력사를 찾아서

환기9217해,신시배달5917해 단기 4353해,서기 2020해, 대한민국 101해(나뉨 72해),

Band society / Tribe / Chiefdom - Wikipedia

댓글 0

환국시대/환국시대의 세계

2019. 11. 20.

Band society

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Political andlegal anthropology

Part of a series on

Basic concepts[hide]

Status and rank



Law and custom

Case studies[show]

Related articles[show]

Major theorists[show]

Social and cultural anthropology

Not to be confused with Band government.


A band society, sometimes called a camp or, in older usage, a horde, is the simplest form of human society. A band generally consists of a small kin group, no larger than an extended family or clan. The general consensus of modern anthropology sees the average number of members of a social band at the simplest level of foraging societies with generally a maximum size of 30 to 50 people.[1]



Origins of usage in anthropology[edit]

Band was one of a set of three terms employed by early modern ethnography to analyse aspects of hunter-gatherer foraging societies. The three were respectively 'horde,' 'band', and 'tribe'.[2] The term 'horde', formed on the basis of a Turkish/Tatar word úrdú (meaning 'camp'),[3][4] was inducted from its use in the works of J. F. McLennan by A. W. Howitt and Lorimer Fison in the mid-1880s to describe a geographically or locally defined division within a larger tribal aggregation, the latter being defined in terms of social divisions categorized in terms of descent. Their idea was then developed by A. R. Radcliffe-Brown, as a model for all Australian indigenous societies, the horde being defined as a group of parental families whose married males all belonged to the one patrilineal clan.[5] 'Horde' from the outset bore stereotypical connotations of Australian Aboriginal societies as primitive, closed, rigid and simple, and came to be discarded not only for its implication of 'swarming savages' but also because it suggested a fixed tribal- territorial entity which compromised the actual field data, the field data allowing for a far more fluid concept of the group.[6]


In 1936 Julian Steward reformulated Radcliffe Brown's highly restrictive definition, by proposing the idea of a band society at the hunter-gatherer level which could be patrilineal, matrilineal or a composite of both.[7] Over time, 'band' has tended to replace the earlier word 'horde' as more extensive comparative work on hunter-gatherer societies shows they are not classifiable as simply closed patrilineal groups, and better approached in terms of a notion of a flexible, non-exclusive social band, having bilateral relations for marriage and other purposes with similar groups in a circumscribed territory.[8]


In 1962 Les Hiatt invalidated Radcliffe-Brown's theory of the horde, demonstrating that the empirical evidence from Aboriginal societies contradicted Radcliffe-Brown's generalisations.[9]

The word "band" is also used in North America, for example among the indigenous peoples of the Great Basin. With African hunter-gatherers, for instance among the Hadza, the term "camp" tends to be used.[10]



Bands have a loose organization. They can split up (in spring/summer) or group (in winter camps), as the Inuit, depending on the season, or member families can disperse to join other bands.[11] Their power structure is often egalitarian. The best hunters would have their abilities recognized, but such recognition did not lead to the assumption of authority, as pretensions to control others would be met by disobedience.[12] Judgments determined by collective discussion among the elders were formulated in terms of custom, as opposed to the law-governed and coercive agency of a specialized body, as occurred with the rise of the more complex societies that arose upon the establishment of sedentary agriculture.


Definitions and distinctions[edit]

A. R. Radcliffe-Brown defined the horde as a fundamental unit of Australian social organizations according to the following 5 criteria:

  1. It denotes people who customarily share the same camp and lifestyle.

  2. It is the primary landowner of a given territory.

  3. Each horde was independent and autonomous, regulating its social life by a camp-council, generally under the direction of a headman.

  4. Children pertained to the father's horde

  5. A unified horde identity was affirmed in all relations with external tribes.[13]

In his 1975 study, The Notion of the Tribe, Morton Fried defined bands as small, mobile, and fluid social formations with weak leadership that do not generate surpluses, pay taxes nor support a standing army.[14]


Bands are distinguished from tribes in that tribes are generally larger, consisting of many families. Tribes have more social institutions, such as a chief, big man, or elders. Tribes are also more permanent than bands; a band can cease to exist if only a small group splits off or dies. Many tribes are subdivided into bands. on occasion hordes or bands with common backgrounds and interests could unite as a tribal aggregate in order to wage war, as with the San,[15] or they might convene for collective religious ceremonies, such as initiation rites or to feast together seasonally on an abundant resource as was common in Australian aboriginal societies. Among the Native Americans of the United States and the First Nations of Canada, some tribes are made up of official bands that live in specific locations, such as the various bands of the Ojibwa tribe.



Band societies historically were found throughout the world, in a variety of climates, but generally, as civilisations arose, were restricted to sparsely populated areas, tropical rainforests, tundras and deserts.[16] With the spread of the modern nation-state around the globe, there are few true band societies left. Some historical examples include the Shoshone of the Great Basin in the United States, the Bushmen of southern Africa, the pygmies (Mbuti) of the Ituri Rainforest in Africa, and many groups of indigenous Australians.

See also[edit]




  1. ^ Zatrev 2014, p. 260.

  2. ^ Helm 2000, p. 2.

  3. ^ Radcliffe-Brown 1918, p. 222.

  4. ^ Yule & Burnell 2013, pp. 382–383.

  5. ^ Helm 2000, pp. 3–4.

  6. ^ Denham 2014, pp. 115–116.

  7. ^ Kelly 2013, pp. 7–8.

  8. ^ Kelly 2013, pp. 2ff..

  9. ^ Peterson 2006, p. 16.

  10. ^ Marlowe, F. W. (2010). The Hadza: Hunter-Gatherers of Tanzania. Berkeley: Univ. California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-25342-1.

  11. ^ Briggs 1982, p. 111.

  12. ^ Erdal et al. 1994, pp. 176–177.

  13. ^ Radcliffe-Brown 1918, pp. 222–223.

  14. ^ Fried 1975, pp. 8–9.

  15. ^ Schapera 1963, p. 23.

  16. ^ Berdichewsky 1979, p. 5.






From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


For other uses, see Tribe (disambiguation).

"Tribals" redirects here. For the ancient Thracian tribe, see Triballi.


This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
Find sources: "Tribe" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR
 (July 2018) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)


Men of the Shkreli tribe at the feast of Saint Nicholas at Bzheta in Shkreli territory, Albania, 1908


In anthropology, a tribe is a human social group. Exact definitions of what constitutes a tribe vary among anthropologists. The concept is often contrasted by anthropologists with other social groups concepts, such as nations, states, and forms of kinship. In some places, such as India and North America, tribes are polities, or sovereign nations, that have retained, or been granted, legal recognition and some degree of autonomy by a national or federal government. This usage can have conflicting definitions from the anthropological definitions.




The word tribe first occurred in English in 12th-century Middle English-literature, in reference to the twelve tribes of Israel. The Middle English word is derived from Old French tribu and, in turn, from Latin tribus (plural tribūs), in reference to a supposed tripartite division of the original Roman state along ethnic lines, into tribūs known as the Ramnes (or Ramnenses), Tities (or Titienses), and Luceres, corresponding, according to Marcus Terentius Varro, to the Latins, Sabines and Etruscans respectively. The Ramnes were named after Romulus, leader of the Latins, Tities after Titus Tatius, leader of the Sabines, and Luceres after Lucumo, leader of an Etruscan army that had assisted the Latins. In 242–240 BC, the Tribal Assembly (comitia tributa) in the Roman Republic included 35 tribes (four "urban tribes" and 31 "rural tribes"). According to Livy, the three "tribes" were squadrons of cavalry, rather than ethnic divisions.


The term's ultimate etymology is uncertain, perhaps from the Proto-Indo-European roots tri- ("three") and bhew ("to be"). The classicist Gregory Nagy says,[1] citing the linguist Émile Benveniste,[2] that the Umbrian trifu (equivalent of the Latin tribus) is apparently derived from a combination of *tri- and *bhu-, where the second element is cognate with the Greek root phúō φύω “to bring forth” and the Greek phulē φυλή "clan, race, people" (plural phylai φυλαί). The Greek polis ("state" or "city") was, like the Roman state, often divided into phylai.

In Europe during the late medieval era, the Bible was written mostly in New Latin and instead of tribus the word phyle was used, derived from the Greek phulē. In the historical sense, "tribe", "race" and "clan" have often been used interchangeably.


Usage controversy[edit]

The term and concept of a tribe is controversial among anthropologists and other academics active in the social sciences. The term tribe was in common use in the field of anthropology until the late 1950s and 1960s, during which time scholars began to reassess its utility. In 1970, anthropologist J. Clyde Mitchell writes:


The tribe, a long respected category of analysis in anthropology, has recently been the object of some scrutiny by anthropologists ... Doubts about the utility of the tribe as an analytical category have almost certainly arisen out of the rapid involvement of peoples, even in the remotest parts of the globe, in political, economic and sometimes direct social relationship with industrial nations. The doubts, however, are based ultimately on the definition and meaning which different scholars give to the term 'tribe', its adjective 'tribal', and its abstract form 'tribalism'.[3]


Writing in 2013, scholar Matthew Ortoleva notes that "like the word Indian, [t]ribe is a word that has connotations of colonialism."[4]


Survival International says "It is important to make the distinction between tribal and indigenous because tribal peoples have a special status acknowledged in international law as well as problems in addition to those faced by the wider category of indigenous peoples."[5]


Tribes and nations[edit]

Considerable debate has accompanied efforts to define and characterize tribes. When scholars use the term, they may perceive differences between pre-state tribes and contemporary tribes; there is also 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 can also refer to primordial social groups that are clearly bounded, homogeneous, parochial, and stable. Tribes are an organization among families (including clans and lineages), which generates a social and ideological basis for solidarity that is in some way more limited than that of an "ethnic group" or of a "nation". Anthropological and ethnohistorical research has challenged all of these notions.

Anthropologist Elman Service presented a system of classification for societies in all human cultures, based on the evolution of social inequality and the role of the state. This system of classification contains four categories:

  1. Hunter-gatherer bands that are generally egalitarian

  2. Tribal societies with some limited instances of social rank and prestige

  3. Stratified tribal societies led by chieftains (see Chiefdom)

  4. Civilizations, with complex social hierarchies and organized, institutional governments

In his 1975 study, The Notion of the Tribe, anthropologist Morton H. Fried provided numerous examples of tribes that encompassed members who spoke different languages and practiced different rituals, or who shared languages and rituals with members of other tribes. Similarly, he provided examples of tribes in which 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 not parochial, and are dynamic.[6]



A map of uncontacted tribes, around the start of the 21st century


Fried 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, developed as modern products of state expansion. Bands comprise small, mobile, and fluid social formations with weak leadership. They do not generate surpluses, pay no taxes, and support no standing army. Fried argued that secondary tribes develop in one of two ways. First, 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). Second, bands could form "secondary" tribes as a means to defend against state expansion. Members of bands would form more clearly bounded and centralized polities, because such polities could begin producing surpluses that could support a standing army that could fight against states, and they would have a leadership that could co-ordinate economic production and military activities.


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


See also[edit]


  1. ^ Gregory Nagy,Greek Mythology and Poetics,[pages needed]

  2. ^ Émile Benveniste, Origines de la formation des noms en indo-européen,[pages needed]

  3. ^ Mitchell, Clyde J. 1970. "Tribe and Social Change in South Central Africa: A Situational Approach" in Gutkind, Peter C. W. Editor. The Passing of Tribal Man in Africa, p. 83. Brill.

  4. ^ Ortoleva, Matthew. 2013. "We Face East" in Goggin, Peter N. Editor. Environmental Rhetoric and Ecologies of Place, p. 95. Routledge. ISBN 9781135922658

  5. ^ https://survivalinternational.org/info/terminology

  6. ^ Morton H. Fried (1972) The Notion of Tribe. Cummings Publishing Company


  • Benveniste, Émile. Indo-European Language and Society, translated by Elizabeth Palmer. London: Faber and Faber, 1973. ISBN 0-87024-250-4.

  • Benveniste, Émile. Origines de la formation des noms en indo-européen, 1935.

  • Fried, Morton H. The Notion of Tribe. Cummings Publishing Company, 1975. ISBN 0-8465-1548-2.

  • Helm, June, ed., 1968. Essays on the Problem of Tribe, Proceedings, American Ethnological Society, 1967 (Seattle: University of Washington Press).

  • James, Paul (2006). Globalism, Nationalism, Tribalism: Bringing Theory Back In. London: Sage Publications.

  • James, Paul (2001). "Relating Global Tensions: Modern Tribalism and Postmodern Nationalism". Communal/Plural. 9 (1).

  • Nagy, Gregory, Greek Mythology and Poetics, Cornell University Press, 1990. In chapter 12, beginning on p. 276, Professor Nagy explores the meaning of the word origin and social context of a tribe in ancient Greece and beyond.

  • Sutton, Imre, Indian Land Tenure: Bibliographical Essays and a Guide to the Literature (NY: Clearwater, 1975). Tribe: pp. 101–02, 180–82, 186–87, 191–93.

  • Renfrew, Colin, and Paul G. Bahn. Archaeology: Theories, Methods and Practice. New York: Thames and Hudson, 2008.





From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  (Redirected from Chiefdoms)



This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
Find sources: "Chiefdom" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR
 (April 2013) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

Political andlegal anthropology

Part of a series on

Basic concepts[hide]

Status and rank



Law and custom

Case studies[show]

Related articles[show]

Major theorists[show]

Social and cultural anthropology

chiefdom is a form of hierarchical political organization in non-industrial societies usually based on kinship, and in which formal leadership is monopolized by the legitimate senior members of select families or 'houses'. These elites form a political-ideological aristocracy relative to the general group.[1]




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 or a band society, and less complex than a state or a civilization.


Within general theories of cultural evolution, chiefdoms are characterized by permanent and institutionalized forms of political leadership (the chief), centralized decision-making, economic interdependence, and social hierarchy.


Chiefdoms are described as intermediate between tribes and states in the progressive scheme of sociopolitical development formulated by Elman Service: band - tribe - chiefdom - state.[2] A chief’s status is based on kinship, so it is inherited or ascribed, in contrast to the achieved status of Big Man leaders of tribes.[3] Another feature of chiefdoms is therefore pervasive social inequality. They are ranked societies, according to the scheme of progressive sociopolitical development formulated by Morton Fried: egalitarian - ranked - stratified - state.[4]


The most succinct definition of a chiefdom in anthropology is by Robert L. Carneiro: "An autonomous political unit comprising a number of villages or communities under the permanent control of a paramount chief" (Carneiro 1981: 45).


Chiefdoms in archaeological theory[edit]

In archaeological theory, Service's definition of chiefdoms as “redistributional societies with a permanent central agency of coordination” (Service 1962: 144) has been most influential. Many archaeologists, however, dispute Service's reliance upon redistribution as central to chiefdom societies, and point to differences in the basis of finance (staple finance v. wealth finance).[5] Service argued that chief rose to assume a managerial status to redistribute agricultural surplus to ecologically specialised communities within this territory (staple finance). Yet in re-studying the Hawaiian chiefdoms used as his case study, Timothy Earle observed that communities were rather self-sufficient. What the chief redistributed was not staple goods, but prestige goods to his followers that helped him to maintain his authority (wealth finance).


Some scholars contest the utility of the chiefdom model for archaeological inquiry. The most forceful critique comes from Timothy Pauketat, whose Chiefdom and Other Archaeological Delusions[6] outlines how chiefdoms fail to account for the high variability of the archaeological evidence for middle-range societies. Pauketat argues that the evolutionary underpinnings of the chiefdom model are weighed down by racist and outdated theoretical baggage that can be traced back to Lewis Morgan's 19th century cultural evolution. From this perspective, pre-state societies are treated as underdeveloped, the savage and barbaric phases that preceded civilization. Pauketat argues that the chiefdom type is a limiting category that should be abandoned, and takes as his main case study Cahokia, a central place for the Mississippian culture of North America.


Pauketat's provocation, however, fails to offer a sound alternative to the chiefdom type. For while he claims that chiefdoms are a delusion, he describes Cahokia as a civilization. This upholds rather than challenges the evolutionary scheme he contests.[7]



Chiefdoms are characterized by centralization of authority and pervasive inequality. At least two inherited social classes (elite and commoner) are present. (The ancient Hawaiian chiefdoms had as many as four social classes.) An individual might change social class during a lifetime by extraordinary behavior. A single lineage/family of the elite class becomes the ruling elite of the chiefdom, with the greatest influence, power, and prestige. Kinship is typically an organizing principle, while marriage, age, and sex 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 the 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 to 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 of 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.


Anthropologists and archaeologists have demonstrated through research that chiefdoms are 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 were the Germanic Peoples who conquered the western Roman Empire in the 5th century CE. Although commonly referred to as tribes, anthropologists classified their society as chiefdoms. They had a complex social hierarchy consisting of kings, a warrior aristocracy, common freemen, serfs and slaves.


The American Indian tribes sometimes had ruling kings or satraps (governors) in some areas and regions. The Cherokee, for example, had an imperial-family ruling system over a long period of history. The early Spanish explorers in the Americas reported on the Indian kings and kept extensive notes during what is now called the conquest. Some of the native tribes in the Americas had princes, nobles, and various classes and castes. The "Great Sun" was somewhat like the Great Khans of Asia and eastern Europe. Much like an emperor, the Great Sun of North America is the best example of chiefdoms and imperial kings in North American Indian history. The Aztecs of Mexico had a similar culture.


Chiefdoms on the Indian subcontinent[edit]

The Arthashastra, a work on politics written some time between the 4th century BC and 2nd century AD by Indian author Kautilya, similarly describes the Rajamandala (or "Raja-mandala,") as circles of friendly and enemy states surrounding the state of a king (raja).[8][9] Also see Suhas Chatterjee, Mizo Chiefs and the Chiefdom (1995).[10]


Native Chieftain System in southern China[edit]

Tusi (Chinese: 土司), also known as Headmen or Chieftains, were tribal leaders recognized as imperial officials by the Yuan, Ming, and Qing-era Chinese governments, principally in Yunnan. The arrangement is generally known as the Native Chieftain System (Chinese: 土司制度, p Tǔsī Zhìdù).


Alternatives to chiefdoms[edit]

In prehistoric South-West Asia, alternatives to chiefdoms were the non-hierarchical systems of complex acephalous communities, with a pronounced autonomy of single-family households. These communities have been analyzed recently by Berezkin, who suggests the Apa Tanis as their ethnographic parallel (Berezkin 1995). Frantsouzoff (2000) finds a more developed example of such type of polities in ancient South Arabia in the Wadi Hadhramawt of the 1st millennium BCE.


In Southeast Asian history up to the early 19th century, the metaphysical view of the cosmos called the mandala (i.e., circle) is used to describe a Southeast Asian political model, which in turn describes the diffuse patterns of political power distributed among Mueang (principalities) where circles of influence were more important than central power. The concept counteracts modern tendencies to look for unified political power like that of the large European kingdoms and nation states, which were an inadvertent byproduct of 15th-century advances in map-making technologies.[11][12]


Nikolay Kradin has demonstrated that an alternative to the state seems to be represented by the supercomplex chiefdoms created by some nomads of Eurasia. The number of structural levels within such chiefdoms appears to be equal, or even to exceed those within the average state, but they have a different type of political organization and political leadership. Such types of political entities do not appear to have been created by the agriculturists (e.g., Kradin 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004).


See also[edit]


  • Berezkin, Yu. E. 1995. "Alternative Models of Middle Range Society" and " 'Individualistic' Asia vs. 'Collectivistic' America?", in Alternative Pathways to Early State, Ed. N. N. Kradin & V. A. Lynsha. Vladivostok: Dal'nauka: 75–83.

  • 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.

  • Frantsouzoff S. A. 2000. "The Society of Raybūn", in Alternatives of Social Evolution. Ed. by N.N. Kradin, A.V. Korotayev, Dmitri Bondarenko, V. de Munck, and P.K. Wason (p. 258-265). Vladivostok: Far Eastern Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

  • Korotayev, Andrey V. 2000. Chiefdom: Precursor of the Tribe?, in Alternatives of Social Evolution. Ed. by N.N. Kradin, A.V. Korotayev, Dmitri Bondarenko, V. de Munck, and P.K. Wason (p. 242-257). Vladivostok: Far Eastern Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences; reprinted in: The Early State, its Alternatives and Analogues. Ed. by Leonid Grinin et al. (р. 300-324). Volgograd: Uchitel', 2004.

  • Kradin, Nikolay N. 2000. "Nomadic Empires in Evolutionary Perspective", in Alternatives of Social Evolution. Ed. by N.N. Kradin, A.V. Korotayev, Dmitri Bondarenko, V. de Munck, and P.K. Wason (p. 274-288). Vladivostok: Far Eastern Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences; reprinted in: The Early State, its Alternatives and Analogues. Ed. by Leonid Grinin et al. (р. 501-524). Volgograd: Uchitel', 2004.

  • Kradin, Nikolay N. 2002. "Nomadism, Evolution, and World-Systems: Pastoral Societies in Theories of Historical Development", Journal of World-System Research 8: 368-388.

  • Kradin, Nikolay N. 2003. "Nomadic Empires: Origins, Rise, Decline", Nomadic Pathways in Social Evolution. Ed. by N.N. Kradin, Dmitri Bondarenko, and T. Barfield (p. 73-87). Moscow: Center for Civilizational Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences.


  1. ^ Helm, Mary (2010). Access to Origins: Affines, Ancestors, and Aristocrats. Austin, TX: Univ Of Texas Press. p. 4. ISBN 9780292723740. OCLC 640095710.

  2. ^ Service, Elman R (1976). Primitive Social Organization: An Evolutionary Perspective. Chicago, IL: Random House. ISBN 0394316355. OCLC 974107713.

  3. ^ Sahlins, Marshall D. (1963). "Poor Man, Rich Man, Big-man, Chief: Political Types in Melanesia and Polynesia". Comparative Studies in Society and History. 5 (3): 285–303. doi:10.1017/S0010417500001729. ISSN 1475-2999.

  4. ^ Fried, Morton Herbert (1976). The Evolution of Political Society: An Essay in Political Anthropology. McGraw-Hill. ISBN 0075535793. OCLC 748982203.

  5. ^ Earle, Timothy, ed. (2004). Chiefdoms: Power, Economy, and Ideology. Cambridge Univ. Press. ISBN 0521448018. OCLC 611267761.

  6. ^ Pauketat, Timothy R (2011). Chiefdoms and Other Archaeological Delusions. AltaMira Press. ISBN 9780759108295. OCLC 768479880.

  7. ^ Beck, Robin (2009). on Delusions". Native South. 2: 111–120. doi:10.1353/nso.0.0011.

  8. ^ Avari, Burjor (2007). India, the Ancient Past: A History of the Indian Sub-continent from C. 7000 BC to AD 1200. Taylor & Francis. pp. 188–189. ISBN 978-0415356152.

  9. ^ Singh, Prof. Mahendra Prasad (2011). Indian Political Thought: Themes and Thinkers. Pearson Education India. pp. 11–13. ISBN 978-8131758519.

  10. ^ Chatterjee, Suhas (1995). Mizo Chiefs and the Chiefdom. Publications Pvt. Ltd. ISBN 8185880727.

  11. ^ "How Maps Made the World". Wilson Quarterly. Summer 2011. Archived from the original on 11 August 2011. Retrieved 28 July 2011. Source: 'Mapping the Sovereign State: Technology, Authority, and Systemic Change' by Jordan Branch, in International Organization, Volume 65, Issue 1, Winter 2011

  12. ^ Branch, Jordan Nathaniel (2011). Mapping the Sovereign State: Cartographic Technology, Political Authority, and Systemic Change (Ph.D. thesis). University of California, Berkeley. pp. 1–36. doi:10.1017/S0020818310000299. 3469226. Retrieved March 5, 2012. Abstract: How did modern territorial states come to replace earlier forms of organization, defined by a wide variety of territorial and non-territorial forms of authority? Answering this question can help to explain both where our international political system came from and where it might be going....