L'importance du peuplement des Hautes Terres centrales de Madagascar a toujours surpris l'observateur. Pourquoi, dans une île sous-peuplée, ce rassemblement humain sur des terres réputées pauvres, quand tant de régions plus riches, dont certaines ne sont guère éloignées, attendent encore des défricheurs ? Les justifications classiques, par une position de refuge ou une plus grande salubrité du climat (qui n'est pas toujours évidente) n'ont jamais pleinement satisfait, et on a, de longue date, souligné la remarquable capacité d'organisation de l'espace dont ont fait preuve Merina et Betsileo, qui purent ainsi capitaliser leurs excédents de population : la mise en valeur des plaines de Tananarive avant l'époque coloniale en est la marque la plus frappante. Triomphe de l'organisation sur une nature hostile ? L'explication semble un peu facile. En fait, les Hautes Terres centrales, sans pittoresque tropical, ne sont pas des terres pauvres, et les fortes densités qu'elles portent nous ont semblé, en définitive, raisonnables.

The Imerina offer a striking example of a “geographical society” in which individuals and social groups are defined principally by their relation to space. Space is perceived as a differienciated reality, interpreted according to astrological data as well as in terms of sacred place cults. To fix one's gaze upon a space is both the instrument and the sign of domination.

Every Merina situates himself simultaneously In time (generations) and in the space wherein is inscribed his foko, or group of relatives on his mother's side. This group is highly endogamous; its members are defined by residence or at least by their tomb site.

The Merina System of lineage does not necessarily imply this situation which is the result of chosing a mode of functioning (generalized endogamy and the construction of collective tombs). This choice was imposed neither by agricultural necessity (irrigated rice paddies) nor by marriage between Merina immigrants and the original inhabitants. It seems linked to political circumstances which brought about the apparently contradictory combination of two strategies: that of a class of bandit-lords concerned with acquiring subjects; and that of groups of peasants who, threatened by raids, reinforced their solidarity. The variations in local situations can be accounted for by the different rapports de force between the two groups.

This territorial definition of groups was taken over by a unifying monarchy which federated the foko and integrated them into a hierarchy defined with respect to the sovereign.