, suggests how important lineage was even in the very earliest Agrarian communities.

erce and relentless war leaders. They laid waste to the countryside and their clubhouses were lined with the skulls of people they had slain” (Harris, Cannibals and Kings, p. 106). As this suggests, the move from “power from below” to “power from above” could occur very swiftly.

A widely used model of authority at regional scales is that of the “chief.” Chiefs normally rule over local leaders and may have little direct contact with most of their “subjects.” Their power is often based on high lineage, and they may achieve god-like status. Polish anthropologist Bronislaw Malinowski once witnessed “all the people present in the village of Bwoytalu [in the Trobriand Islands] drop from their verandas as if blown down by a hurricane at the sound of a drawn-out cry announcing the arrival of an important chief” (Harris, Cannibals and Kings, p. 375). Archaeologists suspect the presence of chiefs when they nd large structures such as pyramids or earthen mounds that required control over not just single villages but over hundreds or thousands of workers. These early forms of power rested largely (though not exclusively) on support from below, so they were too volatile to provide the basis for durable tribute-taking states. Loss of support or defeat in war led too quickly to loss of power. How was it possible to construct more durable power structures? That question leads us into the “era of Agrarian civilizations.”

Essential Reading

Supplementary Reading

Christian, Maps of Time, chap. 9. Fagan, People of the Earth, chaps. 14, 15.

Harris, “The Origin of Pristine States” (in Cannibals and Kings). Johnson and Earle, The Evolution of Human Societies.

Questions to Consider

1. What evidence do we have on the early history of power, and how reliable is it?

2. How did early leaders establish their authority without an apparatus of coercion?