The Difference Between a Tribe and a Band
By Elizabeth Prine Pauls
The notes in the green font are my notes about bands and tribes as pertain to the learning about culture and the evolution of culturally constructed ways of bringing order, which are needed more and more as populations increase in particular culture regions.
Although many indigenous peoples, particularly those of Canada, have adopted the word nation in order to emphasize their sovereign political status, others continue to use the words tribe and band. Are all these terms interchangeable, or do they have specific meanings? To some extent, the answer to both of these questions is yes: the terms once had specific meanings (and still do in some contexts), but they are now used more or less interchangeably in common speech.
[For our purposes at It’s All About Culture, we are distinguishing bands and tribes as early political organizations, describing how cultures evolved from less complex band societies, to tribal societies and beyond.
As populations began to grow after the Neolithic transition, more and more organizational structure was needed – and more and more alliances were needed for safety and survival.
Still it is necessary for students to have a well-rounded understanding and explanation about these organizations, both in the past and in the present.]
Both tribe and band are old words. The ancient Romans called a cohesive ethno-political unit a tribus (see tribe). Languages as different as Old Norse and Middle French used variants of band to describe groups of people that were bound or bonded together; several other meanings of the word, such as “a decorative stripe” and “a close-fitting piece of attire,” denote some of the ways in which such groups expressed their membership, as by collectively wearing garments displaying a colorful stripe or by wearing an armband.
In the Americas, Africa, Australia, and elsewhere, colonial administrators applied these terms to specific groups almost immediately upon contact. In the 19th century, early anthropologists began to use these and other terms, such as chiefdom and state, to convey a given culture’s population and sociopolitical organization. By definition, a band was a small, egalitarian, kin-based group of perhaps 10–50 people, while a tribe comprised a number of bands that were politically integrated (often through a council of elders or other leaders) and shared a language, religious beliefs, and other aspects of culture.
Early scholars discerned a relationship between economics and sociopolitical organization: hunting-and-gathering cultures and forager-farmers generally organized themselves into bands and tribes, while full-time agriculturists tended to organize themselves into chiefdoms or states. When used in this relatively narrow sense, band and tribe are neutral descriptors, as are those for other forms of organization such as monarchy or county. However, many terms originating in the social sciences took on derogatory and racist undertones when co-opted by late 19th-century proponents of unilinear cultural evolution, eugenics, and other concepts that have since been discredited.
[Cultural evolution has not been discredited, but the idea that cultures evolve from simple to complex in some sort of chronologically organized manner has been discredited. In other words, we know that human cultures do not follow a certain pattern from chopsticks to flatware. All cultures live and adapt according to their own environmental surroundings and the resources available.
Human agency also plays a big part in how cultures adapt. For instance, most of the Southern California Indian cultures did not practice agriculture until after the Spaniards interrupted their culture. Even though they traded with other Native groups that did practice agriculture, they chose not to raise corn, beans, and squash. We don’t know why they made that choice, but they did.]
Historically, the designation of a group as either a tribe or a band was often rather haphazard, as the process usually depended upon colonial administrators who had a poor understanding of indigenous political practices and the fluid nature of traditional social structures. In this context, the Sioux peoples provide a useful example. Their name derives from the derogatory Ojibwa word Nadouessioux (“Adder” or “Snake”; see also Sidebar: Native American Self-Names). Colonial administrators soon shortened Nadouessioux to Sioux and also made the incorrect assumption that this term referred to a unified people.
Instead, the (notional) Sioux tribe encompassed a diverse group of linguistic and political entities; ironically, none of these ever used the ethnonym (self-name) Sioux. By the 19th century the speakers of Dakota, Lakota, and Nakota (dialects of a single language within the inappropriately named Siouan language family) were referred to as “bands” because (from the perspective of colonial administrators) they were clearly subdivisions of the larger “Sioux tribe.” From a scholarly perspective, however, Dakota, Lakota, and Nakota are the names of linguistic groups that are related to, but quite distinct from, sociopolitical units. Together, these three dialects were spoken by some 40 independent political groups, each of which an anthropologist would consider a tribe. However, those tribes, such as the Sisseton (Dakota), Sicangu (Lakota), and Yankton (Nakota), came to be called bands.
The Sisseton, Sicangu, Yankton, and other independent “bands” in turn comprised numbers of smaller entities that were also (correctly) called bands, each consisting of several households that lived and worked together. Band membership was at this smallest level very fluid and typically coalesced around the bonds of kinship and friendship. Flexibility of residence provided an excellent way to access social support and to cope with the vagaries of a foraging economy. For instance, a given household within the Dakota-speaking Sisseton might move from one (smallest-level) Sisseton band to another, depending on the imminent birth of a child, the availability of food, or other reasons of social support and resource availability; that household might also join another Dakota-speaking tribe, such as the Santee, or friends or kin in a Nakota- or Dakota-speaking group for similar reasons.
The ethnogenesis of the Seminole provides an example of the creation of a new sociopolitical entity. Taking its name from the Creek word simanóle (meaning “separatist”), Seminole culture was created in the late 18th century by a diverse assortment of refugees: Native American individuals, some having escaped slavery and others fleeing the destruction caused by the American Revolution and other imperial conflicts; Africans and African Americans, some free and others who had escaped enslavement; Europeans and Euro-Americans who had fled indentured servitude, military service, or the chaos of the war-torn countryside; and a number of individuals whose ethnic heritage included more than one of these groups. Despite many hardships, these people succeeded not only in establishing a common language and new communities in unfamiliar territory but also in holding that territory against Spain and the United States longer than any other Southeast Indian group (see Seminole Wars).
Band and tribe continue to be integral parts of the legal vocabulary in the United States and Canada, where many Native American entities include one or the other term in their legal name.
In Britannica, for want of a better solution, an entity’s name may stand alone or be combined with a term such as nation, tribe, people, or band; the Seminole, the Seminole nation, the Seminole tribe, and the Seminole people are all used more or less interchangeably, while the Seminole tribes refers to independent polities or legally recognized entities that share Seminole heritage, and Seminole bands indicates the household-based co-resident groups of the pre-reservation era. References to specific political entities use the group’s legal name, as in the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma and the Seminole Tribe of Florida.
Where two or more traditional cultures were clearly related and cooperative yet maintained their political independence, aggregate groups are referred to as nations, tribes, or peoples, and subsidiary units may be denoted as bands: the Sioux nation, the Sioux tribes, or the Sioux peoples; the Lakota, Nakota, and Dakota bands; the Lakota tribes, peoples, or bands (meaning those tribes, peoples, or bands who spoke Lakota); and the Sicangu band of Lakota.
[The examples given above by Ms. Pauls show how the words of band and tribe have evolved over time as well as the reality of what such groups actually were, and still are.
Using the definitions and characteristics of bands and tribes within their cultural context, plus learning from Ms. Pauls article the various ways these labels are put upon various populations, gives students a good background for studying further if they so desire.]