Anthropos 86.1991; 1-18 
Small Bands of Strangers 
The Contraposed “Lineage” Reconsidered 
T. R. Barker 
Abstract. - This article intends to approach the question of 
political structure in particular as it throws light on Tail’s 
contrapuntal clans. The transformation of acephalous societies 
into “state societies” is largely credited to the introduction 
of heterogeneity on the basis of migration, conquest, and the 
development of trade. The significance of territoriality, gene 
alogy, and ritual is examined in various formulations of polity. 
Using Tait’s Konkomba material it is proposed that the contra 
puntal clan may be seen as the locus of both partibility of the 
social person and the estate. The division of a population into 
a classic autochthon/conqueror form typical of many African 
societies occurs as a result of disjunction in the processes of 
devolution and succession to office however contrapuntality is a 
necessary condition. [Ghana, Konkomba, state!non-state, earth 
priest, intra- and inter systemic variation, contrapuntal clan] 
Thomas R. Barker, Dr., has taught Social Anthropology at 
the Univ. of Toronto; he has done anthropological research 
in Papua New Guinea and worked in development projects in 
West and Southern Africa; he has conducted a re-study of the 
Wawaga valley Barai in Papua New Guinea. 
Introduction 
As Coquery-Vidrovitch demanded, the surpassing 
oi the state/stateless dichotomy of social anthro 
pology (1978: 278), the attempt to construct an 
African mode based on patrimony and the perma 
nence and control of long distance trade, happily or 
unhappily, could not eliminate it. Social structure 
and social organization remain as over-arching 
considerations in social anthropology. The popu 
lar, recent trend of non-anthropologists in the area, 
has been to confine questions of social structure 1 
to the mytho-historic period of the political for 
mation. As much as this rings true to a certain 
logic, it is uncomfortably reminiscent of Frazer’s 
difficulties with Robertson Smith (1894). 
It is in the context of this “struggle” that the 
institution “chiefs of the earth (tengsoha)” (Frazer 
1919: 85-87) appeared to the English public. In 
cluded was one of the mechanisms of incorpo 
ration, the grandchild/sister’s son’s relationship, 
or yagense (ka-yeagense). 2 Then, of course, there 
1 Somewhat pedantically, in the view of the functionalists, 
social structure is the framework of institutionally defined 
relations between people where social organization refers 
to the form of activities, social position or status is viewed 
against rules of conduct, structure against organization. 
Finally, process is the interrelation of the two. Fortes (1953: 
22) draws attention to the “interconnection and interdepen 
dence, within a single system, of all the different classes of 
social relations found within a given society.” Tait’s charac 
terization of social structure is derivative of the foregoing, 
however, it is complicated by his recourse to ecology: 
“The social structure of a society is, in part, a function 
of its ecology. ... Land shortage and lineage fission in 
this environment appear severely to restrict aggregations of 
people and to produce a small-scale segmentary society” 
(Goody 1961: 156). This reflects Forde’s theory that qual 
ity of habitat and technology restricts the development of 
unilineal descent groups (1947: 213-224). 
2 In the matter of the terminology employed to navigate about 
central themes and principles, “master of the earth” and 
“owner of the people,” “owner’s people,” and “owner of 
the earth’s people” will be used. Other variations of these 
phrases will be employed from time to time to convey 
a change in the sense of the discussion. Goody (1961: 
xvi) noted the following: “... I have substituted the phrase 
‘Earth Shrine’ for ‘Land Shrine.’ Perhaps inconsistently, 1 
have not replaced Owner of the Land by Custodian of the 
Earth Shrine but by Owner of the Earth. This I have done 
because I did not want to depart too radically from David 
Tait’s previous usage, as it might have led some readers 
to think that two different offices were being spoken of. 
Secondly, the phrase which Fortes and I have employed is 
certainly rather cumbrous for continual usage, and thirdly, 
the Konkomba word, like the Nankanse and Ashanti cog 
nates but unlike the LoDagaa, does not contain any specific 
reference to the shrine but only to the Earth. ‘Owner of the 
Earth’ is better than ‘Owner of the Land’ for it emphasizes 
that the office is essentially a religious one. ‘Earth priest,’ 
or the ‘Master of the Earth’ of the French ethnographers, 
would in some ways have been still more appropriate, for 
they avoid the possible error of suggesting that the office 
has anything to do with the ownership of the land in the 
usual sense of the phrase. On the other hand, Rattray’s 
‘Chief-Priest’ or ‘King-Priest’ seem to me unacceptable in 
that they imply another sort of political functionary; indeed 
these terms clearly represent a momentary glimpse of the 
Golden Bough in the orchard bush of the West African 
Savannah.” 
In the formulation of the process of clan/lineage 
constitution, it is noted that, mechanistically, there would 
seem to be little difference between the complex of the 
Nuer dil or aristocrat/leopard-skin chief and the “owner of