matic conditions that aff ected animal and plant resources
as well as social, political, and livelihood characteristics.
Common social structures during this ancient period in
history grouped people by family, lineage, kinship, clan, and
tribe. Later there were social structures based on caste or
trade (occupation). Th e political systems that existed in an-
cient Africa are oft en categorized into three distinct forms:
stateless societies, centralized city-states, and centralized
kingdoms or empires (although not all human groups fi t
so neatly in these three categories). People in early ancient
Africa lived primarily by hunting and gathering or fi shing
and harvesting of aquatic resources. Changes in the climatic
conditions over time led to mass migrations and changes
in ways of surviving that resulted in the widespread devel-
opment of societies based on pastoralism, agriculture, and
eventually skilled trades.NOMADIC HUNTER-GATHERER GROUPS
Around 10,000 years ago (at the start of the Holocene), the
climate was becoming increasingly moist as much of Africa
entered a humid period that would last until around 4,000
years ago. At least during the early part of this humid phase
most human groups in Africa were engaged in nomadic hunt-
ing and gathering activities in which they occupied no single
location permanently. Th is ancient wetter African landscape,
which included the Sahara, provided ample resources to sup-
port this lifestyle. Furthermore, population densities were
low, meaning that there was relatively little competition for
animal and plant resources.
While the specifi c characteristics of social structure for
hunter-gatherer groups certainly varied based on culture and
location, the archaeological record indicates some common
structures. Hunter-gatherers were generally organized into
small bands. Given the existing archaeological evidence, it
is diffi cult to know the size of these ancient groups; modern
hunter-gatherer groups range from 20 to 60 people. Although
there was a richer natural resource base, which might have
aff ected the size of these groups, ancient groups would nev-
ertheless have been relatively small because of their need to
move from place to place, at least seasonally, to follow the wa-
ter, plant, and animal resources that sustained them. Physical
evidence from burial sites shows a lack of material objects,
since the nomadic lifestyle left little time for the accumula-
tion of material wealth. Th is evidence is interpreted as in-
dicating that there was little social or political stratifi cation
within ancient hunter-gatherer groups compared with later,
more settled or sedentary agricultural and pastoral groups.
In contrast, burial sites of the elite class in more hierar-
chical societies, such as ancient Egypt, are bigger, more elabo-
rate, and fi lled with more nonessential items compared with
those of non-elite members of society. Archaeological records
also show few diff erences in size and condition of individual
homes in ancient hunter-gatherer sites (unlike more socially
hierarchical societies), and this lack of diff erence indicates
little social stratifi cation.One problem with archaeological evidence is that while it
can speak about the material characteristics of ancient hunter-
gatherers, material wealth might not be the only basis for social
stratifi cation. Th ere might have been ancient hunter-gatherer
societies in which social hierarchy was based on hunting skill
or the ability to communicate with deceased ancestors rather
than on material objects, but these bases for status are more
diffi cult to detect in the archaeological record.
To supplement archaeological evidence, travel records of
European, Arab, or Mediterranean explorers and traders have
been used to shed light on ancient human groups. However,
these records describe the social situations of African groups
only aft er foreigners entered Africa (around the fi ft h century
c.e. for Arabs and the 15th century c.e. for Portuguese), and
they were certainly colored by the worldview of the writers.
In addition, many assumptions made about social organiza-
tion of ancient hunter-gatherer groups are based on the study
of modern hunter-gatherer groups. If modern groups can be
used as a window into the life of ancient hunter-gatherers,
a much more complete picture of social organization can be
painted. One criticism of this commonly accepted technique
of exploring the lives of ancient hunter-gatherers is that many
aspects of life for ancient hunter-gatherers—for example, cli-
mate and available resources—were too diff erent to make ac-
curate assumptions.
Ethnographic studies of modern hunter-gatherers indi-
cate that labor is divided according to gender and age, a fea-
sible division for ancient hunter-gatherers as well. Based on
these studies of modern groups it is thought that women were
primarily responsible for gathering the wild roots, tubers,
berries, and plants that made up the majority of the daily diet,
and men were responsible for hunting to provide meat on a
periodic basis. Because women carried young children long
distances and breast-fed them for long periods (which oft en
served to limit population growth), there were probably long
periods of time between the birth of each child that allowed
the women to do the gathering.
Hunter-gatherer bands were composed of several fami-
lies oft en related by lineage (descendants of one common an-
cestor). Lineage systems are a more specifi c type of kinship
group in which individuals and families are organized by
bloodlines, oft en traced back to the group’s founding ances-
tor. Today these lineages are most commonly patrilineal (fa-
milial connections and lines of descent recognized through
the father’s bloodline) or matrilineal (familial connections
and lines of descent recognized through the mother’s blood-
line), although there are rare cases today where social sys-
tems recognize both lines of descent. In more hierarchical
lineage systems, individuals with closer links to the found-
ing ancestor are oft en granted more decision-making power.
In a lineage system a council of elders is oft en responsible
(to varying degrees) for the group decisions. It is diffi cult to
know what importance lineage had for early hunter-gatherers
and how strongly it infl uenced the system of hierarchy they
lived within.social organization: Africa 10110895-1194_Soc&Culturev4(s-z).i1011 1011 10/10/07 2:30:45 PM