In this paper I investigate the possibilities of the ethnohistory and ethnography of the ninteenth century A. D. as potential models for the history and archaeology of the ancient Near East. Written sources of the ancient near East, from the Middle Bronze age onward, suggest that society in the region has been tribally organized from a very early period onward. These sources include descriptions in akkadian texts that document the ascendancy of the amorite tribes into some of the most powerful states of the middle Bronze age, the mari archives (Fleming 2004), Egyptian sources about the shasu and 8utu, and not forgetting the various stories in the Old Testament about the tribal organization of israel.
How we define a tribe, its political organization and social and economic structure, in this historical context is more difficult to detect from these sources. Definitions of tribal societies abound in the anthropological literature. many of these are ultimately based on Elman service’s definition (1971), but there are fundamental “regional” differences in definitions of what constitutes a tribe. These not only often refer to the minimum and maximum size of a tribe, its economy, and other characteristics largely dependent on the geographical and ecological context, but also to social or political organization, and other fundamental issues.
What IS a tribe?
The history of the anthropological research on tribalism has been extensively dealt with in Parkinson 2002. The definition I give below applies to the Near East only and reflects the social and political organization of nineteenth-century tribal societies in the Near East.
• A segmentary social structure based on an accepted patrilineal lineage system,1 consisting of families and clans bonded by a system of sodalities or social networks that crosscut the clan system. The different clans may recognize one communal apical ancestor. This system does not so much represent actual kinship and descent relations, but can be reconstructed and manipulated for social and political purposes with the consent of the members.
• A strong and formalized sense of group responsibility and group loyalty: individual actions reflect on the whole group, and the group is responsible for the welfare of the individual.
• Leadership of the tribe is maintained through a combination of ascribed and achieved qualities. In most studies the emphasis is on achieved qualities, and the leader is de-
Within a tribe, as pointed out by Lancaster (1981: 44-45).
EVELINE VAN DER STEEN
Picted as a “first among equals.” In Near Eastern tribes leadership is hereditary within a leading clan and family from which the leader is chosen. changes of the leading clan (or leading tribe within a confederation) are major political events that frequently lead to bloodshed and political turmoil.
• social interaction within and between tribes is strongly determined by the concept of “honor.” (Abu-Lughod 1986: passim; Eickelman 1989: 153; Lancaster 1981: 43-45). This is also reflected in the second point (above): the individual is responsible for maintaining the honor of the group and vice versa.
This definition of tribe describes its social organization. It does, however, also have consequences for the political and economic organization of society.
World History
