The society we exist in today has only existed for two thousand years; which consist of prime ministers, presidents, parliaments, congresses, cabinets, governors, mayors and many other people in leadership positions. But there was a period in history, about 98 percent of our existence as a species and four million years before that, when our ancestors lived in small, largely nomadic hunter-gatherer groups, each made up of about 30 -50 people. Leadership positions were non-existent during this period. It was an egalitarian society; where instead everyone was equally important and knew each other. These groups practiced mutual exchange in which the amount given and received was not taken into account. The chief would then redistribute whatever was collected equally and take less for himself. Quickly, this image changed for the worse when the chief addressed future leaders. It was from this social context that human nature evolved into the society we live in today; creating these leaders over time. With the creation of leaders, such as chiefs, came inequalities of rank, power, wealth, and ultimately the creation of world hunger. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essayMarvin Harris connects the beginnings of human nature and humanity to what it has become today. According to Marvin Harris' article “Life Without Chiefs,” reciprocity was not the only form of exchange practiced by these egalitarian groups, but redistribution also played a crucial role in creating rank distinctions during the evolution of chiefdoms and of states. Redistribution occurred when people gave food and valuables to a prestigious figure such as the chief, to be grouped together, divided into separate portions, and distributed again. These redistributor leaders worked harder than their followers and reserved smaller, less desirable portions for themselves. The chief was rewarded with admiration and bigger parties were thrown for him. This left the door open for other people in the village who wished to be chief, providing a bigger feast, more abundant food, and other valuables to measure one's legitimacy as chief. These leaders evolved into “big men.” The bigger the party became, it meant that the great man's demands became more annoying, but people remained loyal as long as the great man was still the "great provider." The rise to social status gained momentum whenever extra food was produced and stored for redistribution. The more concentrated and abundant the harvest meant there was greater potential to endow the great man with power. When food was scarce, people turned to the great man for food in exchange for special requests. These requests could be the making of clothing, pots, canoes, or even a fine for personal use. Eventually, these redistributors no longer needed to work in the fields; allowing them to surpass great man status. The management of the surplus harvest, entrusted to the great man for use in municipal festivals and other community projects, was enough to validate their status. People began to regard status as an office, and the rules of hereditary succession were established. It was no longer the great man who provided for the small villages but rather a large political community. The great man becomes a leader. With this profound new status, chiefs could have many wives, rule over thousands of people, collect voluntary donations, have larger houses, and more.