The Anthropological Approach to Chiefdoms - Essay Example

The anthropological Running head: ANTHROPOLOGICAL OPINION PAPER The utility of the anthropological approach to chiefdoms and the relevance to early Christian chiefdoms in Ireland Name of Client Name of University Name of Class The anthropological 2 The utility of the anthropological approach to chiefdoms and the relevance to early Christian chiefdoms in Ireland In creating an anthropological profile of a society and a culture, it is not always possible to have written histories of the time period in order to create a picture of life during a given time. Therefore, in taking an approach that utilizes the archeological relics and evidence and combining it with what is known about societies in regard to histories written by other cultures and through regressive concepts of civilization, a researcher can determine the nature of a society. The anthropological approach to researching a given culture relies on the interconnectivity of the human race. In looking cultures such as the early Christian chiefdoms in Ireland where the evidence is not clearly established, the anthropological approach allows for the use of research from a variety of resources to be utilized in creating a concept of the nature of the culture. In Ireland, according to the research and information gathered by anthropologists and archaeologists, after the spread of Christianity through the nation, there still existed a series of chiefdoms under which the rule of the land was governed. The tuath designed communities of early Christian Ireland were based on the needs of agriculturally based society. The evidence that is left from these cultures is based on evidence of settlements that can be attributed to the work in the last part of the 19th century by W. G. Woodmartin, and T. J. Westropp who began excavations and created maps that laid out the foundation of the settlements of the tuath agricultural communities (Edwards, 2006, pp. 9). Continuing excavations and discoveries support the theory of how the culture of the time period was structured, however it requires the use of theories of anthropological research and an understanding of the multiple disciplines under The anthropological 3 this academic study in order to reach conclusions on how these people lived. Chiefdoms, as described by Earle (2000), are usually a population that is no more than a few thousand people, have some what of a system of inherited status within its social structure, with a chief that is primarily concerned with the economic welfare of his people (pp. 1). Within the development of political governing entities, the chiefdom sits somewhere between the hunting gathering societies and the developed state that is the basis of national formation that is the current model of social and political structuring. The chiefdom, according to Carneiro (2003), was part of an evolutionary cultural development that started with bands of people, moved to tribes, then chiefdoms, which eventually ended with the state as the political culture in which people form governance (pp. 275). Earle also states that the mythologies of the culture in question were often used as a source of power for the chiefs, tying the needs of their administration to the benefits that perpetuating certain ideas could bring to them. Through an understanding of the evolution of political states, the anthropologist can look at the evidence that is available, at the nature of other societies and their structures, and at the existing information from other cultures that referred to the tuatha civilizations of Ireland in order to make educated conclusions on the nature of the political environment of that region during the period of the first thousand years A.C.E. As per the information per Carneiro (2003), there is a specific common evolution of governance that can be followed (pp. 275). Therefore, in looking at the nature of the Tuatha settlements, an anthropologist can make conclusions about the nature of their culture. According to Arnold and Gibson (1999), it is important to remember that archaeology cannot reveal social systems, only the remnants of social systems. Therefore, the relationship The anthropological 4 between archaeological findings and social and political realities must be made in order to define the social nature of a given people in history (pp. 88). Taking into consideration such factors as burial evidence, which can create socio-economic profiles for individual remains, the spatial relationship of the living spaces, and the evidence of where importance seemed to be placed in regard to relics uncovered can be related to known social systems in order to create cultural relationships with what is known and what is found. Therefore, the utility of anthropological studies are vital in recreating the social structure of a civilization in regard to using nothing but found relics since there are little to no written histories of these societies. As well, some existing information can be found through examining the society and its current state. One of the more easily recognized aspects of the tuath style settlements is that they have common pastures in which more than one settlement shared. One proof of that theory is in the names of certain areas that still exist in contemporary society. Places such as Shelmaliure Commons and Forth Commons are two examples of areas that are still named for a supposed purpose that is hundreds, possibility thousands of years of intent (Charles-Edwards, 2000, pp. 102). By coming to conclusions based in surrounding evidence, the anthropologist must make assumptions about an unrecorded society. It is accurate to remember that there are not many actual facts upon which the anthropologist can make conclusions. However, the state of the human condition changes at a very slow pace, allowing evolution of cultures that are similar and worthy of comparison. Although the details may be clouded in history, the nature of what the evidence means has merit in searching the for truth about a people. As the settlement style of the tuath is similar to other settlements of a similar area, so to will the nature of the culture be similar. This is found The anthropological 5 throughout the world as anthropologists have been able to observe various cultures at varying levels of evolution in order to transfer the information they have found onto another culture. The way in which most civilizations have expanded their knowledge, through observance of other culture and social constructions that are transferred through migration and through trade with foreign states, has created a sense of homogeneity throughout the world. According to Haviland, Walrath, and Prins (2009), one of the mistakes that futurists make is in believing that the future will hold a wildly different culture than any that has come before this time (pp. 370). However, as anthropologists have discovered, social and cultural evolution does not come in radical moments of change, but in transitions of necessity born of familiarity. Cultures do not swiftly change from one type of existence to another, but they evolve as the needs of the region dictate. Sometimes these needs are transposed by the effects of war, but the overall nature of a culture will evolve slowly, even if their governance changes rapidly. Therefore, it is necessary and accurate to look at the world as a whole as each aspect of change effects another aspect. The nature of humanity tends towards the same types of assumptions and conclusions, creating similarities in the way that culture develops. The anthropological approach to studying civilizations without much in the way of written history, such as the early Irish settlements, will allow for conclusions to be drawn based on education understanding of the way in which humanity as a whole has evolved. As stated, archeology alone cannot reveal the social construction of a culture. However, using the relics that are found by the archeologist, an anthropological study can reveal information on the nature of the state of that culture. The anthropological approach to looking at the early Christian settlements in Ireland can reveal a great many conclusions about that culture. The anthropological 6 References Arnold, B. (1999). Celtic chiefdom, Celtic state: The evolution of complex social systems in prehistoric Europe. New directions in archaeology. Cambridge [u.a.]: Cambridge Univ. Press. Carneiro, R. L. (2003). Evolutionism in cultural anthropology: A critical history. Cambridge, MA: Westview Press. Charles-Edwards, T. M. (2000). Early Christian Ireland. Cambridge [u.a.]: Cambridge Univ. Press. Earle, T. K. (1993). Chiefdoms: Power, Economy and Ideology. Camb. U.P. Edwards, N. (2006). The archeology of early medieval Ireland. London: Routledge. Haviland, W. A., Walrath, D., & Prins, H. E. L. (2009). Cultural anthropology: The human challenge. New York: Cengage. Read More