Introduction

If politics is defined broadly as competition for power over people and things,
then it is clear that all societies have some sort of political system. However,
there can be a vast difference in what political organizations look like and how
they function in different kinds of societies. It may initially seem to the casual
observer that some small-scale societies have no politicians or political
organizations at all, but they are present in very different forms than people in
modern large-scale societies expect. These unusual political systems are the
primary focus of this tutorial.

Political Roles and Offices

All Societies recognize political leadership roles of some sort. These are roles
in which individuals generally have authority related to broad areas of concern
for their society. They usually are allowed to make decisions concerning the
group as a whole. They are often expected to lead community discussions
and act as spokesmen in dealing with outsiders. They have power to control
or at least strongly influence the behavior of others within the society by their
powers of persuasion and sometimes by controlling the means of violence,
such as the police and the legal system. They usually play a central role in
defining their society's goals and public policy. They often are allowed access
to and control over their society's important resources. However, this does
not necessarily mean that they are richer than others. In fact, political leaders
in some cultures are expected to essentially bankrupt themselves by
periodically giving their wealth to others. In so doing, they increase their
political influence and power. This was often the case with the "big men" of
New Guinea and the traditional leaders of Native American communities on
Vancouver Island in Western Canada who were described in the Economic
Systems tutorial as examples of key players in complex redistributive
systems of small-scale societies.

1
When most people in the Western World think of
political roles and offices, what probably comes to mind
are presidents, prime ministers, governors, and
legislators. These are generally permanent political
offices that exist apart from the people who occupy
them. In other words, the political positions continue
after the current office holders leave them. Another
individual then takes over in the same position. This
often is not the case in foraging societies. Their
political roles are usually temporary and short term. U.S. President is a political
role that continues after the
For instance, a man may become a hunt leader with current office holder leaves
authority to make decisions for his fellow hunters but
only as long as the hunt goes on. When it is over, his authority vanishes as
does the hunt leader position because it no longer is needed.

Large-scale societies have many different continuing political offices. They

are organized into bureaucracies of positions with different levels of
responsibility, power, and authority that are generally ranked relative to each
other. In the United States, for instance, the President has greater authority
than the Secretary of State, and he or she, in turn, is above ambassadors.
Large bureaucracies with the clearest chains of command are usually military
organizations. Soldiers and officers are trained to know and accept the
authority of their superiors and to take responsibility for those under them.
There is little ambiguity about the chain of command. This kind of clear
demarcation of authority is not present in all political systems. The United
States has a federal government with only limited authority over the 50
states. Each state has its own government that largely mirrors that of the
national government. From the very beginnings of the U.S. over 200 years
ago, there have been repeated disputes between state and federal authorities
over political and legal jurisdiction. In fact, the American Civil War fought
between 1861 and 1865 was largely over this conflict. Even today, federal
and state jurisdictions overlap at times, which results in disagreements. The
U.S. Supreme Court has made many important legal decisions to sort out
these disputes and no doubt will need to do so in the future as well.

2
 Modern national government
bureaucracies are often large,
requiring considerable office
space. The Pentagon in
Washington D.C. is where
much of the U.S. military
central bureaucracy works.
With 17.5 miles of corridors,
it is one of the world's biggest
buildings.

How Do Politicians Get Their

Positions?
The process by which an individual legitimately
acquires a political office or authority position occurs
in several different ways around the world. In some
societies, succession is the result of inheritance
through kinship-based ties. This usually means
inheritance from a deceased relative. This was the
common pattern among elite families in large-scale
agriculture-based kingdoms and empires of the past.
A king's son became the next king. However, rules of
succession by inheritance were sometimes Succession by inheritance
intentionally left somewhat vague to allow deviation Queen Victoria inherited her
position as monarch of Britain
when needed. For instance, if the eldest son of a from her uncle William IV on
ruler is not up to the job, ambiguous inheritance rules his death in 1837 (he did not
could allow him to be bypassed in favor of his have any legitimate children)

younger, more competent brother or sister. In

democratic societies of our time, politicians are usually elected to political
offices and inheritance is frowned upon as an unfair path to political power. In
small-scale foraging societies, succession often results from personal
achievement rather than election. An individual may become a leader without
a vote because it is generally understood in the community that he has proven
his ability more than others. There is no need for a vote or even much
discussion since everyone tacitly agrees. In many societies with hierarchies
of political positions, some or all lower level political offices are filled by
appointment from above rather than election.

These different mechanisms for legitimate succession to political office are not
always cleanly distinct from each other. For instance, succession by

3
achievement and appointment from above may be combined. Military officers
in modern democratic nations are generally appointed from above by superior
officers who base their decision on the personal achievements and
capabilities of the person being promoted.

In many societies, the prescribed method for succession to office may be

circumvented through behind-the-scenes negotiations by power brokers using
coercion, bribes, and promises of future rewards. Political deal-making is
usually an integral part of most political systems, including those that are
ostensibly very democratic. It also is not uncommon around the world for
individuals or groups to seize power illegally and brutally eliminate competition
and dissenting voices.

It is common for political leaders to be members of political

factions consisting of like-minded individuals. In large-scale societies, these
factions often form recognizable political parties. Whether they are members
of informal factions or established political parties, a common tool used by
politicians around the world is apolitical symbol. This is an idea or physical
thing that is used as a tool for focusing the attention and emotions of people.
It can be as simple as the phrase "a chicken in every pot and a car in every
garage" which was used by Herbert Hoover in his 1928 U.S. presidential
election campaign. It can be a call for major change such as the replacement
of a king with a legislature or conversion of "non-believers" to the "true-
religion." It can be the idea that some other ethnic group is responsible for
society's problems. The last example is one of the most effective kinds of
political symbols that the NAZI party used to gain power in Germany during
the 1920's and early 1930's. They blamed Jews as the main reason for
Germany's economic and military failures. Jews were the political symbol in
this case. A political symbol also can be a simple object such as a national
flag. Soldiers have died to protect their nation's flag despite the fact that it
was only a piece of dyed cloth. For them, the symbolic meaning of their flag
was the important reality.

4
 World War II poster that used the
American flag and bitter memories
of the December 7, 1941 attack
on Pearl Harbor by the Japanese
as very powerful political symbols
intended to encourage patriotism
and increase enlistments in the
U.S. military services

Levels of Political Integration

In the early 20th century, anthropologists developed several useful systems
for classifying societies. These made it easier to understand patterns of
similarities and differences between cultures. Classification generally focused
on either the nature of the economy or the political system. Subsistence
pattern differences have been the primary focus of economy-based
distinctions. This resulted in the recognition of four principle categories of
societies--foraging, pastoralist, horticultural, and intensive agricultural. Some
anthropologists further subdivided these categories. For instance, the
intensive agriculture category was broken down into preindustrial and
industrial societies. In contrast to this economy-based approach, a politics
focused classification usually distinguishes societies based on the nature of
their political institutions and how power is distributed. In 1962, the American
Anthropologist Elman Service observed in his seminal book, Primitive Social
Organization, that as the size of a society's population and territory grow, it
requires new kinds of political leaders and organizations in order to solve the
inevitable societal problems inherent in population growth and to avoid
splitting into separate societies. He referred to these different kinds of political
solutions as levels of political integration. He described four levels that
have been found around the world--band, tribe, chiefdom, and state. While
there are unique cultural variations of each of these levels, they are
substantially alike from one society to another. Subsequently, classifying a
society in terms of its level of political integration has proven to be another
useful tool in comprehending the wide range of human cultures and societies
from small foraging communities to modern nation states. The next two
sections of this tutorial explore the nature of bands, tribes, chiefdoms, and
states.

5
 Bands and Tribes
The simplest political systems are found in bands and tribes. To the casual
observer from the outside, these kinds of societies do not seem to have
leaders in the sense that we commonly expect. Political power is essentially
diffused throughout the society. Subsequently, they have been referred to as
being acephalous (Greek for "without a head").

Bands
Bands have been found primarily among foragers, especially self-
sufficient pedestrian foragers. The total number of people within these
societies rarely exceeds a few dozen. Bands are essentially associations of
families living together. They are loosely allied by marriage, descent,
friendship, and common interest. The primary integrating mechanism for
these societies is kinship. Bands are extremely egalitarian--all families are
essentially equal. There is no economic class differentiation. However, there
are often clear status differences based on gender and age.

There is a horizontal status and power relationship in bands between all

adults of the same gender. They are more or less equal as far as community
decision making is concerned. However, some individuals in a band stand out
for their skills and knowledge. These often are the people who have the best
memories, are the best hunters, most successful curers, most gifted speakers,
or have some other special ability. Such people become informal leaders.
Most often they are given authority by community consensus arrived at
through casual discussion without the need for a formal vote. This is possible
because the entire society is small and everyone knows everyone else
intimately as a result of living and working together throughout their lives.
Band leaders generally have temporary political power at best, and they do
not have any significant authority relative to other adults. They can give
advice and propose action, but they do not have the formal authority to force
others to accept their decisions.

6
The principle goal of politics in most bands is making sure
that people get along with each other. This is not easy given
human nature. There is always the potential for social
disruption brought about by individuals failing to share food,
sexual competition for the same mate, or other personal
conflicts. Given the small size of bands and the fact that
everyone is involved in the lives of everyone else, quarrels
quickly become community problems that have the potential
for splitting the band along family lines. In fact, band
fissioning apparently has been a common occurrence. As the number of
people in a society increases, the potential for disruptive interpersonal
conflicts inevitably rises. Subsequently, the likelihood of families deciding to
leave and form their own bands increases. Richard Lee has referred to this
process as social velocity. He observed that among the ju/'hoansi of
southwest Africa, fissioning often occurred before a community reached the
full carrying capacity of the environment. In other words, it was not food
scarcity but, rather, social discord that was the cause of the break-up.

Typically, there is no leadership position in bands that has the authority to

conclusively settle disputes, punish criminals, prevent families from leaving, or
represent the entire community in dealings with outsiders. Decisions are
made by community consensus, but people who don't agree with the
consensus generally do not have to accept it. During the late 19th century,
this highly democratic diffused political system of bands made it difficult for the
U.S. government to create binding treaties with some Native American
societies in the West. It was naively assumed by the federal government that
when "spokesmen" for a band agreed to a treaty that it legally bound all
members of their society to its terms. From the perspective of the band
members, it really only obligated those specific individuals who agreed to the
treaty. If others in the band failed to follow the terms of the agreement, the
federal government assumed that they were going back on a legal
agreement. This cultural misunderstanding on both sides was the
consequence of having radically different kinds of political systems as well as
profound ethnocentrism.

Ethnographic accounts suggest that the political power and status of women
in many pedestrian foraging bands was surprisingly high, especially compared
to pastoralist and agricultural societies. Since forager women in all but the
cold polar regions usually provided most of the food calories consumed, they
performed economically critical roles for their families and society as a whole.
Men generally hunted for meat. This was often the most desirable but usually

7
the least dependable food source. The central economic role for women in
providing vegetable foods, along with traditions of diffused political power in
bands, allowed women to voice their opinions at important community
meetings. Clearly, women in some types of foraging societies had
significantly less political clout. The status and authority of women
in aquatic andequestrian foraging societies was usually far lower than that of
men. This may be due to the fact that men generally provided most of the
food in these societies that depended on meat as their principal source of
calories. In addition, the passionate military focus of equestrian foraging
societies put men in a position to dominate political decision making.

No band level societies survive today with their traditional form of political
organization intact. However, they did until the last half of the 19th century in
out-of-the-way regions of northern Siberia, the desert and sub-arctic regions
of North America and Greenland, the tropical lowlands of Central and South
America, the Australian desert interior and tropical north, as well as a few
isolated areas of Southeast Asia. While it is easy to think of these people and
their traditional way of life in the past as oddities, it is important to keep in
mind that the distant ancestors of all people on earth lived in bands at one
time. Before the end of the last ice age, around 10,000 years ago, it is likely
that very few societies had more complex levels of political integration.

Members
of an
Inuit
band in
northern
Canada
during
the
late 19th
century

Tribes
A tribe is a somewhat more complex type of acephalous society than a band.
As the population size increases with a shift in subsistence pattern from
foraging to horticulture or pastoralism, it eventually reaches a point at which
kinship ties and friendship are no longer sufficient to hold society together.
This is especially the case when there are hundreds of people and multiple
communities. Tribes also are characteristic of some large equestrian and rich

8
aquatic foraging societies. Regardless of the subsistence base, new forms of
societal integration become a necessity in tribes to settle disputes and prevent
the society from disintegrating.

The new integrative mechanisms of tribes are referred to by anthropologists

as pantribal associations or sodalities. These are groups that cross-cut the
society by bringing together a limited number of people, typically at least one
from each family. Pantribal associations often are in the form of councils,
groups of elder men or women who are members of the same age set, warrior
societies, religious cults, or secret societies. While these groups have specific
purposes, they also serve to create order and a sense of unity for a tribe.
An
equestrian
foraging
tribe of
Indians on
the
plains of
western
Canada
during the
late 19th
century

A temporary camp for part of the tribe A pantribal association of elder men in the
tribe who met to discuss important issues
affecting their tribe
(the man kneeling second from the left in the front
row is a non-Indian government agent)
In a number of tribal societies of New Guinea, all men traditionally lived
together communally in a "big house," while women lived with their daughters
and young sons in their own individual houses close to the gardens where
they farmed. Older boys went through an initiation ceremony in order to
become a man, move into the "big house", and learn the religious secrets kept

9
by men. In these societies, men made the important political decisions. The
group of men living in the big house acted as the pantribal association that
cross-cut society. Even in New Guinea societies that did not have a tradition
of "big houses", the important pantribal associations were most often made up
of men as they are in most tribal societies. Subsequently, men had more
political power and prestige than women.
Many
societies
in New
Guinea
were
traditionall
y divided
into
social
groups
based on
gender
and age
Men formed a pantribal association that Women and young children were largely
held excluded from political decision making
most of the political power in their society

Tribes commonly have village headmen who perform leadership roles, but
these individuals have relatively limited authority. Political power stems
largely from their senior position within kin groups and their ability to persuade
or harangue others into doing what they want. In New Guinea and many of
the neighboring islands of Melanesia, these leaders are called "big men." In
the past, there often were competing "big men" who vied with each other for
status and nominal authority over a number of villages. They worked for
years to accumulate pigs and other items of high value in order to give them
away in large, very public formal ceremonies. This functioned to not only
enhance their status and political influence but to also redistribute wealth
within their societies. A similar ritualized economic redistribution was
orchestrated by the leading men among the Kwakiutl and some other rich
fishing societies on the northwest coast of North America. Their principle goal
was also to increase their status and power.

10
 "Big man" officiating
at a pig give-away
ceremony in Papua
New Guinea

Like bands, most tribal societies are still essentially egalitarian in that no one
family or residential group is politically or economically superior to others. All
families are basically alike, including those of the headmen. They are for the
most part self-sufficient in regards to food and other basic necessities.
However, tribes differ from bands in the way that they are integrated. They
are also larger societies.

Tribal societies have suffered the same consequence of contact with the
large-scale societies. There no longer are any tribes that have been able to
maintain their traditional political systems unaltered by outside influences.

The next section of this tutorial describes societies that eventually departed
from the age-old egalitarian systems of bands and tribes and developed
chiefdoms and states. These were political systems that had progressively
more centralization of power.

NOTE: Native American societies have been commonly referred to as tribes.

They have been lumped into this category without regard to their actual level
of political integration. In western North America and the sub-arctic north,
they most often had bands. This was especially true in the desert regions
where population densities were low. Tribes were common among the
agricultural peoples of the Southwest (Pueblo Indians). In the eastern
woodlands, tribes and more complex chiefdoms were widespread. During the
20th century, Native American societies throughout the U.S. changed their
political systems to what are now usually referred to as "tribes." However,
these new political systems generally reflect more the European concept of
representative democracies with written charters, elected tribal chairmen, and
councils. The same kinds of political changes occurred among the indigenous
populations of Canada, but there they are referred to as "first nations."

11
 Chiefdoms and States
Some horticultural societies of the past developed more intensive agricultural
subsistence patterns when their populations grew into the thousands. As this
interrelated economic and populational transition occurred, they were forced
to create a new level of political integration in order to maintain unity and
order. This was the chiefdom and ultimately the state. This marks the
beginning of centralized, fulltime leadership and nonegalitarian societies.
Before examining the nature of chiefdoms and states, it is important to keep in
mind that the political systems in many societies do not clearly fit either
category completely. They are essentially in transition from tribes to
chiefdoms or from chiefdoms to states.

Chiefdoms
Chiefdoms are similar to bands and tribes in being mostly
classless societies. However, chiefdoms differ in having a
more or less permanent, fulltime leader with real authority
to make major decisions for their societies. These leaders
are usually referred to by anthropologists as chiefs.
Sometimes there is an advisory council as well, but there
is no bureaucracy of professional administrators. The
government is essentially just the chief. Some of the more
advanced chiefdoms in Africa are an exception in that they
have a paramount chief and lesser chiefs who perform Fanti chief from Ghana
in ceremonial regalia
administrative functions. The Baganda and
Bunyoro of Uganda are examples of this. The
chiefdoms of ancient Hawaii and elsewhere inPolynesia were similar in having
several levels of chiefs. Chiefdoms also are known historically from Europe,
Asia, the southeastern United States, the Caribbean islands, Panama,
Colombia, and the Amazon Basin of Brazil.

Seniority in kin groups is usually the primary basis for individual status within
chiefdoms. The chief is at the top of the kinship hierarchy. Other people are
commonly ranked in terms of their genealogical distance from the chief.
Subsequently, there is a keen interest in maintaining records ofdescent from
important family ancestors.

12
Chiefs and their families generally have a higher standard of living than
ordinary people. What makes this possible is that chiefs usually perform a
society-wide economic redistribution function that, in some cases, is cloaked
in the guise of ritual gift giving. This essentially siphons off surplus agricultural
products from farmers and then redistributes them throughout the society. In
the process, a small amount is held back in order to support the chief's more
lavish lifestyle. The ritualized redistribution of surplus food and other
commodities in chiefdoms is, in a sense, the rudimentary beginnings of a
taxation system. It is probably tolerated by people because of the economic
advantages that it can provide in addition to social stability. The larger
territorial size of chiefdoms often encompasses diverse environmental zones
with somewhat different products. The redistribution of surpluses can serve
as a method of providing security in times of crop failures as well as greater
food variety for the populace as a whole. For instance, a farmer may give up
some of his crop but get different kinds of food in return along with enhanced
status.

The larger populations of chiefdoms generally means that the people have
less in common than do those in the smaller societies of bands and tribes.
Disputes inevitably arise that cannot be settled by informal means based on
kinship and friendship. A chief usually functions as an arbitrator and judge in
these cases. In some of the kingdoms of West Africa, the paramount chiefs
still today "license" official truth testers to deal with contradictory testimony in
legal cases. They often use an ordeal to determine the truth. In the hot knife
ordeal, only someone telling the truth is thought to not be burned when a red
hot knife blade is stroked across his leg.

An important advantage that chiefdoms have over band and tribal level
societies when conflicts arise between them is that chiefdoms are usually
more effective in warfare. This is due to the fact that chiefdoms have two
important advantages. They have larger populations so they can assemble
larger military forces. In addition, the chief can provide centralized direction
which potentially allows more decisive action. Some chiefdoms in Western
South America had in excess of 100,000 people. The Chibcha of
Colombia was one of them. They became a militarily powerful force in the
mountain regions that made up their homeland.

Once functioning, the position of the chief usually becomes essential to the
functioning of society. Chiefdoms cannot go back to a tribal level unless their
population drops significantly.

13
 States
State level political systems first appeared in societies with large-scale
intensive agriculture. They began as chiefdoms and then evolved into more
centralized, authoritarian kingdoms when their populations grew into tens of
thousands of people. While chiefdoms are societies in which everyone is
ranked relative to the chief, states are socially stratified into largely distinct
classes in terms of wealth, power, and prestige.

Around 5,500 years ago, the early kingdoms of Ancient Egypt and
Mesopotamia (now Iraq) developed such state levels of political integration.
Shortly thereafter, states evolved in the Indian subcontinent and China. By
4,500 years ago, states were developing in Mesoamerica and the central
Andean mountain region of western South America. The early states in these
six regions became the well known ancient civilizations.

Regions of ancient state political systems that evolved into complex civilizations

While these six centers of early civilization had major cultural and historical
differences, they created remarkably similar political solutions for dealing with
the problems of feeding and controlling large complex societies. These new
political systems had a pyramid of authority with a small hereditary elite class
at the top headed by a king and royal family. At the bottom were the
commoners who were the bulk of society. They were mostly the food
producing farmers upon whom the entire society ultimately depended. In
between was a small middle class consisting of two groups. First, there were
professional craftsmen and traders who mainly produced or acquired luxury

14
items for the elite. Second, there were professional bureaucrats who
administered the state religion and government on a daily basis.

Pyramid of power in ancient states

As independent kingdoms within each of the geographic regions of the ancient

civilization competed for land, water, and other important resources, warfare
became more frequent and larger in scale. Professional armies were created
along with more efficient weapons. In the Old World, these included horse
drawn chariots, war ships, and metal swords, arrow, and spear tips. The
consequence of these wars of conquest was powerful kingdoms destroying
and annexing weaker ones. Eventually the victors ruled enormous multi-city,
multi-cultural, and multi-language empires with millions of people living over
vast areas. These super-states required even more centralization of authority
and larger permanent armies.

Professional
armies
have always
been
important tools
of
rule in ancient
and
modern states
Ancient Egyptian army in battle Modern national army

All of the ancient civilizations were preindustrial agricultural societies with the
majority of their populations living in hamlets and small villages. Most of these
essentially rural societies only had one or a few small cities of about 5,000-
50,000 people. These urban areas were primarily centers for the elite ruling
class along with the state government bureaucracy and the majority of the
fulltime craft specialists and traders who worked for them. In addition, cities
were the locations of major temples of the state religions. At the top of the
religious, political, and military hierarchies were key members of the ruling
elite. There was not the separation of church and state that is characteristic of

15
the U. S. and many other large nation states today. For instance, a prince
could serve as an army general, a province governor, and a head priest at the
same time. This was not viewed as a conflict of
interest.

Ancient states were far from being egalitarian. There

were a few rich, politically powerful people and many
more comparatively poor commoners who had little
political influence and almost no possibility of acquiring
it. As single-city kingdoms became multi-city empires
with vast territories, the political systems generally
became more rigid. Not uncommonly, the ruler became
a god-king with absolute authority. The Pharaohs of
Egypt are a prime example of this. They were thought
to be not just mortals but god-kings. As living gods, Ancient Egyptians believed
their authority was absolute. their pharaohs were gods

Most ancient states had slavery. The conquest of competitor states usually
provided most of them. Slaves were not always at the bottom of the pyramid
of power in these societies. In Egypt and Mesopotamia, women slaves were
often integrated into the households of wealthy, powerful men as servants and
concubines. Slave children fathered by their owner sometimes acquired
freedom and far higher status, wealth, and power than that of commoners.

NOTE: It is a common misconception that slavery no longer exists in the

world today. Despite the fact that it is now illegal in all nations, the institution
of slavery continues in the third world and even in modern industrialized
nations in various forms. Millions of people are still being bought and sold,
forced to work, physically constrained, and threatened with abuse if they don't
comply with the wishes of their owners. At least 20 million people are "bond
laborers" who must work long hours at unpleasant jobs for the person to
whom they are financially indebted. In India and some other parts of South
Asia, people often work their entire lives and fail to pay off their debt. It is
passed on to the next generation. Their children continue as de facto slaves
under this system without a realistic hope of escape. There is massive
trafficking of Eastern European, African, and South Asian women and children
who are tricked into emigrating "to better their lives" only to end up as unpaid
servants or prostitutes. More traditional forms of slavery have also continued

16
into the 21st century. In Sudan and some other parts of Africa, people are
kidnapped from their homes to become life-long slaves, transported to other
countries, bought, sold, inherited, and even given as gifts. Astonishingly, the
price of these African slaves is now significantly cheaper than it was in the
United States prior to the Civil War of the 1860's.

To learn more about slavery today, visit the following websites: 21st-Century
Slaves, Anti-slavery International, and iAbolish. For a map showing the
number of slaves coming into and going out of each country in the world see:
"The Social Psychology of Modern Slavery" by Kevin Bales, Scientific
American, April 2002.

Why Did We Give Up Bands?

The transition from acephalous bands and tribes to chiefdoms and finally
states mostly began after the end of the last ice age, 8,000-10,000 years ago.
Archaeologists and historians have wondered why this occurred. After all, our
ancestors had lived for hundreds of thousands of years as foragers. They
most likely had band and tribal level societies over this vast amount of time. It
would seem illogical to give up a successful egalitarian way of life for social,
political, and economic inequality. A persuasive explanation is that this
political and social transition was unavoidable given economic choices that
were being made by our ancestors in response to major environmental
changes and growing population pressure.

The dramatically altered climate at the end of the last ice age was largely
responsible for the disappearance of many large mammal species that
humans hunted at the time. In some regions, the animals became extinct and
in others they were reduced in numbers to the point that they were no longer a
dependable source of food. Human over-exploitation may have been a
contributing factor as well. At the same time, vast lowland areas were being
flooded by sea levels rising 300-400 feet as a consequence of massive
continental glaciers melting. These changes did not occur over night. The
climate had been warming for several thousand years. Unfortunately for our
ancestors, all of these changes were occurring at the same time that the
human population was growing.

Our ancestors were faced with a dilemma. Where could food be found to feed
the ever larger number of mouths? In the arid river valleys that were to
17
become the centers of the majority of ancient civilizations, this crisis was
probably the most acute. The first response was to shift the focus of foraging
to small game and wild plant foods, especially cereals. This was a stop-gap
solution that allowed human populations to continue growing. Inevitably, plant
and animal domestication were necessary to increase the food supply and
make it more dependable. Horticulture and pastoralism were successful as
long as the population density did not increase much. However, many of
these societies continued to get bigger. Chiefdoms became a common
solution to the problem of continued societal growth. The next evolutionary
step was the development of intensive agriculture. This made the creation of
the ancient states almost inevitable.

Why Did We Develop States?

A number of theories have been suggested to explain why states appeared.
Most of them are what have been called "prime mover" theories. That is, they
assume that there is a single key factor responsible for state formation. The
most well known ones are the voluntaristic theory , the hydraulic theory, and
the coercive theory. All three attempt to summarize the primary forces that
were responsible for state formation in most, if not all, of the early civilizations.

In 1936, the British archaeologist V. Gordon Childe first proposed

the voluntaristic theory. This assumed that people made rational economic
decisions that led them inevitably to develop the first states. Childe suggested
that food surpluses created by early agriculture allowed some individuals to
spend increasing time in developing more sophisticated weaving, pottery, and
other manufactured products, while some others became full-time traders to
distribute surplus food and luxury items. Markets appeared to facilitate trade
and some individuals became wealthier than others. In order for this to
happen the strong social pressure of the earlier egalitarian societies that
forced people to share had to be replaced by the acceptance of individuals
accumulating wealth. These changes created the need to develop new
political solutions to the problem of mediating the differences between the
various occupational and economic groups within society. A more centralized
and less democratic political system was the outcome of this process in most
cases. According to Childe, informed self-interest led people to accept the
new political organization.

During the 1950's, the German historian Karl Wittfogel and the American
archaeologist Julian Steward created an ecological explanation for state
formation that has come to be known as the hydraulic theory. This proposed
18
that state level political systems arose out of the need to construct and
manage large-scale irrigation systems necessary for intensive agriculture
within arid river valleys. Elaborate irrigation systems required leadership to
organize the labor needed for this purpose. Wittfogel and Steward argued
that once that leadership had come into existence, local control would
increasingly pass to a permanent centralized ruling class. That elite class
would be able to control farmers by denying water to those who resisted their
authority.

In 1970, the American anthropologist Robert Carneiro developed the coercive

theory of state formation. This proposed that states developed as a means of
mobilizing armies to conquer competitive neighboring peoples. Carneiro
suggested that increasing population pressure in early agricultural societies
would have resulted in intensive competition with other societies for scarce
resources such as land, water, salt, and wood. This would have triggered
wars of conquest. Centralized state governments would have developed to
mobilize and direct armies. According to Carneiro, those armies would
continue to exist as tools for controlling conquered peoples, collecting tribute,
and allocating resources.

All three of these prime mover theories of state formation have merit. Each
one describes a piece of the puzzle. It is probably more realistic to think of
the evolution of ancient states as having multiple causes that were intertwined
with the unique set of environmental, social, and historical circumstances of
each region. Just such a multi-cause explanation was proposed by the
American archaeologist Robert Adams in the 1960's for the origin and
evolution of early states in Mesopotamia. He observed that changes in a
society, its culture, and the environment are always interrelated in complex
ways like the organs of a human body. Different developments in evolving
states would have triggered further developments which in turn would have
affected the direction and rate of the initial developments. Eventually, some
emerging states in Mesopotamia were more successful than others. Adams
suggested that was usually because they had better resource bases and were
able to control agricultural production over larger areas. This in turn gave
them advantages in waging war. Once they began conquering their neighbors,
they would have gotten tribute from the defeated states which would have
reinforced the advantages of the successful conquerors. Adams suggested
that all of these changes were inevitable due to the continued growth of the
human populations.

Nation States Today

19
Modern nation states ultimately replaced kingdoms and empires ruled by royal
dynasties. However, there remain many crucial similarities. Nations today
still are marked by social, political, and economic inequality. There is poverty
for some while others are rich. Social mobility between classes is generally
much easier now, but there remains a pyramid shaped distribution of
economic and political power in all modern nations. Hereditary rulers have
been almost entirely replaced by democratically elected leaders. However,
those elected politicians still are at the top of the pyramid of power. One
major difference between ancient and modern states is that the latter have far
larger permanent bureaucracies. Their political power is centered in cities that
dwarf most of those in the early states.

Important seats of power in a modern nation state--buildings for the head of state (ruler), legislature,
and
government bureaucrats (White House, Capitol Building, and government offices in Washington
D.C.)

The Future
While the ancient civilizations are long gone, the process that led our
ancestors from small acephalous societies to chiefdoms and states did not
stop. The world human population keeps on growing and most of our
societies are becoming progressively more complex and interconnected
globally. We constantly need to produce more food, fiber, and other materials
in order to satisfy the growing demand generated by the additional people
each year. Over the 21st century, much of the world very likely will face
severe shortages, including those of food (especially protein rich meat),
drinking water, arable land, and petroleum based fuels. We will be forced to
be ever more creative in using them efficiently and to make hard decisions
about their distribution in society. Those decisions probably will involve new
political solutions in addition to technological ones.

20