The article consists of three parts. In Section 1 the definitions of some key terms in political anthropology (chief, chiefdom, and early state) are presented and argued on the basis of recent literature. It is proposed to disconnect the terms 'chief' and 'chiefdom'. In Section 2 an overview of the evolution of socio-political organization is attempted. Evolution is a matter of structural change. Once the consequences of a certain change manifest themselves in many or all aspects of an institution, an evolutionary change has taken place. The direction of evolution is open. It is assumed that major evolutionary changes of society only started some ten thousand years ago, with the beginning of the Holocene. Then the climate became milder and it became possible to live together in larger, more permanent groups and to start food production. Section 3 discusses the theoretical considerations which form the underlying basis of evolutionary change. To this end I use the Complex Interaction Model, developed in earlier publications.
The type of political leader, commonly referred to as 'chief', emerged some ten thousand years ago, since the time that larger congregations of people had become possible when the changes in climate made agriculture and settled life possible (Cook 2005: 24-28). And, though the term 'chief' was used over and again in anthropological, archaeological, and even historical literature, the contents of the concept was never fully agreed upon. Most anthropologists would include any, or most, of the following aspects in his or her definition: an ascribed/inherited top position in the local (regional) social structure, a central position in a redistributive economy, sacred capacities (the most important of which were alleged positive effects on human, animal and plant fertility), the erection of great works in the public sphere, and an inclination to warfare. I shall discuss each of these features with their ramifications below.
After some remarks on early theorists of the state a survey is presented of recent views on the state. As a point of departure is taken Radcliffe-Brown's statement that the state is 'a collection of individual social beings connected by a complex system of relations'. Following this view the state will be considered here as a specific type of sociopolitical organization. After discussing its three basic components (number of people, territory, and type of government) several types of state are distinguished of which the first type, the Early State is the subject of the article. On the basis of extensive comparisons general characteristics of the Early State are established, and with the help of these three types of Early States are constructed, the inchoate (incipient), the typical and the transitional one. In all cases Early States are governed by a sacred ruler, whose legitimacy is based on a kind of (asymmetrical) reciprocity between ruler and people. This makes legitimacy and ideology central issues in Early State studies. The Early State evolves generally from simpler types of sociopolitical organization, such as e.g., chiefdoms or large bigmen systems. To make this evolution possible a complex interplay of a number of factors is needed, varying from population growth, the production of a surplus and an ideology which explains and justifies the increasing division of power. Moreover some incentive seems necessary to trigger the developments. Interestingly stratification as well as the development of more complex types of sociopolitical organization sometimes occurs quite unnoticed and unintended as examples from Lake Victoria, the Kachin, and the Betsileo demonstrate. It seems possible to analyze the evolution of sociopolitical organization with the help of the Complex Interaction Model in which the various factors mentioned play a role. War is considered here as being a derivative of problems in the factors mentioned, rather than a necessary or sufficient factor. There are reasons to think of specific regional features in the development of Early States. The evolution of Early States in Africa involved features differing from those in Polynesia or the Americas. These differences were found mainly in the ideological sphere. The Early State is no more. Some declined and collapsed because of internal weaknesses; others were subjected by the Great Powers when colonizing the world in the 17th till the 19th centuries and some Early States reached the level of Developed, and even of Mature States in the course of time by themselves. The dominant position of the State in the present world should not blind us for the fact that all over the world still numerous people live in tribal organizations, irrespective of the fact of whether they are still independent or incorporated into some state. On the other hand, there are nowadays several states that can be considered as Failed States, not able to run their own business. Other states are now members of ever and ever growing international organizations. The question is thus justified in the end: has the State still a future?
The pre-colonial states of Africa : chronology and geographical location -- Characteristics of the formation of African states -- Features of pre-colonial African states -- The coexistence of states and non-state organisations -- The state in pre-colonial Africa : issues and debates
