Bondarenko Zeitschrift Libre

8/10/2019 Bondarenko Zeitschrift Libre

1/18

On the Nature and Features ofthe (Early)State:An Anthropological Reanalysis*

Dmitri M. BondarenkoInstitute for AfricanStudies, RussianAcademyofSciences, 30/1Spiridonovka St.,Ru-123001Moscow

Abstract.Thestate is usually consideredtobea centralizedandspecializedcoercive institution forgov-erninga society.Contrariwise,our approachstemsfromthe presumptionthat thestateshouldbestu-

died as a type of society for which this institution is adequate.This leads to the necessityof payingspecialattentiontothecomingtothe fore ofthe non-kinrelationsinstatesociety.Politicalcentraliza-tioncannot beregardedas afeaturespecific tothestate, asitis applicableto manynon-state formsofsocieties.Inthe meantime, the featuretypical onlyfor thestate is specializationresulting inadminis-trators professionalization, thatis,inthe formation ofbureaucracy which is related directly tothe non-kinsocialties coming into prominence.As for theright tocoerce,itis adependent variable: the legit-imateviolence in statesisexercised throughandby bureaucrats who operatewithinbureaucraticinsti-tutions.[state, society, kinship, territoriality, political centralization, administrative specialization, bureaucracy,le-

gitimized violence]

Thestate as asocietaltype

Up until the present time, hundreds of definitions of the state have been proposed,and it turnsout tobe actually impossibletocombine all (orevenalmost all) oftheminto one generalized definition. However, it still may be argued quite safely thatwithin the framework of the overwhelming majorityof modern theories of the statethisphenomenon is consideredtobea specializedandcentralized institution forgov-

erninga society.Thestates right to exercisecoerciveauthority(legitimizedviolence) isoftenaddedas the states critical characteristic feature (see,e.g.,summarizing defi-nitions in anthropological encyclopedias and text-books of the 2000s: Abls 2000;Kottak 2002:104, 242, 269, 509; Kradin 2004:268; Ferraro and Andreatta 2011:319 320, 429). This approach to the state, rooted in the European political, philo-

Zeitschriftfr Ethnologie 139 (2014)215232 2014DietrichReimer Verlag

ZfE 04_Bondarenko Seite 215 28. 10. 14 stm

* The paper is an output ofa research project implemented as part ofthe Basic Research Programat theNationalResearchUniversityHigher School ofEconomics(HSE) in2014.

The author is also grateful to Mr. Kirk Sorbo for bringing the text of the article in accordance

withtherulesoftheEnglish language.


2/18

sophic, legal, and anthropological thought from Antiquityon (Service 1975:21 46;1978a; Gomerov 2002:14 68), became equally typical for Marxists, (neo)evolution-ists, and structuralists in the 20th centurynotwithstanding the significant differencesbetweenthem.

However, the approach the present author advocates stems from the presumptionthat thestateshouldbe perceived not as a specific setof political institutionsonly, butfirst and foremost as a type ofsociety towhichthis setof institutionsis adequate (Bon-darenko2008)1. However, at thesametimewe admit that onsome occasions it maybe reasonabletoseparate the twoaspectsofthestate for analytical purposes andthusto talkabout the state in two respects: political and social. The society is normally abroadernotion.Onthe one hand,it supplementspoliticalcharacteristics by, andcom-bines them with, social (and through them economic) characteristics. On the otherhand, thesocial and political subsystemsoften developasynchronously, withthe poli-

ticalsystem mostfrequently2 evolvingat amorerapid paceandbeingabletoapproachthe parametersofstate-type administration earlier than the social systemacquires theprimarily territorial division ofthe citizens andcomposition ofthe polity asits basis.As JohnsonandEarle putit,

Whereas chiefdoms vestleadership in generalizedregional institutions,in states theincreasedscope of integration requires specializedregional institutions to performthetasksofcontroland management. . . .Alongwiththisincreasing elaboration ofthe ruling apparatus comes increasing stratification. Elites are now unrelated by

kinshiptothe populations theygovern. . . (2000:304).However, it is clear that all its subsystems (economic, social, etc., including political)are intertwinedand in preindustrial cultures are even inseparablyintegrated.Thisfactgives usevenbetter groundsfor labelinga society byitsgeneral,overall societal type,and not by the features of itspolitical institutionsonly. Itought tobe notedthat theunderstanding ofsocietal forms(includingthestate)asinvolving notonlypoliticalbutalso socio-economic characteristics serves as a basis for the still somewhat influentialtheories of evolutionists (from Maine to Engels), of the French sociological (Durk-

216 Zeitschriftfr Ethnologie 139 (2014)


1 In mostof ourpreviouspublicationson the (early)stateweconcentrated mainlyon thevariabilityandalternativenessof pathwaysleading ornotleadingtothestate,on representingandstudyingstateformationas just an opportunity andbyno means anecessityin the processofsocial evolution (Bon-darenko2000; 2005; 2006; 2008;Bondarenkoet al.2000;Grininet al.2004;etc.).Inthe present ar-ticle, we are dealing directly with the state as such, makingan attempt to reveal the essence of thisphenomenonandto formulate itsdistinctionsfrom other supercomplex societal forms.2 Although not always. The area representing probably the most important (in the historical long-run) exceptions totherule is Europe,insome partsofwhich (Greece, Italy, Scandinavia)theunilinealdescentgroupsdisappearedat early stagesof history at theturn oftheBronzeandIronAges hav-ingbeen substituted by the nuclear family and neighbor (territorial) community(see, e.g., Roussel

1976;Dozhdev 2000;Earle 1997:25 26,163;Kristiansen 1998:45,46).


3/18

heim, Mauss), American historical (especiallyLowie), andBritishstructuralist(Evans-Pritchard, Fortes, Mairand others)schools, and ofsubstantivistsin economic anthro-pologybeginningwithPolanyi (seeEarle 1994:947).The famousAmerican neoevolu-tionistconceptions(ofSahlins, Service, Fried, Carneiro, andHaas)also derive more orlessopenlyfromthispremise,though,indeed inthe finalanalysisthewhole progres-sion (from band to state. D. B.) . . . is defined in terms of political organization(Vansina1999:166).

Weare convincedthat scholars canusewhateverdefinitionsofthestatetheychooseiftheyareappropriate for the purposesoftheirconcreteresearchand ifthe definitionsremainconsistent throughout their single pieces, but withinthe generaltheoretical fra-meworkthe notion ofthestate mustnotbereducedto itspoliticalcomponent.Other-wise, two independent notions the state and the state institution, are mixed up(Belkov1993:32).Inthe meantime, forinstance, theArchaic Stateconception elabo-

ratedbyagroup ofarchaeologists headedbyFeinmanandMarcus (1998) doeslimitthe notion ofthestatetoaspecifickind of political organization, as thestate is seenbythem merely . . . as a political or governmental unit . . . (Marcus and Feinman1998:4).In his recent worksAlainTestartalso declaresopenly thattheState is some-thing politicaland . . .the emergence oftheState isapolitical fact (2012:105,107).Contrary totheapproachesofthis sort, HenriClaessen, afounderandthe main pro-ponentoftheEarlyStateconcept,declaresopenly that thestate . . . isaspecifickindofsocial organization,expressingaspecifictype ofsocial orderinasociety (2002:102;2003:161).Precisely this vision (whichalso naturallypresupposes the embracing ofthe

politicalaspectofasocialsystem)coincidescompletely withthatofthe presentauthor.The holistic approach to the state, that is the approach that treats it as a type ofsocietyfor whichadefinitesetof political institutionsisadequate, leads tothe neces-sityof paying special attention to the coming to the fore of the non-kin, territorialrelations instate societyapoint which, asit mustbecomeclear fromtheaforesaid,isoften leftoutof manycontemporarydefinitionsofthestate, consciouslyornot,duetothewidespreadvision of itasmerelyaspecificform of political organization3.

As it is well known, MaineandMorgan contrasted the kin-based prestate society(societas)withtheterritory-basedstatesociety(civitas)as the oneunderpinnedbypre-su

mab

ly

primo

rdi

al n

atural

tie

s ve

rsus the one fo

rmed

by,in

thi

s sen

se, art

ificia

lt

ies.However, alreadyShurtz at the dawn of the 20th centuryand ultimately the British

structuralistsandAmericanBoasiansinthe mid20th centurydemonstratedthatMaine

DmitriM. Bondarenko: OntheNatureand Featuresofthe (Early)State: AnAnthropologicalReanalysis21-


3 As wellas toculturesincomparisonwithwhichthestate isdefined;e.g., Earle postulates unequivo-cally that. . .chiefdomsmustbeunderstoodaspoliticalsystems (1991:14).Notethat we do notfeelitnecessary to intervene inthe presentarticle inthecurrentdebateson whetherornotchiefdom isareality or adelusion (vide strictoPauketat 2007; heated discussions of, and polemics around thisbooksee, particularly,in the following journals:Native South 2009.2:69 132, and Social Evolutionand History2010. 9 (1):135 176).Whatisimportantfor ushere is that the non-statesocieties which

aretraditionallylabeledas such in anycase possess the characteristicsdiscussedthroughout this text.


4/18

andMorgan (as wellas later Engels4 followingMorgan) had postulatedthe oppositionbetween kinshipandterritoriality toorigidly,even ifthesocial dimension ofthe formerphenomenon hadbeenacknowledged.Theseandanumberof othermid-20th centuryanthropologistsprovidedconclusiveargumentsfor the importance ofterritorialtiesinnon-state cultures. As a result, alreadyin 1965Lewis had good reasons toargue thatthe fundamentally territorialcharacterofsocialand politicalassociation in general isindeedusually taken forgranted, and hasbeenassumedtoapplyas muchtotheseg-mentary lineage societiesas to other types ofsociety (1965:96).Ayear later Winterwrote categorically that although the dichotomy between kinship and territorialityhad been useful in the days when it had been introducedbyMaine, that dayhaspassed (1966:173).Fromapproximately thesametime on, archaeologistsandanthro-pologistsdo nothesitatetowriteabout territorialityamong eventhe mostprimitivehumanassociations those of non-specialized foragers(e.g., Campbell 1968).Finally,since the 1960s sociobiologistsalso, based mainlyonthe ethnographicevidence fromthe mostarchaic cultures,postulatethat thesense ofterritoriality(thatis,the feeling ofaterritoryashisorhersandwillingness to protectitfrom outsiders intrusions) isaninborn human feature inherited fromthe pre-humanancestors(e.g., Ardrey1966).

On the otherhand, historians(especiallymedievalists) havealso shown that typo-logicallynon-and originallyprestate institutionsof kinshipcouldand didremain im-portant in state societies.Reynoldsevencomplained in 1990 ofthat though all thatwe knowof medieval [WesternEuropean]societyleavesno doubtofthe importance ofkinship . . . we (medievalists. D. B.) have in the past tendedtostress kinshipat the

expense of otherbonds (1990:4).Asforanthropologists, by the mid-1950s, experi-ence in the field has shownagainandagain that for thousandsofyearsand in manylatitudes, kin ties have coexisted with the pre-capitalist state (Murra1980:XXI). Infact, it has eventually turned out that the kinshipvs. territoryproblem isamatter ofdegree and not ofalmost complete presence or absence, although the general socio-historical tendency is really for the gradual substitution of kin-based institutions byterritory-based onesat the supralocal levels ofsocio-culturaland politicalcomplexity.At thesame moment, Testartinsistson omittingcontrol overawell-definedterritoryfrom the definition of the state.He is right in emphasizing that it is onlyamodern

legaltraditiontorelateastateasanassociation of itscitizens toaterritory, atraditionthatputa clearimprinton anthropologicalthought(Testart 2005:8182).Indeed,inarchaicsocieties thesovereignspoweris typically regarded as thatoverpeople,notovera certain partoftheEarths surface (see,e.g., Kopytoff 1987).



4 IntheMarxist theory thetransition from kintoterritorialtieshasbeguntoserve asan essential pre-condition for socialclassformation,prior towhichtherise ofthestatewasdeclared impossible, as thestatewas seenaspolitical organization predestined forguaranteeingthe exploitativeclass dominancein society.Most rigidly thispostulate was formulated byLenin: The stateappears whereand when

the division ofsocietyinto classes appears (1974/1917:67).


5/18

In reality, MortonFriedwas correctin postulatingthat thestate isorganized notonanon-kinbut on asuprakinbasis(1970/1960:692 693).

Takingalltheaforesaid intoaccount,we nevertheless stillagreewiththeargumentthatthe mostfundamental. . . distinction (betweenthestateand non-statesocieties. D. B.) is that statesare organized on political andterritorial lines,notonthe kinshiplines. . . (Diamond 1997:280). Hencewealsobelievethat the kinship territorialitycriterion of differentiation between the state and non-state societies is valid and de-servesattention (Bondarenko2008:19 22).Notethateven highlydeveloped prestatecultures, like complexchiefdoms, are normally characterized as essentiallykin-basedsocieties(vide strictoEarle 1997:5;Milner1998:2;Grinin2011:247 248,254;Sneath2011:146 149).What shouldberealizedclearlyand notforgottenwhile dealingwiththis criterion is thatit is reallyevolutionary: Kinship-based divisions[in the society]

graduallylosetheirimportance in favourof institutional,politicaland economicdivi-

sions (Tymowski 2008:172; emphasis added. D. B.). In this respect, history is acontinuum ofsocio-political forms in the typological sequence. In this sequence onecan observeageneral dynamicfrom greater to lessimportance of kinvs.territorialre-lations that eventually resulted in the fact that kinship and other types ofascriptiverelationship have ceased to be central organizing principles of society (Hallpike1986:1). So, byno means should one expect agap from complete (or even almostcomplete) domination of kinshiptoabsolute prominence ofterritorialties.

Weshall notarguethat thestate in itsfullsense,thatisin bothsocialand politicalrespects, begins when division by territory supplants that bykin virtuallycompletely

(followingMaine, Morgan, andEngels). However,wewill also disagreewithClaessenthat the inchoatebut nevertheless state maybe . . . associated with dominant kin-ship,familyandcommunity tiesin the field of politics. . . (1978:589).Wewillrathertakean intermediate positionbetweenthe postulatesof 19th centuryevolutionismandtheEarlyStateconception5.Bearing in mindthe olderideathatinthestate,territorydominates over kinship on the one hand, and taking into account the aforemen-tionedachievements of20th centuryanthropologists and historians, we shall say thatthe state in its full sense may be fixed in the situation when territorial ties clearly(though not overwhelmingly) dominate over those of kinship onthe supralocal levelsofasocietys complexity. This threshold is lower than that established particularlybyMaineandMorganbuthigher thanthe onesufficientforClaessenand other theEarlyStateschooladherents. Indeed, thecategorieslike clearbutnotoverwhelming domi-nance do not sound defineable enoughand probablyeven leavetoo muchroom fora

DmitriM.Bondarenko: OntheNatureandFeaturesofthe (Early)State: AnAnthropologicalReanalysis21-


5 Avivid example of the difference in the early (and not exceptionallyearly) evolutionists and theEarlyStatetheoristsapproaches tothe problem oftherelationbetweenthe kinandterritorialtiesinstatesis theway they treat the eventualsubstitution oftheMerovingiantitle King oftheFranksbyCapetian King of France. It signifies the formation of state society out of pre-state for Maine(1861:61 63; seealso Sahlins1968:6) onthe one hand, and the development fromthe inchoate to

transitionalthroughtypical early state forClaessen (1985) onthe other.


6/18

researchers voluntarism, not like, for example, in the case when the state is definedthroughthecategoryof the kinshiptiesabsence.But suchamildercategorizationdoes reflect andcapturethe essentiallyevolutionary,gradual nature ofthestate forma-tion process.

One more point significantfor the presentdiscussion has been elucidatedby DavidAnderson:

As I andanumberof other authorshaveargued, thereareagreatmany socialandenvironmental factorspromoting organizational instabilityin chiefdoms,ofwhichthe fact that succession to power was based on kinship and any number of achiefs close kinwerethusqualifiedtotake hisorherplace wasperhaps thesinglemostimportantfactor, allbut ensuring incessantfactionalcompetitionandwarfarebetweenrival elitesin thesesocieties(1997:253).

This argument is consistent with the one ofRonald Cohenwho insists on the statesability toresist fissionas its most significant characteristic feature (1981). We believethat Cohens emphasis on itis too heavy(see, e.g., Adams, R. McC. 2001:353 356)but nevertheless there seem to be factual and theoretical grounds for considering thestateas anall inall firmer socio-political constructioncomparedto pre-state complexsocieties (Tainter 1988:27). The substitution of kinship as the basic organizationalprinciple by territoriality and the appearance of specialized professional administra-tion,intrinsically connectedtothis transition (e.g., Diamond 1997:281; Bondarenko2006:64),is the pledge ofthestates relativelygreaterfirmness.

Inthe meantime, what weseeas a trueandreliably verifiablecriterion oftheterri-torial organizations coming into prominence (i.e.,ofthe state in its broader full senseappearance) is theabilityofthe government torecarvearbitrarily thetraditionaldivision ofthecountrys territory, asdeterminedbykin groupings,into parts.Given itis possible6,one has good reasons to argue thateven if those social entities preservedtheir initial structure and the right to manage their purely internal affairs, they werenothing more than administrative (and taxpayingas well as labor providing)units inthe wider context of the state polity. Naturally under such circumstances, such socialentities are administered by functionaries either appointed or confirmed outside the

community inthe politicalcenteroftheregional or/andthewhole-politylevel.TheNearEastofthe3rd 2nd millennia BCEgivesespecially vivid examplesofthe

aforesaid7.Itis vitallyimportantfor an early state inthatifan early state fails toadaptthecommunity to itsneeds, stagnationand decline ofthe politicalsystem follow(asit



6 Forinstance,ifthecentralauthority cansolute originalsocietalunits(especially communities)withothersor cut them into parts.7 Besidesmanypublicationson particular societies, see generalandcomparative works, e.g., Maisels1987:345 346; 1993:154161, 252 264; Diakonoff and Yakobson 1998; Baines and Yoffee

1998:225 227.


7/18

happened,forexample,inthecasesofthe 19th century West AfricanSamoris stateandKenedugu [Tymowski 1985; 1987:65 66]). In modern and contemporary polities,structural discrepancies betweenthecommunity andthestate, the dependentpositionof the former with regard to the latter, are completely apparent (see, e.g., McGlynnandTuden 1991:181 272). Generally speaking,in a successful state, supreme powerdoesnotdevelopthecommunitymatrixfurtheron but ratheronthecontrary beginsto restructure society in its own image (Beliaev 2000:194). Indeed, as Kurtz rightlypointsout,. . . thereduction ofthe influence of local level organizationuponthe ci-tizens is a major goal of states legitimation strategies (1991/1984:162; see also2008).If itis a success,the encompassmentofthe local sphereby thestate (Tanabe1996:154)becomes thecase.Indeed,even invery complexnon-statesocieties,notlesscomplex than many early states,one can observe the situation ofthewholesocio-poli-tical constructions encompassment not from above (asitmust be in states) butfrom

below, that is from the local community level. The state tends to encompass all thespheres of social life including such an important one as family relations (Trigger2003:194, 271, 274), and with its rise, the situation when the local institutions (thefamily,lineage, andcommunity) influenced directly the formand nature ofsupralocalinstitutions was reversed.In fact, this, as wellas bureaucracys very appearanceand ex-istence, becomes possibleonly due to the territorial ties coming into prominence,asonly under suchcircumstances cana stranger unrelatedtoanymemberofa commu-nity bykin ties be effectively appointedthecommunity ruleror supervisorfromabovethislocalunit. The possibilityof it canserve as anothermeansofverification ofa so-

cietys state nature.

The statesdistinctive features: Adiscussion

Inany case, the state ofthe art in state studies bynow is such that we may ascertainsafely that the twocharacteristics political centralization (inthe sense of either theconcentration of powerin the handsofafew[Roscoe 1993:113; seealso,e.g., Mor-ris1998:293],orthe degree of linkagebetweenthevarious subsystems andthe high-

est-order controls in society [Flannery 1972:409; see also, e.g., Cohen 1978b:45 46],orboth)andspecialization ofadministration, still formthebackbone ofthethe-oryofthestate in general.Itis alsorecognized,hardlynot as commonly, that. . .theexpansion oftheadministration, and more especially thetrendtowards bureaucratiza-tion inthe early statewereclosely connectedwithcentralization (Skalnk 1978:600).

Yet, notwithstandingthe historiographic tradition8, political centralization cannotberegardedas afeaturespecific tothestate, asitis applicableto manynon-state forms



8 Particularly, contrary to the postulate of political anthropologys FoundingFathers, Meyer Fortes

andEdwardEvans-Pritchard (1987/1940:5).


8/18

of societies. For example, consider the following definitions ofchiefdoms (emphasesadded): Chiefdoms are redistributional societies with apermanent centralagencyofcoordination (Service 1971:134);chiefdom isapolity thatorganizescentrallya regio-nal population in the thousands (Earle 1991:1); . . . a chiefdom is an aggregate ofvillages under the centralized rule of a paramount political leader. This is the basicstructural nature ofa chiefdom (Carneiro 1998:19); chiefdoms are societies withcen-tralizedbut not internally specialized authority (Spencer 1998:5; following [Wright1977:381]). This is even more so in the case of complex chiefdoms (e.g., Earle1978:173 185;Pauketat1994; JohnsonandEarle2000:301 303).As Timothy Earleconcludesin hisprominent review article (1987:289),. . .centralityis theclearestin-dicatorofchiefdoms.Furthermore,even insimplesocietiespowermay becentralizedby a big man, great man (Sahlins 1963; Godelier 1982; Godelier and Strathern1991),orchieftain whothusestablishes. . .centralizedpolitical leadershipthatop-

erates from time to time among autonomous village societies but that is generallyshort-lived, so the term chieftain ... designates explicitly the form of centralizedleadership. . . (Redmond 1998:3).Thevarietyof non-statecentralized formsofsocie-ties and leadershiptypesis byno means at all limitedtothose mentionedabove.Sig-nificantly,in current research ofthe state-level polities . . . there is a clearmovementawayfroma viewofstates ashighly centralized,omnipotententities towardahetero-geneousmodel that recognizes variabilityin state/urban organizationand explores thelimits of state power within the broader society (Stein 1998:10; see also McIntosh1999:17).

In the meantime, specialization resulting in administrators professionalization isprecisely the featurewhich is typical for thestate only.Inthespecialization ofthead-ministrative apparatus scholars usually see the line betweenthe state andall the non-state formsofsocio-political organization,includingsuchcentralized ones as thechief-dom and complex chiefdom (vide stricto Fried 1967; Wright 1977:381 385; Earle1978:1 7; Claessen 1987; Marcus and Feinman 1998:4; Spencer 1998; Blanton etal.1999:112; JohnsonandEarle2000:245 329),especially asfar as the impossibilityof drawinga clearlinebetweenthechiefdomandthe early state in thespheresof econ-omy and ideology is often recognized (Muller, J.-C. 1981; Claessen and Oosten1996b:365;1996c:20; Oosten 1996; Muller, J. 1997; Claessen2000:182 186; Earle2002; Smith 2004:80). In the final analysis, Godiner (1991:51) is generally right inpointing out(thougha bit tootoughly)that any,eventhe most sophisticated, theoryofthestatereducesit tothe specialized institution of managingthesociety; atleast,the theories tendtocenter roundsuchan institution. So, weshall agreewithCharlesSpencers (1998:5) elegantly simple dictum (the first part of which has already justbeen quoted above and which is based on Henry Wrights seminal publication of1977): specifically chiefdoms are societies with centralized butnot internally specia-lizedauthority, andstates are societies withcentralizedandalso internally specializedauthority (see also Earle 1987:289). As Eisenstatdt (1971:74, 76) emphasizes, states

and non-states differ not in presence or absence of political centralizationbut in . . .




9/18

the degree ofstructural differentiationwithwhich theypresent themselves. . . . Primi-tivesocieties canthereforebesaidto haveadecentralizedcentrality ifthisexpressionis not too paradoxical. A state administration, from this perspective, is inherentlybureaucratic, Spencer (2003:11185) concludes (see also Flannery1972:403; Cohen1978a;1978b:36; Britan and Cohen 1983; Marcus and Feinman 1998:4, 6; SpencerandRedmond2004:173;Bondarenko2006:25 30; Llobera2007:110 111; Claessen2008:12 13;Kradin2008:115118; 2009:33).

Indeed, the administrative apparatus becomes specialized when it is filled withprofessional (i.e., permanentand full-time)administrators thus formingbureaucracy.Itis truethatbureaucracycanbe developed poorlyin early states.Besides,itdoesdif-ferinanumberofrespectsfrom itsmodern incarnation (Weber1947/1922:333 334,343; see also Vitkin 1981; Goody 1986:87 126; Morony 1987:9 10; Shifferd1987:4849; Claessen 2008:12 13). Yet, notwithstanding all this, in our opinion

(as wellas in that of manyother authors), the presence or absence ofthe stratum ofprofessionaladministrators,thatisofbureaucracy,isaproperindicatorofthestate ornon-state nature ofasociety(see,e. g.,in publicationsofthe2000s: JohnsonandEarle2000:35;Bondarenko2002;2006:25 30; 2008:22 26;Spencer 2003:11185;Spen-cer andRedmond2004:173;Llobera2007:110 111;Claessen2008:12 13;Kradin2008:115118; 2009:33).

SometimeagoAlainTestart(2004) made anattempt tocreateatheoryofthe pre-bureaucratic state which, within the theorys framework, historically preceded thebureaucratic state (while sometimes the former actuallynever transformed into the

latter due to these or those particular circumstances which varied fromcase tocase).The political system in non-bureaucratic states isbased, accordingtoTestart, on per-sonal fidelity toamonarch of his retinue, royal slavesand brothersbybloodbeingthe closest to him, followed byclients, mercenaries, refugees, and debtors. With re-spect to this theory we shall note that it definitelycapturesan important mechanismof the processof state formation, previously represented most clearly in literature onstate formation in medieval Europe with respect to political leaders military retinue.We mustpayattentiontothe fact thatallthoseabout whom Testart writes were peoplewho insomewayfell outofthe kin net(thesameastruebureaucrats)andthushadto (or could) pay allegiance to the monarch only, depend exclusively on him, servehim, andthus strengthenthecentral,suprakinandsupracommunity, authority.How-ever, some of the societies Testart discusses to this point_ (the Scythians, medievalMongols, anumber of medievaland modernAfrican kingdoms, etc.) were organizedalong kin linesnotonlypoliticallybutalsosocially,which,even leaving out the naturalfact under suchcircumstances that thesesocietieslackedbureaucracy,doesnotallow us(following, e.g., Gutnov [2002], Kradin and Skrynnikova [2006], Vansina [1992],Skalnk[2002], and some other specialists) to designate themas states.As for suchaspecific exampleas theGreekpolis, webelieve its principallynon-and evenantibur-eaucratic nature does not give us the right to consider it within the Testart theorys

frameworkat all. The polis was not a case in which aprebureaucratic state was not




10/18

independently succeededby a bureaucratic state owing to some purelyhistorical cir-cumstances.This canbeadmittedspeculatively, with more orlessofadegree of prob-ability,for some other societies whichTestart analyses;however, thepolisclearlyhad nointernal intentionand potential for suchtransformation.

We think the weak point ofTestarts generallyhigh quality work is his followingtheWeberian idea(Weber1946/1918) (also pickedupbyWittfogel[1957:239];Ser-vice[1975:15;1978b:8], ClaessenandSkalnk[1978a:18;1978b:630;1981:487,492]among manyothers)that thestatebegins withtheappearance of the monopolyofthelegitimateuse of physical force (seealsoTestart 2005; 2012). However,the monopolyofviolence definedaslooselyasit wasdonebyWeber9 canbe found inagreatnumberof definitely stateless societies.Forinstance,was the physical forceusedbyAfricanandMelanesiansecret societiesor Polynesianchiefsillegal and hence subjectedtorightfulresistance within the respective cultures context, at least before the imposition ofco-

lonialand postcolonial politicalsystems?Clearly,factsjustofthis sort weretaken intoconsiderationbyRadcliffe-Brownwho inForewordtoAfrican Political Systems(1987/1940:XXIII) extrapolated the Weberian definition to societies ofall kinds, not statesonly: The political organization of a society is that aspect of the total organizationwhich isconcernedwiththecontrolandregulation oftheuse of physical force.Manyother structuralists of the mid-20th century, being influenced by Radcliffe-Brown,tendedto discredit the right to exercise coercive authorityas afeature typical for thestate organization, arguingthatitcharacterizesanypoliticalsystem (FortesandEvans-Pritchard 1987/1940:6; Mair 1965:101 102; 1970:16 20). Contrary to them,

Marxists do not hesitate to assign coercion as an exclusive characteristic of the state,but theirapproach ismorespecific comparedtoWebers,which isin fact thebroadestpossible definition.AccordingtoMarxists,notanybutonlyripe,thatisclass-based,coercion distinguishes thestate from prestate formsofsocio-political organization.Ac-tually, thisis thecore oftheMarxistclassapproachtothe phenomenon ofthestate(though inanthropologyin generalthisideais rooted owingto otherconceptsofMaxWeber [1947/1922; 1978], those of political community and legitimation ofpower, to not less ofadegree than the classics ofMarxism). Meanwhile, neoevolu-tionistsdisagreewith each otheras towhether the origin ofthestate isalready rooted

incoercion,or whether the protostatewasenteringthe historicalstageasanall-ben-efiting institution which became coercive just at the verymoment of transformationintoatruestate (the famousFried Servicecontroversy).

Yet anotherproblemwiththeWeberian postulate arisesfromthe fact thateven inthe states of the ancient East, famousfor firmlyestablished monarchical regimes and

224 ZeitschriftfrEthnologie 139 (2014)


9 Claessenaccentuatesone moreaspectofthe problemby writing (2005:156 157)that though [i]nall polities. . . there are found efforts by the central government. . . to maintain norms, values, rulesand regulations, and in order to do so strivingto monopolize force .. . in practice none ever suc-

ceeded in doingsocompletely.


11/18


12/18

References Cited

Abls, Marc 2000: tat.In: P.BonteandM.Izard (eds.),Dictionnaire de lethnologie et de lanthro-pologie.Paris: Quadrige/PressesUniversitairesde France,pp.239 242.

Adams, Robert McC. 2001: Complexity in archaic states. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology20:345 360.

Anderson, David G. 1997: The role ofCahokia in the evolution ofSoutheastern Mississippian so-ciety. In: T.R. Pauketatand T.E.Emerson (eds.), Cahokia domination and ideology in theMis-sissippianworld.Lincoln, NE;London: UniversityofNebraska Press,pp.248 268.

Ardrey, Robert 1966: The territorial imperative: a personal inquiry into theanimal originsof propertyand nation.NewYork: Atheneum.

Baines, John;Yoffee, Norman 1998: Order,legitimacy, andwealth inAncientEgyptandMesopota-mia.In: G.M.FeinmanandJ.Marcus(eds.),Archaicstates.Santa Fe, NM: School ofAmericanResearchPress,pp. 199 260.

Beetham, David 1991:The legitimationof power.London: Macmillan.

Beliaev, Dmitri D. 2000: EarlyState in the Classic Maya Lowlands: epigraphic and archaeologicalevidence.In: N.N.Kradin, A.V.Korotayev, D.M.Bondarenko, V. deMunck, andP.K.Wason(eds.),Alternativesofsocial evolution.Vladivostok: FEB RAS,pp. 188 195.

Beliaev, Dmitri D.; Bondarenko, DmitriM.; Korotayev, AndreyV. 2001: Origins and evolution ofchiefdoms.Reviewsin Anthropology30:373 395.

Belkov, PavelL. 1993: Problemagenezisagosudarstva:pererastaet li vozhdestvo vgosudarstvo?[TheGenesisofthestate:does thechiefdomtransform intothestate?].In: I.V.Sledzevski (ed.),Tsivi-lizatsiiTropicheskojAfriki:obshchestva,kultury,jazyki[CivilizationsofTropicalAfrica:societies, cul-tures,languages].Moscow: Institute forAfricanStudiesPress,pp.29 40.

Blanton, RichardE.;Feinman, GaryM.;Kowalewski, StephenA.;Nicholas, Linda M. 1999:AncientOaxaca.TheMonteAlbnstate.Cambridge: CambridgeUniversityPress.

Bondarenko, Dmitri M.2000:Homologous series ofsocial evolutionandalternatives tothestate inworld history(An introduction).In: N.N.Kradin, A. V. Korotayev, D. M. Bondarenko, V. deMunckandP.K.Wason (eds.),Alternativesofsocial evolution.Vladivostok: FEB RAS,pp.213 219.

Bondarenko, Dmitri M. 2002: Kingdom without state? (MaxWeber on bureaucracy, and Benin ofthe 13th 19th centuries).In: A.M.Vasiliev(ed.),Africanstudies in Russia 1998 2000.Moscow:Institute forAfricanStudiesPress,pp. 54 60.

Bondarenko, DmitriM.2005: Ahomoarchic alternativetothe homoarchicstate: BeninKingdom ofthe 13th 19th centuries.Social evolution and history. 4(2):1888.

Bondarenko, DmitriM.2006:Homoarchy: a principleofculturesorganization.The 13th 19th centuriesBeninKingdom asa non-statesupercomplex society.Moscow: KomKniga.

Bondarenko, DmitriM. 2008: Kinship,territorialityand the early state lower limit.Social evolutionand history7 (1):1953.

Bondarenko, DmitriM.;Korotayev, AndreyV. (eds.)2000:Civilizational modelsof politogenesis.Mos-cow: Institute forAfricanStudiesPress.

Britan, Gerald M.; Cohen, Ronald (eds.) 1983: Hierarchyand society. Anthropological perspectives onbureaucracy.Philadelphia: Institute for theStudyofHumanIssuesPress.

Campbell, John M. 1968: Territoriality among ancient hunters: interpretations from ethnographyand nature. In: B. J. Meggers (ed.), Anthropological archaeology in the Americas. Washington,D.C.: AnthropologicalSocietyofWashington,pp. 1 21.

Carneiro, Robert L. 1981: Thechiefdom: precursor of the state. In: G. D. Jones and R. R. Kautz(eds.), The transition to statehood in the New World. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress,

pp.37 79.




13/18

Carneiro, Robert L. 1987: Cross-currents in the theory of state formation. American Ethnologist14:756 770.

Carneiro, RobertL. 1998: Whathappenedat the flashpoint?Conjectures on chiefdom formationattheverymomentofconception.In: E.M.Redmond (ed.),Chiefdomsand chieftaincy in theAmer-

icas.Gainesville, FL: UniversityPressofFlorida,pp. 1842.Claessen, HenriJ.M. 1978: The early state: Astructuralapproach.In: H.J.M.ClaessenandP.Skal-nk (eds.),The early state. TheHague: Mouton,pp. 533 596.

Claessen, HenriJ.M. 1985: FromFranks toFrance the evolution ofapolitical organization.In: H.J.M.Claessen, P.van deVeldeandM.E.Smith (eds.),Development and decline. The evolution ofsociopolitical organization.SouthHadley, MA: BerginandGarvey,pp. 196 218.

Claessen, HenriJ.M. 1987: Kings, chiefsand officials.Journal ofLegalPluralismandUnofficialLaw25/26:203 241.

Claessen, HenriJ.M. 1994: Consensus andcoercion prerequisites for government in early states.InternationalJournal ofAnthropology9:4151.

Claessen, Henri J. M. 2000: Structural change. Evolution and evolutionism in cultural anthropology.

Leiden: LeidenUniversity.Claessen, HenriJ.M.2002: Was thestate inevitable?SocialEvolutionandHistory1 (1):101117.Claessen, HenriJ.M.2003: Aspectsof lawand orderin early state societies.In: F.J.M.Feldbrugge

(ed.),The lawsbeginnings.Leiden: Brill/Nijhoff,pp. 161 179.Claessen, HenriJ.M.2005: Early state intricacies.SocialEvolutionandHistory4 (2):151158.Claessen, Henri J. M. 2008: Before The early stateand after: an introduction. SocialEvolution and

History7 (1):418.Claessen, HenriJ.M.;Oosten, JarichG. (eds.) 1996a:Ideologyandthe formation of early states.Lei-

den: Brill.Claessen, HenriJ.M.;Oosten, JarichG. 1996b: Discussionandconsiderations.In: H.J.M.Claessen

andJ.G.Oosten (eds.),Ideologyandthe formation of early states.Leiden: Brill,pp.359405.

Claessen, HenriJ.M.;Oosten, JarichG. 1996c: Introduction.In: H.J.M.ClaessenandJ.G.Oosten(eds.),Ideologyandthe formation of early states.Leiden: Brill,pp. 1 23.Claessen, HenriJ.M.;Skalnk, Peter1978a: The early state:theoriesand hypotheses.In: HenriJ.M.

ClaessenandPeterSkalnk (eds.),The early state.TheHague: Mouton,pp.3 30.Claessen, HenriJ.M.;Skalnk, Peter1978b: Limits: beginningand end ofthe early state.In: HenriJ.

M.ClaessenandPeterSkalnk (eds.),The early state.TheHague: Mouton,pp.619 635.Claessen, Henri J. M.; Skalnk, Peter 1981: Ubi sumus? The studyof the stateconference in retro-

spect. In: H. J. M. Claessen and P. Skalnk (eds.), The studyof the state. TheHague: Mouton,pp. 469 509.

Cohen, Ronald 1978a: Introduction. In: R.Cohen and E.R.Service (eds.), Originsofthe state: theanthropologyof political evolution. Philadelphia: Institute for the StudyofHuman Issues Press,

pp. 1 20.Cohen, Ronald 1978b: State origins: areappraisal. In: H. J. M.Claessenand P. Skalnk (eds.), Theearly state.TheHague: Mouton,pp.31 75.

Cohen, Ronald 1981: Evolution, fission, and the early state. In: H. J. M. Claessen and P. Skalnk(eds.),Thestudyofthestate.TheHague: Mouton,pp. 87 116.

Diakonoff, Igor M.;Yakobson, Vladimir A. 1998: Grazhdanskoe obshchestvo vdrevnosti[Civil so-cietyin Antiquity].Vestnik drevnej istorii1:22 30.

Diamond, Jared 1997: Guns, germs, andsteel. The fatesof human societies. NewYork; London: Nor-ton.

Dozhdev, Dmitri V. 2000: Rome (8th 2nd centuries BC). In: D. M. Bondarenkoand A. V. Koro-tayev(eds.),Civilizational modelsof politogenesis.Moscow: CenterforCivilizationalandRegional

StudiesPress,pp.255 286.




14/18

Earle, Timothy K. 1978:Economic and social organization of a complex chiefdom: the Halelea District,Kauai, Hawaii.AnnArbor, MI: UniversityofMichiganPress.

Earle, Timothy K. 1987: Chiefdomsin archaeologicaland ethnohistorical perspective.AnnualReviewofAnthropology16:279 308.

Earle, Timothy K. 1991: The evolution ofchiefdoms.In: T.K.Earle (ed.),Chiefdoms:power,econo-my, and ideology.Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, pp. 1 15.Earle, Timothy K. 1994: Political domination and social evolution. In: T. Ingold (ed.), Companion

encyclopedia of anthropology.London: Routledge,pp. 940 961.Earle, TimothyK. 1997: Howchiefscometo power. The political economyin prehistory.Stanford, CA:

StanfordUniversityPress.Earle, TimothyK. 2002: Political economies ofchiefdomsandagrarian states.In: T. K.Earle (ed.),

BronzeAge economics:thebeginningsof political economies.Boulder, CO: WestviewPress, pp. 1 18.

Eisenstadt, Shmuel N. 1971: Social differentiation and stratification. Glenview, IL; London: Scott,ForesmanandCompany.

Feinman, GaryM.;Marcus, Joyce (eds.) 1998:Archaicstates.Santa Fe, NM: School ofAmericanRe-searchPress.Ferraro, Gary; Andreatta, Susan 2011: Culturalanthropology: anapplied perspective, ninth ed.Wads-

wort, CA: CengageLearning.Flannery, KentV. 1972: Thecultural evolution ofcivilizations.AnnualReviewof Ecologyand Systema-

tics3:399426.Flannery, KentV. 1998: The ground plansofarchaicstates.In: G.M.FeinmanandJ.Marcus(eds.),

Archaicstates.Santa Fe, NM: School ofAmericanResearchPress,pp. 1557.Fortes, Meyer;Evans-Pritchard, EdwardE. 1987/1940: Introduction.In: M.FortesandE.E.Evans-

Pritchard (eds.),African politicalsystems.London;NewYork: KPI;InternationalAfricanInstitute,pp. 1 24.

Fried, MortonH. 1967:The evolution of politicalsociety.An essayin political anthropology.NewYork:Random House.

Fried, MortonH. 1970/1960: On the evolution ofsocialstratificationandthestate.In: E.O.Lau-mann, P. M. Siegel and R. W. Hodge (eds.), The logic of social hierarchies. Chicago: Markham,pp.684 695.

Geertz, Clifford2004: Whatisastate if itisnotasovereign?Current Anthropology45:577 585.Glassner, Jean-Jacques 2004: Dubonusage duconceptdecite-tat?Journal des africanistes74:3545.Godelier, Maurice 1982:La production desgrandshommes.Paris: Fayard.Godelier, Maurice;Strathern, Marilyn (eds.) 1991:Big menand greatmen:personification of powerin

Melanesia.Cambridge: CambridgeUniversityPress;Paris: Editionsde la Maison desSciencesdelHomme.

Godiner, EsterS. 1991: Politicheskaja antropologijao proiskhozhdenii gosudarstva [Politicalanthro-pologyand the origin of the state]. In: S. Ya. Kozlovand P. I. Puchkov(eds.), Etnologicheskajanauka zarubezhom: problemy,poiski,reshenija[Ethnologyabroad: problems, approaches, solutions].Moscow: Nauka,pp. 51 77.

Gomerov, Igor N. 2002: Gosudarstvo i gosudarstvennaja vlast [The state and state power]. Moscow:JuKEA.

Goody, Jack 1986:The logicofwritingandthe organization ofsociety.Cambridge: CambridgeUniver-sityPress.

Grinin, Leonid E.; Carneiro, Robert L.; Bondarenko, Dmitri M.; Kradin, NikolayN.; Korotayev,AndreyV. (eds.)2004:The early stae,itsalternativesandanalogues.Volgograd: Uchitel.

Grinin, LeonidE.2004: Democracyand early state.SocialEvolutionandHistory3(2):93 147.Grinin, LeonidE. 2011: Complexchiefdom: precursor ofthe state or its analogue? SocialEvolution

andHistory10(1):234 275.




15/18

Gutnov, FelixKh.2002:Rannie skify:problemy sotsialnoj istorii[EarlyScythians:issuesinsocial history].Vladikavkaz: Institute of Historyand Archaeology Press.

Haas, Jonathan 1995: Theroads to statehood. In: N.N.KradinandV.A.Lynsha(eds.),Alternativepathways to early state.Vladivostok: Dalnauka,pp. 16 18.

Hallpike, Christopher R. 1986:The principlesofsocial evolution.Oxford: ClarendonPress.Johnson, Allen W.;Earle, Timothy K. 2000:The evolution of human societies. From foraging groupto

agrarianstate, second ed.Stanford, CA: StanfordUniversity Press.Kapferer, Bruce2012:Legendsof people,mythsofstate.Violence,intolerance, and politicalculture inSri

Lanka andAustralia.Washington, DC;London: SmithsonianInstitutionPress.Kopytoff, Igor (ed.) 1987: TheAfrican f rontier: thereproduction of traditionalAfrican societies. Bloo-

mington, IN;Indianapolis, IN: Indiana UniversityPress.Kottak, ConradPh.2002:Culturalanthropology,ninth ed.Boston: McGraw-Hill.Kradin, Nikolay N. 1995: Vozhdestvo: sovremennoe sostojanie i problemy izuchenija [Chiefdom:

contemporary situationand problemsofstudying].In: V.A.Popov(ed.),Rannie formypolitiches-koj organizatsii:otpervobytnosti k gosudarstvennosti[Earlyformsof political organization: from pri-

mitivity tostatehood].Moscow: Vostochnajaliteratura,pp. 11 61.Kradin, NikolayN.2004:Politicheskaja antropologija[Politicalanthropology].Moscow: Logos.Kradin, NikolayN. 2008: Early state theoryand the evolution of pastoral nomads.SocialEvolution

andHistory7 (1):107 130.Kradin, Nikolay N. 2009: State origins in anthropological thought. Social Evolution and History

8(1):2551.Kradin, NikolayN.;Skrynnikova,Tatyana D.2006:Imperija Chingis-khana [TheGenghis Khansem-

pire].Moscow: Vostochnajaliteratura.Kristiansen, Kristian 1998:Europebefore history.Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.Kurtz, Donald V. 1991/1984: Stratagies of legitimation and the Aztec state. In: F. McGlynn and

A.Tuden (eds.), Anthropological approaches to politicalbehavior. Pittsburgh: Universityof Pitts-

burghPress, pp. 146 165.Kurtz, Donald V. 2008: Social boundary networks and the vertical entrenchment of government

authorityin early state formations.SocialEvolutionandHistory7(1):131153.Lenin, VladimirI. 1974/1917: Gosudarstvo irevoljutsija [Thestateandrevolution],in Vladimir I.Lenin.Polnoesobraniesochinenij[Collectedworks].Vol.XXXIII.Moscow:

Politicheskajaliterature,pp. 1 20.Lewis, Ioan M. 1965: Problems in the comparative studyofunilineal descent. In: Michael Banton

(ed.),Therelevance of modelsfor social anthropology.London: Tavistock,pp. 87 112.Llobera, JosepR. 2007:An invitationto anthropology. Thestructure, evolution and cultural identityof

humansocieties.NewYork;Oxford: BerghahnBooks.Maine, HenryS. 1861: Ancient law. Itsconnection with the earlyhistory of society and its relation to

modern ideas.London: Murray.Mair, Lucy1965:An introductiontosocial anthropology.Oxford: ClarendonPress.Mair, Lucy1970:Primitive government,second ed.Baltimore, MD: PenguinBooks.Maisels, Charles K. 1987: Modelsofsocial evolution: trajectoriesfromtheNeolithictothestate.Man

(N.S.) 22:331 359.Maisels, Charles K. 1993:The emergence of civilization. From hunting and gatheringto agriculture, ci-

tiesandthestate oftheNearEast.London: Routledge.Marcus, Joyce;Feinman, GaryM. 1998: Introduction.In: G.M.FeinmanandJ.Marcus(eds.),Ar-

chaicstates.Santa Fe, NM: School ofAmericanResearchPress, pp.3 13.McGlynn, Frank; Tuden, Arthur (eds.) 1991: Anthropological approaches to political behavior. Pitts-

burgh: UniversityofPittsburghPress.




16/18

McIntosh, SusanK. 1999: Pathways tocomplexity: anAfrican perspective.In: S.K.McIntosh (ed.),Beyond chiefdoms. Pathways to complexity in Africa. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,pp. 1 30.

Milner, GeorgeR. 1998:TheCahokia chiefdom: the archaeology ofa Mississippian society.Washington,

DC; London: SmithsonianInstitutionPress.Morony, Michael G. 1987: In the city without watchdogs the fox is the overseer: issues and pro-blems in the study ofbureaucracy. In: M. Gibson and R. D. Biggs (eds.), The organization of

power aspects of bureaucracy in the Ancient Near East. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,pp.7 18.

Morris, Craig 1998: Inka strategiesof incorporationand governance.In: G.M.FeinmanandJ.Mar-cus(eds.),Archaicstates.Santa Fe, NM: School ofAmericanResearchPress, pp.293 309.

Muller, Jean-Claude 1981:Divine kingship inchiefdoms andstates.A single ideological model.In:H. J.M.ClaessenandP.Skalnk (eds.),Thestudyofthestate.The Hague: Mouton,pp.239 250.

Muller, Jon 1997:Mississippian political economy.NewYork;London: PlenumPress.Murra, JohnV. 1980:The economic organization ofthe Incastate.Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Nustad, Knut G.2002: Explorationsofthestate: considerationsfromcriticalanthropology/ethnogra-phy.EuropeanAssociation of SocialAnthropologistsNewsletter34:3 4.Oosten, JarichG. 1996: Ideology andthe developmentofEuropean kingdoms.In: H.J.M.Claessen

andJ.G.Oosten (eds.),Ideologyandthe formation of early states.Leiden: Brill,pp.220 241.Pauketat, Timothy R. 1994: The ascent of chiefs: Cahokia andMississippian politics in nativeNorth

America.Tuscaloosa,AL;London: UniversityofAlabama Press.Pauketat, TimothyR. 2007: Chiefdoms and other archaeological delusions. Lanham, MD: AltaMira

Press.Radcliffe-Brown, Alfred R. 1987/1940: Foreword. In: M. Fortes and E. E. Evans-Pritchard (eds.),

African politicalsystems.London;NewYork: KPI;InternationalAfricanInstitute,pp.XI-XXIII.Redmond, Elsa M. 1998: The dynamics ofchieftaincyand the development ofchiefdoms. In: Elsa

M.Redmond (ed.),Chiefdoms and chieftaincyin theAmericas.Gainesville, FL: UniversityPressofFlorida,pp. 1 17.

Reynolds, Susan 1990:Kingdomsand communitiesin Western Europe, 900 1300,second ed.Oxford:ClarendonPress.

Roscoe, PaulB. 1993: Practiceand politicalcentralisation. Current Anthropology34:111124.Roussel, Denis1976:Tribuetcit: etudes surlesgroupes sociauxdanslescitsgrecquesauxepoquesarch-

aque etclassique.Paris: Plon.Sahlins, Marshall D. 1963: Poor man, rich man, big man, chief: political types in Melanesia and

Polynesia.ComparativeStudiesin Society andHistory5:285 303.Sahlins, MarshallD. 1968:Tribesmen.EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall.Service, Elman R. 1971: Primitive social organization: an evolutionary perspective, second ed. New

York: Random House.Service, ElmanR. 1975:Originsofthestateandcivilization:the processofcultural evolution.NewYork:

Norton.Service, ElmanR. 1978a: Classicaland moderntheoriesofthe originsof government.In: R.Cohen

and E. R. Service (eds.), Originsof the state: theanthropologyof political evolution. Philadelphia:Institute for theStudyofHumanIssuesPress,pp.21 34.

Service, ElmanR. 1978b:Profilesin ethnology,third ed.NewYork: Harper& Row.Shifferd, Patricia A. 1987: Aztecs and Africans: political processes in twenty-two early states. In:

H.J.M.ClaessenandP.van deVelde (eds.),Early state dynamics.Leiden: Brill,pp.39 53.Skalnk, Peter1978: The early stateasaprocess.In: H.J.M.ClaessenandP.Skalnk (eds.),The early

state.TheHague: Mouton,pp. 597 618.Skalnk, Peter 2002: Chiefdoms and kingdoms in Africa: why theyare neither states nor empires.

http://asc.leidenuniv.nl/pdf/chiefdomsandkingdoms.pdf, accessed onJune 1,2012.




17/18

Smith, MichaelE.2004: Thearchaeologyofancient state economies.AnnualReviewofAnthropology33:73 102.

Sneath, David2011: The headless state inInner Asia.In: K.M.RioandO. H. Smedal (eds.),Hier-archy.Persistence andtransformation insocial formations.Oxford: BerghahnBooks,pp. 143 181.

Spencer, Charles S. 1998: A mathematical model of primary state formation. Cultural Dynamics10:5 20.Spencer, Charles S.2003: War and early state formation in Oaxaca, Mexico. Proceedingsof theNa-

tionalAcademyofSciencesoftheUSA 100:1118511187.Spencer, Charles S.; Redmond, Elsa M. 2004: Primary state formation in Mesoamerica. AnnualRe-

viewofAnthropology33:173 199.Stein, GilJ. 1998: Heterogeneity,power, and political economy:somecurrent research issues in the

archaeologyofOldWorldcomplex societies.Journal ofArchaeologicalResearch6:144.Tainter, JosephA. 1988:The collapse of complex societies.Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.Tanabe, Akio 1996: Indigenouspower,hierarchy and dominance: state formation inOrissa, India.In:

H. J.M.ClaessenandJ.G.Oosten (eds.),Ideology and the formation of early states. Leiden: Brill,

pp. 154 165.Testart, Alain2004:La servitudevolontaire.Vols.III.Paris: Editions Errance.Testart, Alain2005:Elmentsde classification des socits.Paris: Editions Errance.Testart, Alain 2012: Comment on R. L. Carneiros article on the origin of the state: The circum-

scription theory: a clarification, amplification, and reformulation. Social Evolution and History11 (2):105 109.

Trigger, Bruce G. 1985: Generalized coercion and inequality: the basis of state power in the earlycivilizations. In: H. J. M. Claessen, P. van de Velde and M. E. Smith (eds.), Development anddecline. The evolution of sociopolitical organization. South Hadley, MA: Bergin and Garvey,pp. 46 61.

Trigger, BruceG.2003:Understanding early civilizatons: a comparativestudy.Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Tymowski, Michal 1985: The evolution of primitive political organization from extended family toearly state. In: H. J. M. Claessen, P. van de Veldeand M. E. Smith (eds.), Development and de-cline. The evolution of sociopolitical organization. South Hadley, MA: Bergin and Garvey,pp. 183 195.

Tymowski, Michal 1987: The early stateandafterin precolonialWest Sudan.Problemsofthestabi-lityof political organizations and the obstacles to their development. In: H. J. M. Claessen andP.van deVelde (eds.),Early State Dynamics.Leiden: Brill,pp. 54 69.

Tymowski, Michal2008: Stateandtribe in the historyofMedievalEuropeandBlackAfrica a com-parativeapproach.Social Evolution and History7(1):171197.

Vansina, Jan 1992: Kings in Tropical Africa. In: E.Beumers and H.-J.Koloss(eds.),Kings ofAfrica.Artandauthority inCentralAfrica.Maastricht: FoundationKingsofAfrica,pp. 19 26.

Vansina, Jan 1999: Pathwaysof political developmentin EquatorialAfrica and neo-evolutionary the-ory. In: S. K. McIntosh (ed.), Beyond chiefdoms. Pathways to complexity in Africa. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press,pp. 166 172.

Vitkin, MikhailA. 1981: MarxandWeberon the primary state.In: H.J.M.ClaessenandP.Skalnk(eds.),Thestudy of the state.The Hague: Mouton,pp. 443 454.

Weber, Max1946/1918: Politics as avocation. In: H. H. Gerth and C. W. Mills (transl. and eds.),FromMaxWeber:essays in sociology.New York: OxfordUniversity Press,pp.77 128.

Weber, Max1947/1922:The theory of socialand economicorganization.New York: OxfordUniversityPress.

Weber, Max1978:Economyand society.Vols.III.Berkeley, CA: UniversityofCalifornia Press.Winter, Edward H. 1966: Territorial groupings and religionamongtheIraqw.In: M. Banton (ed.),

Anthropological approaches to thestudy of religion.London: Tavistock,pp. 155 174.




18/18

Wittfogel, KarlA. 1957:Oriental despotism: a comparativestudy of total power.NewHaven, CT:YaleUniversityPress.

Wright, Henry T. 1977: Recent research on the origin of the state. AnnualReviewofAnthropology6:379 397.


Documents

Bondarenko Zeitschrift Libre