In reply to Glen's notions on the social organisation of Hunter Gathereers:
Dear Glen,
I am sorely tempted to give a small e-lecture on the matter of HG spatial variability. Well, hold on tight...
HGs do indeed live in small groups of c.25. However, to be biologically self sufficient you require a breeding network of some 500 people to be on the safe side. So, 20 bands of 25. Near a physical [coast, mountains etc.]/ cultural/ linguistic boundary there is a tendency for group size to increase, thus let's envisage 6 groups of 80. [Wobst]
These "social territories" [Graham Clark] or macro-bands may of course be open or overlap, but a tendency for more closed systems is seen in a low risk environment , e.g. temperate Eurasia which is the focus of our concerns in this message list, as opposed to tropical and polar desert [Wobst again]. This is the sort of model we should bear in mind, not the scattered bands of noble savages you seem to visualise. Anyway, it is not too ludicrous to suppose these larger units share a language, and are aware of this fact.
As for ethnic sentiments, it has long been recognised that the most visible parts of material culture are often used by HGs to display these wider ethnic differences, as in a seminal ethnoarchaeological study of the !Kung by Polly Wiessner. The distinction of Us and Them is a universal part of human thought, and as such is deliberately fostered through the development of distinct ethnic styles of dress or material culture. If, Glen, you are suspicious of the prevalence of such ideas in the remote past, I recommend you look at the Mesolithic example of conservatism and reaction against the encroachment of new cultures [and languages?] in the Iron Gorges of the Danube as it passes from Serbia to Bulgaria/Romania. Look at Ivana Radovaovic's 'Iron Gates Mesolithic' for details of this early example of large scale Us and Them behaviour. [Do! It's very good, and I'm not just saying that cos she taught me at Uni!]
>A Dakota has no country. He doesn't know of defined political
>borders. The land is open and free. He belongs to his tribe or
>band. He identifies himself within his tiny little group of
>perhaps _twenty to hundred_ people - Definitely not an
>inconceiveable number such as millions. See the difference here?
>
This is a little romantic, eh? We should substitute in such analogies the very real social boundaries of this Dakota gentleman. These replace the borders of our states only in their physical lack of expression.
>Let's look at this a different way. Imagine three IndoEuropean tribes
>neighbouring each other. One tribe thinks that all IndoEuropean
>speaking peoples around them are their brothers and sisters.
They would soon be disabused of this notion if this feeling was not reciprocated.
Another
>tribe thinks that their tribe is the only family and that the tribes
>around them are strangers. Another tribe thinks that some IE tribes
>are on the outside and others not. Get my point? IndoEuropeans could
>never had a unified notion of nation because the ideas about who
>are Us and who are Them were individual to each social unit (in this
>case, the social unit being only a tribe or band).
'Bands' are always and necessarily part of a larger community. In central Australia at least they actively enjoy this fact and look forward to the seasonal gatherings in which the disparate [ecologically necessary] small bands all meet up.
>Our own
>social units are more involved, larger and more multilayered than
>in our mesolithic past.
Now, that is a little bit of an exaggeration, when we bear in mind the absurdly complex kinship systems of moieties, phratries, totems etc in the 'uncivilised' world. The Nenets and Enets of the Russian North have distinct languages and yet they appreciate they are closer to each other than they are to the Nganasan, and yet all three sorts of Samoyed have a common name for their combined group.
Er. There was some point to all of this, but I might have let it slip my mind in the middle of my ramblings, but there you go. If you're at all interested then the book of the lecture course that I tried desperately to remember all this from is at
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0521776724/qid=999793288/sr=1-10/ref=sr_sp_re/026-2129808-7296421
I do apologise if I have misconstued your opinions but if that's the case I can only refer you to Konstantin Dmitrich Levin's musings on the nature of argument in Lev Tolstoi's Anna Karenina
Yours
Beinn Mac an Gheairr
>Vae victis.
Email just got more fun @ another.com
http://another.com
Tired of that weasel stealing your mouse mat AGAIN? Then get the another.com
PERSONALISED mouse mat for ONLY ?7.99 INCLUDING delivery to home, college or
work - your choice.
Buy securely OnLine at
http://www.another-shop.com