The Segmentary Lineage: An Organization of Predatory Expansion<sup>1</sup>

Sahlins, Marshall

doi:10.1525/aa.1961.63.2.02a00050

Cited by 341 publications

(133 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

129

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This scenario has not been frequently observed but could apply to the expansion of the matrilineal Iroquois in prehistoric North America (Sahlins 1961;Snow 1994: 15). Early Iroquois pottery style uses the same technique as that used by earlier people, perhaps indicating absorption of women from the time of the Iroquois' arrival (Snow 1994: 17).…”

Section: Indigenous Females Enter the Colonizing Populationmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…In terms of reproductive advantage (parameter S), agricultural groups can benefi t directly from forager women marrying into the community, both demographically and politically. Sahlins (1961) famously argued that segmentary patrilineages facilitated territorial expansion at the expense of smaller lineages, and Evans-Pritchard (1940) recorded that, among East African pastoralists, small Dinka lineages could become incorporated into a Nuer tribe (see also Kelly 1985). Women, particularly young women, were captured and given in marriage to other Nuer to gain their bride wealth, with few Dinka (less than 2,000) actually killed in the process (Kelly 1985).…”

Section: Indigenous Females Enter the Colonizing Populationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Kinship, Marriage, and the Genetics of Past Human Dispersals

2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The extent to which colonizing farmer populations have overwhelmed or "replaced" indigenous forager populations, as opposed to having intermarried with them, has been widely debated. Indigenous-colonist "admixture" is often represented in genetic models as a single parameter that, although parsimonious and simple, is incongruous with the sex-specifi c nature of mtDNA and Y-chromosome data. To help interpret genetic patterns, we can construct useful null hypotheses about the generalized migration history of females (mtDNA) as opposed to males (Y chromosome), which differ signifi cantly in almost every ethnographically known society. We seek to integrate ethnographic knowledge into models that incorporate new social parameters for predicting geographic patterns in mtDNA and Y-chromosome distributions. We provide an example of a model simulation for the spread of agriculture in which this individual-scale evidence is used to refine the parameters. Abstract The extent to which colonizing farmer populations have overwhelmed or "replaced" indigenous forager populations, as opposed to having intermarried with them, has been widely debated. Indigenous-colonist "admixture" is often represented in genetic models as a single parameter that, although parsimonious and simple, is incongruous with the sex-specifi c nature of mtDNA and Y-chromosome data. To help interpret genetic patterns, we can construct useful null hypotheses about the generalized migration history of females (mtDNA) as opposed to males (Y chromosome), which differ significantly in almost every ethnographically known society. We seek to integrate ethnographic knowledge into models that incorporate new social parameters for predicting geographic patterns in mtDNA and Y-chromosome distributions.We provide an example of a model simulation for the spread of agriculture in which this individual-scale evidence is used to refi ne the parameters.Understanding the processes through which populations grow and disperse is crucial to the study of human history and diversity and forms a major topic in anthropology and other related disciplines. A key problem is determining the extent to which colonizing populations (e.g., modern humans, Neolithic farmers, European colonists) overwhelmed or "replaced" native populations (e.g., Neanderthals, hunter-gatherers, non-European indigenous societies), as opposed to having integrated into or intermarried with them. These issues have been debated by numerous researchers in a variety of different historical and regional contexts, but no consensus has yet been reached about whether or not it is possible to discern any general patterns. Here, we aim to contribute to a more sophisticated understanding of human migratory activity by integrating data drawn from several disciplines, namely, archaeology, ethnography, and human genetics. Our critique focuses on the highly infl uential wave of advance model of human dispersals, as fi rst developed by Ammerman and Cavalli-Sforza (1984). We argue that this model is not equipped to con...

show abstract

Section: Indigenous Females Enter the Colonizing Populationmentioning

confidence: 95%

Section: Indigenous Females Enter the Colonizing Populationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Kinship, Marriage, and the Genetics of Past Human Dispersals

2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Societies with advantageous institutions might survive better than those without; thus, such institutions would endure and perhaps be elaborated. [See, for example, Sahlins (24).] Empirically, we observe that very large territories in Eurasia and Africa have been occupied by populations characterized by political structures based on agnatic kinship.…”

Section: Implications and Conclusionmentioning

confidence: 85%

Kinship-based politics and the optimal size of kin groups

Hammel

2005

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Kin form important political groups, which change in size and relative inequality with demographic shifts. Increases in the rate of population growth increase the size of kin groups but decrease their inequality and vice versa. The optimal size of kin groups may be evaluated from the marginal political product (MPP) of their members. Culture and institutions affect levels and shapes of MPP. Different optimal group sizes, from different perspectives, can be suggested for any MPP schedule. The relative dominance of competing groups is determined by their MPP schedules. Groups driven to extremes of sustainability may react in Malthusian fashion, including fission and fusion, or in Boserupian fashion, altering social technology to accommodate changes in size. The spectrum of alternatives for actors and groups, shaped by existing institutions and natural and cultural selection, is very broad. Nevertheless, selection may result in survival of particular kinds of political structures.demography ͉ selection D emographic fluctuations affect the composition of kin groups (1). Positive shocks increase numbers of kin per person but decrease inequality of kin distributions and vice versa. Kin are the main source of political support and action in the small societies that characterized Ͼ90% of human history and still predominate in many societies, including segments of larger societies. Fluctuations in the mean supply of kin and the inequality of kin distributions give political actors opportunity to consolidate their positions and to select or alter cultural institutions that give advantage. Demographically induced fluctuations in kinship distributions may have been important environmental factors in natural and institutional selection as well as in particular historical events. However, any intrinsic directionality in selection is subject to existing local institutional and environmental factors.This article presents a formal model of kinship factors, first focusing on a microeconomic analog, and then taking a broader macroeconomic and ecological perspective. It then discusses some ethnographic examples and offers conjectures on implications for the development of political institutions. A Formal Model of Kinship PoliticsEach political actor is a member of a kin group. Each kin group can have from zero to some number of additional persons. Any member can be thought of as the principal actor in the group, or the group can be thought of as an entity. Each group is, in principle, nested, with superordinate levels at greater collaterality. The model is unilineal, agnatic, and segmentary. † Thus, a set of agnatic male second cousins may consist of more than one set of agnatic male first cousins, which may consist of more than one set of brothers. At any level, groups are assumed to be mutually exclusive; for example, Ego cannot belong to more than one set of agnatically related brothers. At any level, groups may compete for dominance, regardless of whether they are subsumed under a broader group; for example, two sets of brother...

show abstract

“…In addition t o capitalism and feudalism, our knowledge includes only partial elements of theory: Terray (1972), Rey (1971Rey ( , 1973, Meillassoux (1964), and Sahlins (1960b) on a lineage mode; Mauss (1968) on two unnamed modes among the Eskimos; Sahlins (1972) on one domestic mode of production, etc. Many economic types of organization have been empirically discerned by anthropologists, but our work by and large has remained at the stage of monographic description and classification.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As Sahlins (1960a) has pointed out, the misunderstanding between Steward and White stems from the fact that the phenomenon of cultural evolution may and must be approached from two points of view. Evolution proceeds through the differentiation of specific societies, and through this process there emerge increasingly complex levels of social integration.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Chance, Necessity, and Mode of Production: A Marxist Critique of Cultural Evolutionism

Legros

1977

American Anthropologist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cultural evolutionism and historical materialism are two fundamentally divergent theories o f evolution. The nonrecognition by cultural evolutionists of MarxLa methode, c'est precisement le choix des faits.-Henri PoincarC THERE HAS BEEN A TENDENCY t o identify the cultural evolutionism of American anthropologists with Marxism. In fact, their work developed quite independently of Marxist theory and is often inconsistent with it. The purpose of this paper is to indicate the ways in which Marxism represents a radically different approach from that of cultural evolutionism. The major points that I shall make are the following: (1) the two theories differ fundamentally in how they define and relate the concepts of "society" and "mode of production"; (2) the Marxist thesis of the determination of superstructures by the economic base, or infrastructure, is aimed not at explaining the historical origin of these superstructures, but a t explaining their relationship to the economic base within a given mode of production, a synchronic phenomenon; (3) when one examines Marx's formulation of the problem of the origins of the capitalist mode of production, it becomes clear that he does not develop this question in terms of economic determination, and still less as a matter of technological fatalism. Marx's materialism is historical, not economic, and gives as much emphasis to chance as to necessity. SOCIETY AND MODE OF PRODUCTION: THE DIVSRGENT THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS OF CULTURAL EVOLUTIONISM AND MARXISMIn order to contrast the theoretical framework of cultural evolutionism with that of Marx, I have chosen six anthropologists who, taken together, can be seen as a representative sample of the major trends of cultural evolutionism. These are

show abstract

The Segmentary Lineage: An Organization of Predatory Expansion¹

Cited by 341 publications

References 8 publications

Kinship, Marriage, and the Genetics of Past Human Dispersals

Kinship, Marriage, and the Genetics of Past Human Dispersals

Kinship-based politics and the optimal size of kin groups

Chance, Necessity, and Mode of Production: A Marxist Critique of Cultural Evolutionism

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

The Segmentary Lineage: An Organization of Predatory Expansion1

Cited by 341 publications

References 8 publications

Kinship, Marriage, and the Genetics of Past Human Dispersals

Kinship, Marriage, and the Genetics of Past Human Dispersals

Kinship-based politics and the optimal size of kin groups

Chance, Necessity, and Mode of Production: A Marxist Critique of Cultural Evolutionism

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

The Segmentary Lineage: An Organization of Predatory Expansion¹