Get help from the best in academic writing.

Essay on the Difference Between Chiefdoms and Tribes

The Swazi of Southern Africa and the Mayogo of Northern Democratic Republic of Congo represent two different chiefdoms that live in Africa. The two chiefdoms share more with states than with tribes, a reason which explains its existence within the boundary of many states in Africa. The Swazi chiefdom is situated in the southern Africa in a landlocked country that was rule according to the chiefdom rules even with the coming of the white man and obtaining independence 1968. The chiefdom share many aspects with the state, a reason which explains the absence of conflict that inflicts the two institutions in comparison with the state and the tribe. The research paper will analyze the two chiefdoms of Mayogo and Swazi through the use of comparison with the state and the tribe by focusing on such points as kinship, marriage, citizenship.
The Mayogo
The Mayogo are people who live in the Northeast of the Democratic Republic of Congo, they used to live independently as chiefdom until the 19th century when the country was invaded by the Mangbetu who formed the state under which the Mayogo were governed. However, the internal affairs of the chiefdom were in control by the chiefs. The Mayogo speak a language that belongs to the same family of Swazi which is Bantu, most of them have converted from animism to Christianity mainly Catholicism. The areas in which the Mayogo live have certain autonomy as the people pay allegiance to the Chiefdom. Although the flag was apparent in the documentary but no allegiance is paid to the national anthem. One of the reason, why the state of Democratic Republic of Congo, formerly known as Zaire is not bother by the presence of the chiefdom of Mayogo in its territory is because it is not menaced by it in addition to the fact that the chiefdom provides protection to its population which the state cannot afford to due to the vast surface of the territory and its vicinity to war zones exemplified by the refuges that live in the country in addition to a civil war that it is undergoing.
The Swazi
The Swazi took their name from their king, Mswati, Swaziland is a chiefdom that is organized into dual monarchy with the king and the queen at its head, the king is refereed to by the Swazi as Ngwenyama (Lion) while the queen is known as Ndlovukazi (Lady Elephant).[1] The chiefdom is based on common ancestry and fictive kinship, like the state the chiefdom is based on a social contract between the population of Swaziland who accept top pay allegiance to the king by obeying his orders, providing goods and services, and paying taxes in return for protection from outsiders mainly Zulu and Shaka. For instance, King Sobhuza maintained the loyalty of his population by protecting them from Shaka to the extent that he sent his daughters to be married by Shaka knowing that they will be killed once they are pregnant.[2] The successor of king Sobhuza, Mswati, was left with “a strong Kingdom, respected and feared by neighboring tribes, with a centralized political system controlling several thousands of people scattered over areas reaching far beyond the boundaries of modern Swaziland.”[3]
The interest of Europeans to colonize the area came from two parties the Dutch Boers and the British, in 1865 the two parties are going to find an excuse to enter the country which to provide peace and end civil war. The year coincided with the death of King Mswati which entered the country into a civil war due the rivalry of who is going to become the new king. Eventually Mdandzeni was the king and even during his reign instability was present.[4]
A Comparison between Chiefdom and Tribe
The tribe and chiefdom have a similar aspect in terms of their value of raiding while the Swazi during the reign of king Mswati acquired a reputation of terror and fear many of their warriors were indulging in raids with neighboring chiefdoms and the looting was distributed by the King.[5] Likewise, the Famous tribe chief Auda abu Tayi the leader of the Howeitat tribe who said that he is like a river to his people meaning that all what he obtain from raids is going to be redistribute to his tribe.[6] Moreover, Hospitality is another characteristic that shared between tribes and chiefdom. Regarding chiefdom, the headman is expected to be magnanimous.[7]
Kinship is an important factor that distinguishes chiefdom from the state and put on equal footing with the tribe, it used to define who is going to be married from a particular person and other issue as it is stated by Hilda Kuper “kinship by descent and ties by marriage influence behavior in a great number of situations; they determine where and with whom a person lives, his range of friends and enemies, whom he may or may not marry, the positions to which he is entitled.”[8] Regarding tribes the preference is being given to first cousins but instances of incest are not absent though rare, both among Tribes Swazi, especially the king who is allowed as he is “the only man permitted to marry a clan sister.”[9] This network of kinship was kept even when the British administration was in the country, it was only a current move to incorporate the dual monarchy as a single government for the whole country of Swaziland.[10]
The importance given to law seems to be a feature shared by both the tribe and chiefdom as the tribe regulates its problems according to its tribal law while the Swazi “have a highly developed legal system and a graded hierarchy of courts that coincide roughly with the political structure.” In case of the Swazi seems to be working with the introduction of the state while it is the opposite for tribes as in some instances revenge requires killing a person as compensation. While the Swazi differentiate between private matters such as theft and cases that require death penalty such as murder. In The former the guilty party pays compensation directly to the ill-treated person while on the latter the compensation is given to the king as he “the representative of the state.”[11] Hilda Kuper mentioned an example that would illustrate this dichotomy of law among the chiefdom. It involves the case of a woman called Velepi Hlatshwako who deserted her husband, Alpheus shongwe, after 20 years of marriage because of his bad treatment of her and eloped with her lover, Isauk Mabuzo. In order for the lover to marry the Velepi he has to pay lobola (bride price) to her family which it refused. The matter is going to exacerbates when Velepi had a daughter and Alpheus asked for both of them as a he paid lobola. This time the two couple became convert to Wesleyan church therefore the matter was taken to different court and in the end the court stated that Velepi “soiled the law.”[12] The state and chiefdom law tend to overlap and contradict each other, however the likelihood of going against the states is less than the tribe where state rule is absent. For instance, the Swazi people who work in the administration or “white-controlled bureaucracy”[13] but their loyalty falls under their chiefdom.
One of the major difference between chiefdom and tribe lies on the fact that the way the tribal chief chosen has nothing to do with his noble heritage or family instead what matter is his reputation for hospitability, honor and experience while for the Swazi as well as the Mayogo of Northern Democratic Republic of Congo the chief is hereditary position which is banqueted only by inheritance. Therefore, competition and rivalry is major aspect of chiefdom and this best seen during the death of Kind Mswati, that resulted in a civil war between his sons whereas tribal people tend to elect a chief of their tribe based on reputation, which means that once the chief is being seen as corrupt the tribal people outstrip of his leadership automatically by not listening to him. And even the way the tribe vie their chief is different from chiefdom whereby the Swazi regard their king as a father and not a dictator.[14]
Marriage is an important institution upon which a the follower of the king is taken, polygamy is abundant among kings and in order to avoid conflict between kings` sons it is the child of the senor wife that is entitled to the throne however, seniority is not always decided by age but by other factors as it is pointed out by Hilda Kuper “Among the Swazi aristocracy the first wife is never the main wife. Seniority in marriage brings certain advantages during the headman`s lifetime, but upon his death other factors are considered. The most important is pedigree, and the daughter of a king or leading chief generally takes precedence over all other wives.”[15] The Swazi developed a sophisticated system of succession to protect the future king from the rivalry of his brothers to the extent that the first son of king is never going to take his place, Seniority and pedigree play an important role in selecting the future king.[16] Regarding tribal law, it is very different from state law and does not tend to be mixed as is the case with both Swazi and Mayogo as knowledge of the chiefdom law and court procedure are part of the daily life of chiefdom people.[17]
A Comparison between the Chiefdom and the State
Just like the state, the country of Swaziland is divided into different districts. The queen shares power with the king, however her realm is situated in the area of household and rituals. Unlike Western countries, religion in Swaziland is an important aspect of the country that is governed by the queen; it is one of the characteristics that differentiate an outsider from a Swazi. The Swaziland chiefdom maintains its political system and insures its survival by following a system of military fear based on executions so that any enemy would think twice before trying to invade the country. The second way is upgrading lineage through marriage, whereby women play a major role in succession mainly the queen mother, as the children of a senior wife are supervised and shunned from going outside to protect them from magic spills. In other words, the king rules outside while the queen rules inside the household. Even though the country is big, the king insure that it stays in order by dividing into district and letting local chiefs (sikhulu) reign them and in cases of district that the king does not trust he appoints his brother or his half brother to rule them, a practice used during the reign of King Mswati, when the Kingdom of Swaziland rule over a large territory and have a reputation.
According to Hilda Kuper “power moves down through a chain of British-appointed officials on the one side and the traditional hierarchy on the other, with conflict centered in a few leading personalities. Educated Swazi, including some of the traditional system for reaching rapid and major decisions, but they are seeking to build on certain accepted foundations and do not want an imitation of constitutional techniques developed in alien context.”[18] In a chiefdom both power can be shared with states with small incidents of conflicts compared to tribes, and most of the time when the chiefdom laws came to contradict laws of the states it is usually driven by personal interest. For instance, the reason for changing the Westminster constitution that the British brought to Swaziland has to do with the failure of a Prince Mfanasibili in elections against Ngwenya, therefore to get rid of his rival he found the loophole that since he is a South African he was deported to the border in may 25 1972 and because the conistution was in favour of Ngwenya regarding his deportation, it was also changed.[19]
The independence of Swaziland brought the problem of who is entitled toser ve in an office with such factors as loyalty and family playing a major role in appointment the educated Swazi who are not from a royal kinship posed a problem to the royal group and raised their concern over education as a means to secure their positions. The opposite is apparent in the Mayogo of Northern Democratic Republic of Congo. Unlike the British colonies where education was emphasize, the French colonies relied on military people to rule on their colonies
Citizenship is an important aspect of defining who is Swazi and who is not, in practice all those people entitled to be Swazi have the privileges of security, that is protection from enemies, they can acquire land; and most importantly they can have the national mark in order to wear Swazi consume which is “a slit in the lobes of the ears.”[20] The chiefdom shares with the state the concept of citizen and who is entitled to be a citizen? Such a question is going to raise problems in Swaziland due to its diversified population and the changing concept of allegiance, as it system by which Swazi express their loyalty to their king. However, the influx of many non-Swazi who were brought by the white settlers brought the issue of loyalty to the fore as they plead their allegiance to their employers instead of the king, in addition to their different traditions and culture which makes the Swazi feel threatened about their status to the extent of putting the blame on crime on the non-Swazi population.[21] According the Swaziland law “Citizenship was a privilege, not a right; a commitment, not a label,”[22] which means that factors such as language, history, race and religion come to define who is a Swazi and who is not, therefore citizenship is exclusive and not inclusive. Another problem that is brought the issue of citizenship is the fact that South Africa is home to 700, 000 Swazi people which indicates the problem of the king to grant them citizenship without land support and most importantly the problem of dual citizenship as they are both citizens of South Africa and also entitled to the citizenship of Swaziland, while the non-Swazi who live in Swaziland are not regarded as citizens as they lack the features of a Swazi.
Land is an important accepts in Swaziland in addition to pastorals rooted in its “cattle complex”[23] due to the importance of lobola which is usually expressed in cattle’s. The land posed to be a problem in 1907 as 45% of the land in Swaziland was owned by non-Swazi owing to the Land Proclamation of 1907.[24] Unlike, its neighboring country Zimbabwe, the Swaziland government response to reform the land by taking into consideration the local Swazi without alienating the white community
A major component of the state in addition to sovereignty and territory is monopoly over the use of violence. The distinction between police and soldier does not exit in Swazi chiefdom it was only brought by the British. The Swazi rely on emabutfo to provide protection; they are a mix of soldier and police. However by the coming of the British they introduced police force which was viewed as a rival by Emabutfo.[25] However the role of Emabutfo is going to be underscored due to the regional incidents that occurred in Ethiopia where Haile Selassie was deposed and Mozambique where the socialist Samora Machel was recognized as the leader of the country. These events prompted Swaziland to develop an army by relying on emabutfo. [26]
To conclude, the chiefdom share many point with tribes and states. however, the fact it has many point to share with the state that the tribe make it adaptable to survive even within the boundary of the state because it does not threat the establishment of the state. It shares with the state the social contract under which the population pays loyalty through obedience and taxes in return for protection. And unlike the tribe the chiefdom does not have the problem of minority group. Because even in their meeting not everybody in the chiefdom is invited in the secret meetings save the elders, whereas in a tribal society every person who is an adult has a saying that the chief has to take into consideration as he has the power to influence decision making but to the extent of making an order.
“Chief Anga Ganga Kangolo” Lost Kingdoms. Discovery Channel, 1988.
Kuper, Hilda. The Swazi: a South African Kingdom. Mason, Ohio: Cenage Learning, 2002.
Lawrence of Arabia, DVD, Directed by David Lean. 1962.

Forensic Anthropology Study of Bones

Introduction Anthropology is the study of humankind, culturally and physically, in all times and places. Forensic Anthropology is the application of anthropological knowledge and techniques in a legal context (Hunter, 1996b). This involves detailed knowledge of osteology, anatomy, and to a lesser degree pathology, to aid in the identification and cause of death of skeletal and severely decomposed human remains. The application of forensic anthropology is specifically useful when human remains are extremely difficult for the medico-legal team to identify, and these remains are often a result of decomposition, dismemberment, severe burning and charring, and submersion in water for prolonged periods (Haglund and Sorg, 1996 and 2001).
It is a fallacy to believe that forensic anthropology applies solely to skeletal remains. In many instances, particularly in the United Kingdom, a forensic anthropologist is required to analyse remains with partial soft tissue. The geographical magnitude of the United States usually dictates that the American forensic anthropologist will encounter more skeletonised remains than those still possessing soft tissue (Uberlaker and Scammell, 2000), however, the opportunities for cadavers to decompose to a fully skeletonised state are severely reduced in the UK. Similarly, there are specific instances where remains can be uncovered in varying states of entirety, including mass disasters, such as train and aircraft accidents, and instances involving human rights infringements (Cox, 2003). However, in the United Kingdom, forensic anthropology is yet to be nationally accepted or acknowledged as a credible and valuable addition to the forensic science armoury, and until recently, the number of cases involving forensic anthropologists has been limited. Although the trained and accredited forensic anthropologist has the capability to undertake a wide range of analyses, and has the potential to add greatly to the field of forensic science, this essay will briefly outline the predominant methodologies employed by the forensic anthropologist in the identification of human remains.
Age and sex estimation The uses of forensic anthropology in cases where human remains are not easily identifiable centre around five basic questions which the discipline is uniquely empowered to answer: Whether the remains are human; the number of individuals represented; the interval of times since death; the identification of the individual; and the cause and manner of death (Menez, 2005). Part of that identification is the determination of the age at death and sex of the individual. The topic is immense, however, superficially the process of age determination involves three foci of analysis: tooth eruption and erosion; epiphyseal closure; and the length of the long bones (Hunter et al., 2001; Byers, 2004). Similarly, determination of sex is possible via the analysis of the pelvis, the cranial and mandible characteristics, and the diameter of the femoral and humeral head. As a general rule of thumb, males usually present a more prominent brow ridge, nuchal crest, glabella and gonal angle. Women have a wider pelvis, a wider sciatic and less pronounced cranial characteristics.
Stature and race evaluation Forensic anthropologists can use formulae to determine height based on the length of long bones. The longest bone, the femur, is most applicable for analysis, however estimations are also possible from the metacarpals in the hand. Anthropologists are able to establish the individual’s weight by the wear on the bones at certain characteristic points. They can also verify an individual’s general physique from the ridges created via muscle attachments. From muscle attachment characteristics, it is possible to determine whether the individual was right- or left-handed as there will usually be more muscle attachment evidence exhibited on the bones on the dominant side. An intact corpse can be measured, but a disarticulated or incomplete skeleton has to be pieced together. One generic rule of thumb is that height is about five times the length of the humerus, however there are formulas for height based on other major bones as well, including the spine, tibia, and femur (Black, 2003).
Through the application of forensic anthropology it is possible to identify the racial group to which an individual belongs by examining the anthropometric landmarks of the cranial vault. One of three races can be determined from variations in the facial structure, especially the nose and eye sockets. Facial or head hair, when presented on the human remains, can also help determine race.
Evaluation of pathologies It is possible via forensic anthropology to determine if a victim was ever injured or experienced trauma. Predominantly, this involves trauma exhibited on the hard tissue, however, in cases of partial decomposition, soft tissue trauma may also be evaluated and established (Pickering and Bachman, 1996). In the case of a suspected victim, detected bone trauma can be compared with an individual’s medical X-rays to confirm identity, and the same identification methodology may be applied with regard to dentition and odontological evidence.
It is often also possible to determine the cause of death in a victim, particularly in cases of extreme violence. This is determined by analysing indications of trauma, including stab marks, depressions and blunt weapon trauma usually to the skull, fracture patterns, saw marks in cases of dismemberment, and bullets or pellets in or near the body. If the person was strangled, for example, frequently the hyoid bone in the throat is fractured (Nafte, 2000; Rutty, 2001). It is also possible, through toxicology, for the forensic anthropologist to analysis evidence of poison recovered from hard tissue samples. Determination of cause of death can be of particular relevant in cases of human rights abuse. This is an area which appears to be prevalent globally, and forensic anthropologists are currently in operation in Argentina, the Eastern Block, Iraq and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. These analyses are proving highly successful and are assisting in the case-building and prosecution of former dictators and rebel forces alike (Cox, 2003).
Post-mortem interval The determination of post-mortem interval (PMI), although relying heavily on the entomological community, the techniques for PMI estimation were developed by prominent forensic anthropologist, William M. Bass (Gilbert and Bass, 1967). Forensic anthropologists are able to approximate the date of death and, the amount of soft tissue that is still present is often the key to determining PMI, although weathering cracks on bones during excessively cold weather or animal and rodent bites may also be used. Generally, females lose one pound of tissue per day during average decomposition; males, in comparison, lose three pounds per day. Acidic soil has a tendency to accelerate decomposition, however, alkaline soil retards it, and the pedology around the body is frequently analysed by both forensic anthropologists and pedologists.
Although most frequently the forensic entomologist is required to estimate the post-mortem interval based on insect activity, this is actually an estimate of the period of insect activity, not the specific post-mortem interval. The two are often relatively similar, as the insects arrive and begin their activity shortly following death, however, in some instances there may be factors that serve to delay the onset of insect activity, and these must be considered (Schultz et al., 2005). Determining if the body has been moved following death is essential for this consideration, and the trained anthropologist is competent in this analysis. It is also crucial for the pathologist and anthropologist to assess wounds in terms of pre-, peri- and post-mortem to accurately determine PMI.
Forensic anthropology is the application of the science of physical anthropology to the legal process. The identification of skeletal, badly decomposed, or otherwise unidentified human remains is important for both legal and humanitarian reasons. Forensic anthropologists apply standard scientific techniques developed in physical anthropology to identify human remains, and to assist in the detection of crime (Hunter, 1996a). While forensic pathologists are trained to analyze soft tissue and organs, their experience with hard tissue is often limited (Hunter and Cox, 2005). In a relatively recent case for forensic anthropologist Charlotte Roberts, a pathologist had been uncertain whether a canine skeleton was actually human or not, illustrating the value of anthropology to the criminal investigation process (Roberts, 1996). The methodology of the forensic anthropologist was eventually adopted during the eventually across Saddleworth Moor during the Moors Murders re-investigation of 1986-88, and proved partially successful (Hunter, 1996c). The forensic anthropologist specializes in hard tissue morphology, structure and variability, and much of what occurs in forensic anthropology originates from the area of osteology, although some forensic anthropologists may also specialize in body decomposition and entomology. A plethora of further evidence is obtainable and within the capabilities of the forensic anthropologist for analysis, such as entomology, taphonomy, location of clandestine remains (Hunter, 1996c) and so on, however, the methodology of these forensic specialists is exhaustive.
Black, S. (2000) Forensic Osteology in the United Kingdom. In Cox, M. and Mays, S. (eds.) Human Osteology: In Archaeology and Forensic Science. London, Greenwich Medical Media Ltd. Byers, S. (2004) Introduction to Forensic Anthropology: A Textbook. Boston, Allyn and Bacon Cox, M. (2003) The Inforce foundation. Science and Justice 41(3):173-8 Gilbert, B. M. and Bass, W. M. (1967) Seasonal dating of burials from the presence of fly pupae. American Antiquity 32: 534-535 Haglund, W. D. and Sorg, M. H. (1996) Forensic Taphonomy: The Postmortem Fate of Human Remains. London, CRC Press Haglund, W. D. and Sorg, M. H. (2001) Advances in Forensic Taphonomy: Method, Theory and Archaeological Perspectives. London, CRC Press Hunter, J. (1996a) Recovering buried remains. In Hunter, J., Roberts, C. and Martin, A. (eds.) Studies in Crime: Introduction to Forensic Archaeology. London, Routledge Hunter, J. (1996b) Archaeology, anthropology and forensic science. In Hunter, J., Roberts, C. and Martin, A. (eds.) Studies in Crime: Introduction to Forensic Archaeology. London, Routledge Hunter, J. (1996c) Locating buried remains. In Hunter, J., Roberts, C. and Martin, A. (eds.) Studies in Crime: Introduction to Forensic Archaeology. London, Routledge Hunter, J. R., Brickley, M. B., Bourgeois, J., Bouts, W., Bourguignon, L., Hubrecht, F., De Winne, J., Van Haaster, H., Hakbijl, T., De Jong, H., Smits, L., Van Wijngaarden, L. H. and Luschen, M. (2001) Forensic archaeology, forensic anthropology and human rights in Europe. Science and Justice 41(3):173-8 Hunter, J. and Cox, M. (2005) Forensic Archaeology: Advances in Theory and Practice. London, Routledge Menez, L. L. (2005) The place of a forensic archaeologist at a crime scene involving a buried body. Forensic Science International 152(2-3): 311-5 Nafte, M. (2000) Flesh and Bone: An Introduction to Forensic Anthropology. Durham, Carolina Academic Press Pickering R. B. and Bachman D. C. (1996) The Use of Forensic Anthropology. London, CRC Press Roberts, C. A. (!996) Forensic anthropology 1: the contribution of biological anthropology to forensic contexts. In Hunter, J., Roberts, C. and Martin, A. (eds.) Studies in Crime: Introduction to Forensic Archaeology. London, Routledge Rutty, G. (2001) Post mortem changes and artefacts. In Rutty, G. (ed.) Essentials of Autopsy Practice. London, Springer. Schultz, J. L., Wheeler, S. M., Williams, L. J. and Dupras, T. L. (2005) Forensic Recovery of Human Remains: Archaeological Approaches. London, CRC Press Ubelaker, D. H. and Scammell, H. (2000) Bones: A Forensic Detective’s Casebook. New York, M Evans