396 | ANNUAL REPORT SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION, 1944 
The state was named after the leading tribe, and the capital was 
situated in this tribe’s territory. The king was the representative of 
godhead on earth, the chief diety which he represented was the na- 
tional god of the state, although each tribe kept its own tribal divinity 
as well. The leading tribe was concerned with the maintenance of the 
main temple and of shrines; thus, the leading tribe maintained its 
political ascendancy through a religious sanction. 
Each tribe was bound to a certain section of land and was responsible 
for the agricultural success of this allotment. The members of the 
tribe were obliged to remain on this land and could not farm else- 
where—there was no freedom of movement from the agricultural and 
residential standpoint. For political purposes, the tribe was sub- 
divided laterally into thirds or quarters, and tribes could be recom- 
bined arbitrarily for political purposes. In this way the genealogical 
solidarity of the tribe could be broken down and must eventually have 
become secondary to the geographical tie. This organization into 
tribes and subtribes made it easy for the government to levy armies 
and collect taxes, and also to provide for the poor. 
Local landholders, belonging to the upper tribal class, were also war 
leaders and were responsible for the raising of covées to execute public 
works, particularly irrigation projects, and to maintain the highway 
along which the precious frankincense traveled. Furthermore, these 
tribal leaders were charged with recruiting warriors and overseeing 
agriculture; for if any lands were neglected or poorly farmed, the 
tribal overlords were held responsible. 
The three social classes, aside from the divine upper crust, are desig- 
nated by the as yet vowel-less words Mswd, Ksdn,and Dmwt. For the 
sake of simplicity, we shall designate these by the numbers 2, 3, and 4, 
leaving number 1 for the royal caste. Number 2 was a privileged class 
of landowners, with the feudal rights mentioned earlier; number 3 
formed the most numerous group, consisting of free landholders, the 
owners of small, individual properties, who provided the bulk of the 
working power. They were farmers, paid a land tax, did military 
service, and submitted themselves to the feudal authority of the noble 
families of the second class. Members of class number 3 were further 
subgraded into categories by occupation, since they apparently in- 
cluded in their numbers the skillful artisans responsible for the high 
level of South Arabian material culture. If the modern parallel in 
Yemenite society reflects an earlier condition, then the farmers proper 
must have been superior socially to the artisans. The members of 
class number 4 were landless serfs, without political freedom. It is not 
known whether or not they fitted into the genealogical scheme upon 
which the tribal structure was erected. 
“ a a lee 
EE 
