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