Disproportionate Clan Growth in Crow-Omaha Societies: A Kinship-Demographic Model for Explaining Settlement Hierarchies and Fissioning in the Prehistoric U.S. Southeast

Abstract

Ethnohistoric data on the Omaha tribe of Nebraska indicate that marriage practices favored the disproportionate demographic growth of ceremonially prominent clans while other clans remained small or decreased in population. Ultimately, this process may lead to a "crisis in exogamy" for the larger, more ceremonially active clans, which can lead to fissioning or social transformations. As a model, the disproportionate demographic growth among ceremonially prominent clans is suggested to account for the formation of large multi-mound sites and ranked settlement hierarchies in the prehistoric U.S. Southeast. The model may also explain subsequent fissioning to establish new settlements and the formation of large sites comprised of multiple kin groups.The formation of chiefdoms from less ranked societies and the formation of complex chiefdoms from simple chiefdoms has long been a topic of concern for archaeologists. Environmental, warfare, circumscription, subsistence, population, conflict, and elite strategy models have all been used in attempts to explain the development of simple and complex chiefdoms. Settlement size hierarchies within Southeastern regions are typically viewed through a chiefdom perspective. Simple chiefdoms are interpreted where there are two-tiers to a regional settlement hierarchy. Complex chiefdoms are assumed to have existed where three or more tiers have been demonstrated. Using such models for interpreting regional settlement size hierarchies, Anderson (1996aAnderson ( , 1996b points out a widespread pattern in 309 Ó 2002, Baywood Publishing Co., Inc.

Immanuel Maurice Wallerstein (1930–2019)

“…For example, of great interest are the correlations between the dwelling floor sizes and postmarital residence patterns detected by Melvin Ember (1973; see also Peregrine and Ember 2002), and further replicated and refined by Divale (1977), Brown (1987), Peregrine (2001), and Porčić (2010). However, the most sophisticated methodology for the identification of the basic features of the kin and family organization of ancient populations on the basis of the archeological data on ancient dwellings' characteristics and their patterns has been developed in the recent years by Bradley Ensor (2003Ensor ( , 2011Ensor ( , 2012Ensor ( , 2013aEnsor ( , 2013bEnsor ( , 2017.…”

Testing Ethnological Theories on Prehistoric Kinship

“…In an early use of HRAF codings, Chang (1958) discovered that (a) settlements for individual descent groups were always planned (with residences surrounding a central plaza and/or ceremonial features), (b) 82% of societies having settlements for multiple unilineal descent groups were planned and segmented (distinct descent group locations), and (c) settlements in societies with nonunilineal descent never had planned layouts, instead having widely dispersed residential groups (a ranchería settlement pattern), aggregated haphazard arrangements of residential groups, or rarely segmented villages. Ensor (2003aEnsor ( , 2013a generally corroborated these findings: Comparing settlement layouts in 62 North American cultures, he found that 100% of those with exogamous unilineal descent groups had formally planned settlements (residential areas surrounding a plaza), and that 97% with bilateral descent had informal settlement layouts (haphazard arrangements of residential groups or ranchería settlement patterns). Ensor (2013a) then used Pasternak's (1976) correlations on descent and residence to determine whether unilineal descent groups were matrilineal or patrilineal.…”

“…These mid-level generalizations can be used to empirically infer prehistoric kinship. The author has applied this technique to address problems in the Caribbean (Ensor, 2013c), the U.S. Southeast (Ensor, 2003a, in press), the Maya region (Ensor, 2013b), and the U.S. Southwest (Ensor, 2013a). Two cases are summarized here to illustrate archeological tests of the high-level theories described above.…”

Comment on German Dziebel: Crow-Omaha and the Future of Kin Term Research

“…There are no prescriptions in Crow-Omaha marital alliances. The alliances involve clan proscriptions only (Allen 2012:57-58;Ensor 2002Ensor , 2003Ensor , 2013aFox 1967;Lévi-Strauss 1965). There are at least two rules; both are proscriptions.…”

“…The Omaha people in the Late 19 th century adhered to the Omaha marital alliance system (Ensor 2003). To begin, I should note that there is no rule for moiety exogamy among the Omaha proper, whose moieties had cosmological, ceremonial, and gendered themes also represented in their clans' ceremonial themes (Ensor 2002;Fletcher andLa Flesche 1905-1906). Marriages were independent of moieties-some marital alliances were with clans in the same moiety and some were with clans in the opposite moiety (Ensor 2002(Ensor , 2003Fletcher andLa Flesche 1905-1906).…”