Introduction

As this collection is about tribes we could do not better by way of opening the discussion than highlighting their characteristics. This is easier said than done. The definition of ‘tribe’ remains problematic and a central controversy in anthropology. An eminent anthropologist has entitled a chapter in his study, which examines the problem, thus: ‘the concept of the “tribe”: a crisis involving merely a concept or the empirical foundations of anthropology itself?’ (Godelier 1977: 70). We wish to avoid entering academic polemic regarding the definition and concept of tribe. However, for purposes of the arguments contained in this volume, we will employ a generalised blanket definition drawn from characteristics of the tribes mentioned below. ‘Tribes’, we suggest, are rural groups that have a name and distinguish between members and non-members, which occupy a territory, and which within that territory assume either all responsibility, or at least a significant proportion of the responsibility, for the maintenance of order. In as far as they assume such responsibility both internally and externally, they can be said to possess political and military functions. Under modern conditions, the state generally tries to monopolise these functions, and so it is sensible to extend the term ‘tribe’ even to groups which have but recently lost the capacity for political and military action, or rather have been deprived of it, but which could easily resume it if the central state slackened its hold. Partly because of the confrontation with larger states, some kind of tribal genealogical charter assumes almost mythical importance and is memorised from generation to generation, making allowances, of course, for ‘lost’ ancestors.