Maybe at S. Freud (at least for guilty)?

I am not sure whether you are asking for cultures of guilt or cultures of shame or both? The concept of a guilt based culture in anthropology is one that is based, at least as I recall, on the behaviours of modern hunter gatherers and also some of what are termed Stone Age Societies. The idea seems to be that by encouraging a sense of guilt they diffuse conflict and also prevent individuals acquiring too much power.

The shame based cultures seem to be much more violent since here the emphasis is on avenging insults by encouraging an individual to feel that another has shamed them, and that this shame must be wiped away by retaliation. A classic study here is Chagnon's 'The Fierce People'.

The combination is often used by cultures that need fierce warriors, dominated by considerations of shame, in order to protect them but then need to inculcate notions of guilt to stop them getting out of control. Good examples of this include societies which require purification of warriors after killing in battle.

A good introductory source with plenty of citations to follow up, is John Keegan 'A History of Warfare', especially pp 77-136.

The concept of guilt/shame based cultures arises out of the desire by a person or group of people who wish to have control of the other group members. It precedes all literate and religious cultures. It would be difficult to determine at what point in early hominid society this began to be a socio/political mechanism. Perhaps it began within early familial groups, parents creating guilt in their children to make the children obey.

Since guilt can be created in other mammals (canines are very susceptible) it may very well be something that is just plain innate to sentient life.

Melonie do you consider it is entirely a case of someone wishing to control? or would you accept that control is necessary?

It is a very lucky culture that can exist without the violence of the warrior to protect it but society as a whole had better find some way of controlling this or the consequences internally will be horrendous. Guilt/shame is an effective way of doing this while still retaining the necessary skills & impulses

I don't think it's as clear cut as simply wishing for control. Guilt/shame are powerful manipulative devices through which many outcomes can be created. I don't accept that control is necessary for all existing cultures. I don't believe it's necessary for any cultures.

In the US we are manipulated by fear and guilt/shame. The common fear now is "terrorism" and guilt/shame are employed to make us believe that unless we accept our government's position on this we are letting down our families, communities, country, etc. Guilt/shame/fear are used to whip up patriotism, to compel young people to go fight "terrorism" in other countries, to protect the US and keep us "free". It appears to me it's working well so far.

But guilt/shame are used for other objectives than control. Among some of the Northwest Coast Native cultures shaming is used very effectively. For example: we attended one of my husband's family mortuary rituals after which we met at our community building for dinner and further work. Behavior at these times is very strictly proscribed and we all endeavor to behave according to ancient rules that are still relevant today. At this gathering we had a cousin who brought his 15 yr old son who had grown up in Victoria BC, the BIG city, with only his father and no other family around. The boy brought his non-Native girlfriend with him and the two teenagers engaged in some pretty heavy petting and kissing throughout the day. No one said anything to reprimand them, we all knew it would be addressed at some point in the time-honored way, but this is definitely not appropriate behavior at a gathering like this, or anywhere else for that matter.

As the evening went on one of our spiritual leaders called individuals forward to speak with them about various matters. This is done in a way so everyone can observe, listen and learn. She called our cousin forward and spoke to him about his son's behavior, telling him it was disrespectful to the people gathered, disrespectful to our ancestors and that this father needed to teach his son better. This was done in a manner to shame the father in front of his community, to remind the father that he has a responsibility to his family and community to teach his son how we do things, and if he doesn't, the community will call him on it and if it persisted, there would be consequences.

Public shaming is commonly practiced here to help educate all of us, not just the individual, about proper behavior, about always remembering to honor and be respectful of each other and our ancestors who are always with us.

This father understood why he was chastised publicly, he did not get angry or exhibit bad behavior. He offered a sincere apology to our gathering and a prayer of apology to our ancestors. We could see the son feeling his father's shame and bowing his head in embarrassment. We don't believe in chastising the child; it is the parent's place to teach him, and for that failing the parent is reprimanded

At gatherings since, we have seen that son not only behave properly, but he has grown into a considerate young man who knows how to behave appropriately and is becoming someone the younger people can look up to and the elders appreciate and admire.

The best description of guilt and shame and vendetta in written form is the Iliad of Homer, which became the very reason of the Trojan War by the Mycenaeans

if notions of guilt/shame are unnecessary in any culture as you say Melonie then how does wider society control the specialists in violence without which it cannot be protected? other than handing over power to them that is?

Guilt/shame are very ineffective method of controlling violence. There are several potential answers to your question, but I'm going to land on 2 of them: prevention and punishment. In our culture, in the US, we have not even begun to address the concept of prevention. And our system of punishment has huge problems of its own. Until we begin systematically working on prevention we can't begin to make punishment more effective and appropriate.

Raising children (at least in the past) teaches us much about prevention and punishment: if we make a concerted, consistent effort to be alert to bad behaviors and move to redirect in an appropriate manner much punishment can be avoided. But when punishment becomes necessary, we need to make it appropriate to the crime, in scale and method.

We also need to assess the amount of violence we're willing to allow into our lives. I am a firm believer that watching violence on tv, etc., begins to disassociate and distance us from normal reactions to such, i.e., creating conditioned non-reaction. This allows our brains to start downplaying how violence affects not only the perpetrator and the victim, but everyone else in society.

The questions being asked here have been with us since the beginning of humans; it's dismaying that having had so much time to figure these things out we have made so little progress. I am 62 and in my life time I have seen many changes, but I haven't seen many, if any, real change in how we deal with violence.

And I'm afraid we've slipped away from the original question regarding guilt and shame.

All this is interesting, but my original question was: when did these concepts first come into anthropology?

try Sigmund Freud's 1913 Totem & Taboo for a pre Chrysanthemum and the Sword view and, although it post dates C & S, Konrad Lorenz's 1966 On Aggression, I can't remember whether or not KL cites earlier sources but it might be worth a try, there is also Sir James Frazer's The Golden Bough which can be argued to use shame notions in anthropology. This takes it back to at least the late 19th century.

However, it is possible that the notion of guilt and shame cultures is too deeply embedded in anthropology to find an origin. I would argue that medieval musings on the Dog Headed men, the earliest of which I can recall is Ratramnus in the 9th century, fall into this category since the key aspect as to whether or not they are human is whether or not they feel shame for the sin of Adam. If this is so then the answer to your question Gavin is that the origin lies in Abrahamic traditions of the nature of humanity, an animal can feel guilt but only humans feel shame.

Ask a Catholic priest. They are experts on the subject.....