The paper is devoted to the different interpretations of the term «tribe». The author concludes that modern science does not give a clear answer to the question, what is a «tribe». In modern literature dominates ethnic and social constructivism, extrapolating the past speculative model of the Marxist theory of primitive society. In encyclopaedic and educational literature a «tribe» is declared as primitive ethnopotestarian (ethnosocial) institute combining ethnic community and potestarian organization. The Soviet social tribes are considered as the primary form of ethnic community (as part of the well-known triad «tribe - nation - a nation»). In foreign historiography tribe is defined as the segmental «nadobschinnoy» political structure. Each segment in it (community, lineage) is economically independent, and leadership is personal and does not involve any formal positions. In evolutionary schemes tribe is usually placed between the primitive community and the chiefdom. The author concludes that the concept of «tribe» is characterized by the loss of the uniqueness of the terminology and the conversion to a phantom. At the same time the modern Russian ethnologist are refused to use of the concept a «tribe» and a term «ethnos» and his derivatives are used, and also «people», not having stadial attachment and not defiant associations with the primitivity. In political anthropology a «tribe» is replaced by «chiefdom» and its analogues. In other words, the concept of «tribe» has lost its former conceptuality. In political anthropology «tribe» («Potestarian tribe») is replaced by «chiefdom» and its analogues.