Anthropologists classify societies mainly on three bases: how people get their food (foraging, horticulture, pastoralism, agriculture, industry), how they are governed (band, tribe, chiefdom, state) and how unequal they are (egalitarian, rank, stratified). The three usually go together: foragers such as the !Kung San and the Jarawa live in egalitarian bands, while intensive agriculture supports stratified states. These types are models for comparison, not a ladder of progress.
This note sets out the anthropological classification of societies, the characteristics of each type, and examples from world ethnography and from Indian tribes, for the UPSC Anthropology Optional. It draws together Paper I topics 2.2 (nature of society), 4 (economic organisation) and 5 (political organisation), and Paper II on tribal India, in the Anthropology Optional syllabus.
Bases of classification at a glance
| Basis | Types | Associated scholar |
|---|---|---|
| Stage of cultural evolution | Savagery, barbarism, civilization | L. H. Morgan |
| Subsistence (mode of food-getting) | Foraging, horticulture, pastoralism, intensive agriculture, industrialism | Yehudi Cohen; Gerhard Lenski |
| Political organisation | Band, tribe, chiefdom, state | Elman Service |
| Presence of government | Stateless (acephalous) and state societies | Fortes and Evans-Pritchard |
| Inequality | Egalitarian, rank, stratified | Morton Fried |
| Scale and complexity | Folk, peasant, urban; simple and complex | Robert Redfield |
| Basis of solidarity | Mechanical and organic solidarity; status and contract | Emile Durkheim; Henry Maine |
The early evolutionary classification
L. H. Morgan, in Ancient Society (1877), arranged all societies in three stages, savagery, barbarism and civilization, each marked by technical inventions such as fire, pottery, iron and writing. The scheme is now rejected as ethnocentric and speculative, because it ranked living peoples as survivals of earlier stages. Its lasting contribution was the idea that technology, economy and social organisation are linked. Modern classifications keep that idea and drop the ranking.
Classification by subsistence
How a society obtains its food shapes its size, mobility, property rules and politics. This is the most widely used classification.
1. Foraging (hunting and gathering) societies
| Feature | Description |
|---|---|
| Food-getting | Hunting wild animals, fishing and gathering wild plants; no domestication except the dog |
| Group size and density | Small bands, usually 25 to 50 people; very low density |
| Settlement | Nomadic or semi-nomadic, following seasonal resources |
| Division of labour | By sex and age only: men mostly hunt, women mostly gather |
| Property | Few possessions; land and resources held in common |
| Exchange | Generalised reciprocity; obligatory sharing of meat |
| Social structure | Egalitarian; flexible band membership; bilateral kinship common |
| Leadership | Informal headman who leads by persuasion and example |
- World examples: !Kung San (Ju/'hoansi) of the Kalahari; Mbuti of the Ituri forest, Congo; Hadza of Tanzania; Inuit of the Arctic; Aboriginal Australians such as the Arunta; Semang of Malaysia.
- Indian examples: Jarawa, Onge and Sentinelese of the Andaman Islands; Birhor of Jharkhand; Chenchu of the Nallamala hills (Andhra Pradesh and Telangana); Cholanaikkan and Kadar of Kerala; Paliyan of Tamil Nadu; Hill Kharia.
2. Horticultural societies
| Feature | Description |
|---|---|
| Food-getting | Cultivation with simple hand tools (digging stick, hoe), without plough or irrigation. Often shifting (slash-and-burn or swidden) cultivation with long fallows. |
| Group size | Villages of a hundred to a few thousand |
| Settlement | Semi-sedentary; villages move as plots are exhausted |
| Property | Land held by the clan or village; households have rights of use |
| Social structure | Unilineal descent groups (lineages and clans) become important; some differences of prestige |
| Leadership | Village headmen and "big men"; in richer areas, chiefs |
- World examples: Yanomamö of the Amazon; Tsembaga Maring of New Guinea; Trobriand Islanders (yam gardening); Iroquois of North America; Azande of Central Africa.
- Indian examples: shifting cultivation is known as jhum in the North-East, podu in Andhra Pradesh and Odisha, and bewar or dahiya in central India. It is practised by many Naga groups, the Garo and Khasi in part, the Mizo, the Juang and Kondh of Odisha, the Saora, the Hill Maria of Bastar and the Baiga of Madhya Pradesh.
3. Pastoral societies
| Feature | Description |
|---|---|
| Food-getting | Herding of domesticated animals: cattle, sheep, goats, camels, yaks, reindeer |
| Environment | Grasslands, deserts, mountains and tundra, where farming is difficult |
| Settlement | Nomadism (the whole group moves) or transhumance (seasonal movement between fixed pastures) |
| Property | Animals are privately or family owned and are the measure of wealth; pasture is usually common |
| Social structure | Commonly patrilineal and patrilocal; bridewealth paid in animals; age-sets in East Africa |
| Relations with others | Trade with, and sometimes raiding of, settled farmers |
- World examples: Nuer and Dinka of South Sudan; Maasai of Kenya and Tanzania; Bedouin of Arabia; Basseri of Iran; Saami of northern Scandinavia (reindeer); Mongols of Central Asia.
- Indian examples: Toda of the Nilgiris (buffalo); Gujjar and Bakarwal of Jammu and Kashmir and Himachal Pradesh; Gaddi of Himachal Pradesh (sheep and goats); Bhotia of Uttarakhand; Changpa of Ladakh (yak and pashmina goats); Raika or Rabari of Rajasthan and Gujarat (camels and sheep).
4. Intensive agricultural societies
| Feature | Description |
|---|---|
| Food-getting | Permanent fields worked with the plough, draught animals, irrigation, terracing and manure |
| Surplus | Large and regular; supports non-food-producers |
| Settlement | Permanent villages, towns and cities; high population density |
| Division of labour | Full-time craft and service specialists; markets and money |
| Property | Private or state ownership of land; rent and tax |
| Social structure | Stratified into classes or castes; peasantry forms the base |
| Politics | State organisation |
- World examples: the peasant societies of China, South-East Asia, the Middle East and medieval Europe; the Aztec and Inca; the rice-terrace cultivators of Ifugao in the Philippines.
- Indian examples: settled plough cultivators such as the Santhal, Munda, Oraon and Ho of the Chotanagpur plateau; the Gond and Bhil of central and western India; the Mina of Rajasthan; the Apatani of Arunachal Pradesh, noted for wet-rice cultivation with fish; the terrace-cultivating Angami Naga.
5. Industrial and post-industrial societies
- Characteristics: machine production using fossil fuels; most people work outside agriculture; cities; wage labour; class stratification; bureaucratic states; mass education and media. In post-industrial societies services and information dominate.
- Indian tribal context: many Santhal, Munda, Oraon and Ho work in the mines and steel towns of Jharkhand and Odisha, and in the tea gardens of Assam and North Bengal.
Classification by political organisation: band, tribe, chiefdom, state
Elman Service, in Primitive Social Organization (1962), proposed four levels of socio-political integration.
| Feature | Band | Tribe | Chiefdom | State |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Population | Dozens | Hundreds to a few thousand | Thousands | Tens of thousands and more |
| Usual subsistence | Foraging | Horticulture, pastoralism | Intensive horticulture, agriculture, rich fishing | Intensive agriculture, industry |
| Integration | Kinship and marriage | Clans, age-sets and other associations that cut across villages | Ranked lineages under a central office | Government, law, territory and citizenship |
| Leadership | Informal headman | Village head, big man, council of elders | Hereditary chief | King, bureaucracy or elected government |
| Authority | Influence only | Influence; achieved | Permanent office; ascribed | Monopoly of legitimate force |
| Exchange | Generalised reciprocity | Reciprocity | Redistribution through the chief | Market, tax and tribute |
| Stratification | Egalitarian | Egalitarian | Rank | Classes or castes |
| Law and conflict | Gossip, ridicule, moving away | Mediation, feud, compensation | Chief adjudicates | Courts, police, written law |
| World examples | !Kung San, Mbuti, Inuit | Nuer, Yanomamö, Tiv | Trobriand Islanders, Polynesian societies such as Hawaii and Tonga, Kwakiutl | Inca, Aztec, Zulu, Buganda, modern nations |
| Indian examples | Jarawa, Onge, Birhor, Chenchu | Santhal, Munda, Oraon, Angami Naga | Konyak Naga under their Angs; Khasi syiemships; Mizo chiefs before 1954 | Gond kingdoms of central India; Ahom kingdom of Assam; Tripura; Jaintia |
Stateless and state societies
In African Political Systems (1940), Meyer Fortes and E. E. Evans-Pritchard divided societies into two groups:
- Societies with centralised authority, administrative machinery and judicial institutions, such as the Zulu, Bemba and Banyankole.
- Stateless or acephalous societies, without government in this sense, such as the Nuer and Tallensi. Among the Nuer, order is kept by the segmentary lineage system: related groups unite against outsiders and divide again afterwards, and the leopard-skin chief mediates without power to enforce.
In India, traditional tribal councils show how order is kept without a state: the Santhal village council under the manjhi, with the pargana council above it, and the Munda and Oraon parha federations of villages.
Classification by inequality: egalitarian, rank and stratified
Morton Fried, in The Evolution of Political Society (1967), classified societies by access to prestige and to basic resources.
| Type | Characteristic | World example | Indian example |
|---|---|---|---|
| Egalitarian | As many positions of prestige as there are able persons; equal access to resources | !Kung San, Hadza | Jarawa, Chenchu, Birhor |
| Rank | Positions of prestige are limited, often hereditary; access to resources still broadly equal | Trobriand Islanders, Kwakiutl | Konyak Naga; Toda with their ranked divisions |
| Stratified | Groups have unequal access to the basic resources of life | Agrarian and industrial states | Caste-based agrarian society |
Classification by scale and complexity
| Scholar | Types | Basis |
|---|---|---|
| Robert Redfield | Folk society and urban society, with peasant society between them (the folk-urban continuum) | Folk society is small, isolated, non-literate, homogeneous and bound by kinship and the sacred. Peasants are "part-societies with part-cultures", tied to towns and the state. |
| Emile Durkheim | Mechanical and organic solidarity | Simple societies cohere through likeness; complex societies through the interdependence created by the division of labour. |
| Henry Maine | Status and contract | In early societies rights follow from birth into a kin group; in modern societies from agreements between individuals. |
| Ferdinand Tönnies | Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft | Community of personal ties as against association of impersonal ties. |
The three-fold division into tribal, peasant and urban-industrial societies is the one most used in Indian anthropology, where the three exist side by side and shade into one another.
Classification of Indian tribes
Indian anthropologists have classified tribes on several bases. For the scholars named, see our note on Indian anthropologists.
By economy: L. P. Vidyarthi's typology
| Type | Examples |
|---|---|
| Forest hunters and food gatherers | Birhor, Chenchu, Kadar, Paliyan, Cholanaikkan, Jarawa, Onge |
| Hill (shifting) cultivators | Naga groups, Garo, Juang, Hill Maria, Baiga, Kondh, Saora |
| Plain (settled) agriculturists | Santhal, Munda, Oraon, Ho, Gond, Bhil |
| Simple artisans | Agaria and Asur (iron smelting), Mahali (basketry), Kota of the Nilgiris |
| Pastoralists and cattle herders | Toda, Gujjar, Bakarwal, Gaddi, Bhotia |
| Folk artists | Pardhan, the bards of the Gond |
| Agricultural and non-agricultural labour | Tribal workers in tea gardens, mines and industry |
| Skilled, white-collar and trading groups | Educated sections of the Mina, Khasi, Mizo and others; Bhotia traders |
By region
- Himalayan and North-Eastern: Naga, Mizo, Khasi, Garo, Apatani, Bhotia, Gaddi.
- Central (Middle India): Santhal, Munda, Oraon, Ho, Gond, Baiga, Kondh. This belt holds the largest tribal population.
- Western: Bhil, Mina, Garasia, Warli.
- Southern: Toda, Kota, Chenchu, Kadar, Irula.
- Island: Jarawa, Onge, Great Andamanese, Sentinelese, Shompen and Nicobarese.
By language family
- Austro-Asiatic: Santhal, Munda, Ho (Mundari branch); Khasi; Nicobarese.
- Tibeto-Burman: Naga groups, Mizo, Garo, Bodo, Apatani.
- Dravidian: Gond, Oraon, Kondh, Toda.
- Indo-Aryan: Bhil and several others who now speak regional languages.
By descent
- Patrilineal: the great majority, including the Santhal, Munda, Gond and Bhil.
- Matrilineal: Khasi, Garo and Jaintia of Meghalaya.
For present-day issues among these communities, see tribal India today.
Limitations of these classifications
- They are ideal types. Real societies combine features. The Kwakiutl were foragers with chiefs, because salmon gave them a surplus.
- They can be read as a ladder. Band to state is a classification of complexity, not a path every society must follow, nor a ranking of worth.
- "Tribe" is a contested term. Fried argued that many tribes took shape through contact with states and colonial rule, and were not a universal earlier stage.
- No society is isolated today. Every band, tribe and chiefdom now lives within a nation-state and a market economy.
- Most groups mix livelihoods. The Birhor forage and make rope for sale; many shifting cultivators also work for wages.
Using this topic in a UPSC answer
- State the basis of classification first, then the types.
- Reproduce the band, tribe, chiefdom and state table with four or five rows.
- Pair every type with one world example and one Indian example.
- Link the three schemes: foraging goes with band and egalitarian; agriculture with state and stratified.
- Close with a limitation, so the answer does not read as unilinear evolution.
For presentation, see our guide to anthropology answer writing with diagrams, thinkers and case studies.
Frequently asked questions
How do anthropologists classify societies?
Anthropologists classify societies chiefly by subsistence (foraging, horticulture, pastoralism, agriculture, industry), by political organisation (band, tribe, chiefdom, state) and by inequality (egalitarian, rank, stratified).
What is the difference between a band and a tribe?
A band is a small, mobile foraging group of a few dozen people linked by kinship, with an informal headman. A tribe is larger, usually horticultural or pastoral, made up of several villages held together by clans, age-sets and other associations.
What is the difference between a chiefdom and a state?
A chiefdom has a hereditary chief and ranked kin groups, and is held together by kinship and redistribution. A state has a government with a monopoly of legitimate force, written law, taxation and social classes.
Which Indian tribes are hunters and gatherers?
The Jarawa, Onge and Sentinelese of the Andamans, the Birhor of Jharkhand, the Chenchu of the Nallamala hills, and the Cholanaikkan, Kadar and Paliyan of South India are among the hunting and gathering tribes of India.
Which Indian tribes are pastoral?
The Toda of the Nilgiris, the Gujjar and Bakarwal of Jammu and Kashmir, the Gaddi of Himachal Pradesh, the Bhotia of Uttarakhand and the Changpa of Ladakh are pastoral tribes of India.
Which Indian tribes practise shifting cultivation?
Many Naga groups, the Mizo, the Garo, the Juang and Kondh of Odisha, the Hill Maria of Bastar and the Baiga of Madhya Pradesh practise shifting cultivation, known as jhum, podu or bewar.
What are stateless societies?
Stateless or acephalous societies have no centralised government. Order is maintained through kinship, as in the segmentary lineage system of the Nuer described by Evans-Pritchard.
Who classified societies as egalitarian, rank and stratified?
Morton Fried made this classification in The Evolution of Political Society (1967), on the basis of unequal access to prestige and to basic resources.