Wittfogel's dilemma: heterarchy and ethnographic approaches to irrigation management in Eastern Africa and Mesopotamia

Abstract

Both ethnographic and archaeological studies have been used to critique Wittfogel's hydraulic theory. These, however, often present data that are contradictory and in need of reformulation. In particular, while ethnographic studies emphasize the management of irrigation in the absence of both socio-political hierarchies and marked social stratification, archaeologists continue to see irrigation agriculture as a key influence on the development of personal accumulation and increased social stratification. Through two East African ethnographic case studies, this paper addresses the mechanisms through which irrigation agriculture might contribute to increased social stratification and cautions against the making of simplistic assumptions. I argue that both ethnographic and archaeological lines of critique have resulted in a hasty rejection of the role played by irrigation management in the formation of loci of authority in early complex societies.

Keywords:

• Irrigation management
• complex societies
• heterarchy
• hierarchy
• East Africa
• Mesopotamia

Acknowledgements

The research on which this paper is based was primarily supported by the Arts and Humanities Research Council (UK) under their Doctoral Awards Programme. Additional support was provided by the British Institute in Eastern Africa, Nairobi, the Meyerstein Fund, University of Oxford, and the Tweedie Exploration Fund, University of Edinburgh. Considerable thanks are also due to the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology of the Republic of Kenya who kindly granted me a research permit, and to Kenyatta University, Nairobi, and the National Museums of Kenya both of whom supported my research programme.

Notes

1 Price (1994) argues that Wittfogel accounted for such critiques within his distinction between ‘hydraulic’ and ‘hydroagricultural’ societies. However, the validity of this distinction seems difficult to justify and it fails to account for the development of either (cf. Mitchell 1973).

2 Each of these mechanisms relates to so called ‘staple-finance’ models (Johnson and Earle 1987: 247). However, there is a subtle difference between the first two and the third. The first two attempt to account for the initial emergence of social inequality and thus elites. The third assumes the prior existence of elites who utilize control over irrigation works to further their position of authority.

3 Discussions of the gendered elements of this management system are beyond the scope of this article but can be found in Adams et al. (1997).

4 This sanction occurs primarily at the household level but can occasionally occur at the community scale. Of particular note is the fact that on a number of occasions land conflicts along the Pokot-Marakwet border have led to the Marakwet denying their agricultural Pokot neighbours water from communal furrows. More recent tension between the Marakwet and the pastoral Pokot has also led the Marakwet to deny the Pokot water for their livestock (Östberg 2004: 31). Thus non-irrigation-based political, ethnic and kin-based tensions may play themselves out in terms of access to water – but such issues still operate through the corporate institution of kokwa and denial of irrigation acts as merely another means of corporate political action rather than a source of exclusionary power.