Cultivating Pathways of Creative research new horizons of transformative Practice and Collaborative imagination edited by a n a n ta k u m a r g i r i PRIMUS BOOKS An imprint of Ratna Sagar P. Ltd. virat bhavan mukherjee nagar Commercial Complex delhi 110 009 oices at Chennai luCknow agra ahmedabad bangalore Coimbatore dehradun guwahati hyderabad JaiPur kanPur koChi kolkata madurai mumbai Patna ranChi varanasi © Ananta Kumar Giri for Editorial selection 2017 © Individual contributors for their respective essays 2017 all rights reserved. no part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without permission. any person who does any unauthorized act in relation to this publication may be liable to criminal prosecution and civil claims for damages. First published 2017 isbn: 978–93–86552–19-8 (hardback) isbn: 978–93–86552–20-4 (Pod) Published by Primus books lasertypeset by sai graphic design arakashan road, Paharganj, new delhi 110055 Printed at sanat Printers, kundli, haryana this book is meant for educational and learning purposes. the author(s) of the book has/have taken all reasonable care to ensure that the contents of the book do not violate any existing copyright or other intellectual property rights of any person in any manner whatsoever. in the event the author(s) has/have been unable to track any source and if any copyright has been inadvertently infringed, please notify the publisher in writing for corrective action. Contents Foreword by Piet strydom xi Preface xix Acknowledgements xxv Cultivating Pathways of Creative Research and Collaborative Imagination: An Introduction and Invitation ananta kumar giri 1 Part one: new horizons of Creative PraCtiCe and Collaborative imagination: anthroPology, soCiology and beyond 1. folk Culture and literature chitta ranjan das 13 2. anthropology as satyagraha (truth-force): elwin in pre-independence india daniel j. rycroft 19 3. Political radicalism in Central tribal belt of india: democrats, rulers and maoists b.k. roy burman 41 4. Pitfalls in Comparatively analysing reconciliation: a Critical epistemological Contribution and a research agenda nicos trimikliniotis and wiebke keim 51 5. invoking everydayness in Poverty studies in india mukul kumar 75 6. beyond mathematical economics: engagement with economy and life maxwell ekor 99 7. beyond a relexive anthropology: engaging in Processes of Cultural relexivity carla cribari-assali 113 viii Contents 8. sight, sound and words: the dilemma among indian anthropologists kanchan mukhopadhyay 133 9. historicizing the ethnography of Caste: rethinking theory and methodology sai thakur 143 10. kinship and the state: theoretical Considerations in the transition to a Postmodern world dmitri m. bondarenko 161 11. stateless tribe, segmentary lineage and ‘Cognatic’ naga kinship: threatened gender-neutrality and individual manoeuvrability n.k. das 183 12. transference of knowledge to facilitate life under desert Conditions gideon m. kressel and hendrik j. bruins 205 13. relections on Conventional and traditional methodology in transnational Community research abdulkadir osman farah 225 14. illness and healing in the middle Place: the Chasm of ambiguity and Potentiality and the transformative rites of Passage debra xiangjun hayes 241 Part two: Pathways of Creative researCh: linking theory and PraCtiCe and the voCation of a sCholar aCtivist 15. Predicaments of Public anthropology marcin brocki 269 16. academics, advocacy, and social engagement: some relections helen hintjens and eric b. ross 283 17. linking theory and Practice: Creative Possibilities in Professional education and research ajit k. pyati 295 18. a relexive rethinking on Praxis intervention p. madhu 313 Contents 19. methodological Crisis in development: tribal development at attappady, kerala p.k. kurian 20. listening to the elders as keepers of the water radha d’souza ix 333 351 Part three: Pathways of Creative researCh: new aPProaChes to art, eduCation and soCial transformations 21. art, social transformation, and human development john clammer 365 22. education and value mrinal miri 381 23. a hermeneutics of marginality and the enhancement of educational Practice anne escrader and michael downey 395 24. a relational Pedagogy for transformative learning elinor w. gadon 407 25. sponsoring gaian Citizenship through the Pathways of somatic and narrative ways of knowing ‘sonar’ orla o’reilly hazra 413 26. theatre as ‘thinking space’: Performing immortality in staring at the sun vivienne glance 439 27. mindfulness and embodiment Practices as teaching Pathways in the humanities david fancy and susan sprearey 457 28. reconceiving education and the humanities ivan marquez 479 afterword rethinking research in the transition to world society: on the transformation of the form of scientiic Practice meera chakraborty 495 Notes on Editor and Contributors 499 Index 511 10 Kinship and the State: Theoretical Considerations in the Transition to a Postmodern World d m i t r i m . b o n da r e n k o Conceptualizing the state: inevitable eurocentrism? Deinitions of the state proposed to data are numerous and varied. it is impossible to combine all (or even almost all) of them in one ‘generalized’ deinition but it may yet be safely argued that within the framework of the overwhelming majority of modern theories of the state this phenomenon is considered as a universal (with the same basic distinctive features in any cultural setting), specialized, and centralized institution for governing a society, to what its right to exercise coercive authority—what can be read as legitimized violence is often added as the state’s critical characteristic feature. this approach to the state, rooted in the European political, philosophical, legal, and anthropological thought from antiquity onwards, became equally typical of marxists, (neo)evolutionists, and structuralists in the twentieth century, notwithstanding signiicant diferences between them. However, the transition to postmodernity that humanity enjoys now actualizes and makes acute the problem of universality of all the values and conceptions that once were born within a particular civilization, especially Western. the problems of multiculturalism and tolerance are vivid expressions of this in the socio-political sphere. the growing criticism of the universalistic approach to the state is a relection of the same processes in the social sciences. it should be noted that this criticism irst rose quite long ago among non-European scholars who tried their best to emphasize the all-sided speciicity and unique nature of their native cultures in the time of decolonization and nation-building in the third World states (see, Diop 1960; Diagne 1970). From the 1980s—the critical decade for anthropology—this discourse has found its way to European theoretical thought, too (see, Skalník 1983, 1987; Gledhill 1994: 9–17; Lielukhine 162 Dmitri M. Bondarenko 2002). the criticism on the ‘traditional’ conception of the state is based on the grounds that claiming for universality, it historically relects exclusively the Western approach to the phenomenon and even that it is based on Europe’s historical experience only (in the most radical version–exceptionally of modern, bourgeois Western Europe (Vincent 1987; Belkov 1995; Creveld 1999). in my opinion, the Eurocentrism of the theory of the state results from a much more inclusive fact—that mature modern science as such was born in post-medieval Europe as an outcome of its development in the preceding periods—the Antiquity and middle Ages. the very contemporary scientiic way of thinking (including anthropological thought) is deeply rooted in the European tradition.the European intellectual legacy is more evident in the social sciences but if there could have been culturally biased variations in natural sciences, deinitely there would have been discussions about Eurocentrism in physics or chemistry. indeed, modern science is originally a European phenomenon (Jaspers 1953/1949). in this respect, all modern sciences have initially been and will always remain Eurocentric to a certain degree, and social scientists ought to be especially sensitive to this fact. For the irst time in anthropology it was conceptualized in generally reasonable terms by Boas (1940) as the antithesis to unilinear evolutionism, then emphasized more rigorously by his numerous students, especially Herskovits (1955), but unfortunately carried to an absurdity by postmodernists (Geertz 1973, 1983) with their actual rejection of the possibility of any objective knowledge about cultures and their valid comparisons.1 What has led postmodernism to this methodological and theoretical default is precisely its adepts and adherents’ excessive radicalism in the formulating of, and struggle for, one of their main goals, which is legal, correct, and may even be achieved with valid outcomes for the science, but only being set in a more moderate and limited way: ‘… to avoid grounding itself in the theoretical and commonsense categories of … Western tradition’ (tyler 1986: 129). However, in light of the aforesaid, this has to remain a task which one can fulil better or worse but never completely if desiring to remain in the realm of anthropological science; as ingold (1996: 5; see also tyler 1986: 1–2) wrote with regards to this very point, ‘Short of becoming poets, painters or novelists, there seems to be no way out.’ indeed, the general characteristic features most often attributed to the state per se one can recognize without diiculty in many non-European societies, particularly Asian from ancient times on. not so rarely, the Asian societies’ stately features even tend to be overemphasized and demonized, i.e. what is most vividly expressed in the idea of ‘Oriental despotism’ enshrined in a long list of theories begun in the time of the Enlightenment, crowned by Wittfogel’s book (1957), and which still continues to be Kinship and the State 163 replenished (for one of the most recent additions see nepomnin 2004). At this point, our ideas of ‘civilizational models of politogenesis’ (Bondarenko and Korotayev 2000), ‘types of civilizational development’ (Bondarenko 1997, 2000), and even more so—the conception of ‘evolutionary streams’ of Claessen (2000a: 6–8; 2000b: 66, 171–4, 186–9, 194–5; see also Hallpike 1986) can be highly relevant. this is due to the scantiness of the number of efective responses to similar problems of security, production, etc., arising in diferent evolutionary streams, basically similar (though not identical in every detail but civilizationally, i.e. regionally lavoured and coloured) institutions, including those characterizing the state, which may well appear in many historically unrelated cases (see also Kradin and Lynsha 1995; Haas 2001). in the meantime, two neighbouring (and furthermore distant) cultures’ responses to the same essential problems turn out so diferent, that the cultures eventually take essentially diferent evolutionary paths. And yet, it is hardly correct to talk about a certain homogeneous ‘European historical experience’ in the sociopolitical sphere. A comparison of the semantics of the words denoting political organization in diferent European languages reveals much. For example, state in English or État in French means not only the political system but also ‘condition’. in such a context, the state is a speciic condition of society into which political power is inserted; the former is primary towards the latter. On the contrary, in russian the respective word—gosudarstvo is derived from gosudar’— ‘sovereign’. therefore power, not society, is seen as the basic, dominant category. the state is not a society to which power serves but is a property of the sovereign to whom the society owes service. thus, the state does have essential universal features and in the subsequent sections i will concentrate on the feature that i regard as most fundamental: coming to the fore of the non-kin, territorial relations in the state society, although this point, consciously or not, is often evicted from many contemporary deinitions of the state due to the widespread vision of it as not a deinite societal type but merely a speciic set of political institutions. the Kinship–territoriality Dichotomy: False but still Guiding As is well known, Sir Henry Sumner maine and Lewis Henry morgan contrasted the kin-based prestate society (societas) to the territory-based state society (civitas) as the one underpinned by presumably primordial ‘natural’ ties to the one formed by, in this sense, artiicial ties. However, already at the dawn of the twentieth century, Schurtz (1902) and ultimately 164 Dmitri M. Bondarenko as far back as in the middle of the last century the British structuralists and American Boasians demonstrated that maine and morgan (as well as later Engels2 following morgan) had postulated the opposition between kinship and territoriality too rigidly,3 even if the social dimension of the former phenomenon had been acknowledged.4 these and a number of other midtwentieth century anthropologists provided conclusive arguments for the importance of territorial ties in non-state cultures. As a result, in 1965 Lewis had good reasons to argue that ‘the fundamentally territorial character of social and political association in general is indeed usually taken for granted, and has been assumed to apply as much to the segmentary lineage societies as to other types of society’ (1965: 96). A year later, Winter categorically wrote that although the dichotomy between kinship and territoriality had been ‘useful’ in the days when it had been introduced by maine, ‘that day has passed’ (1966: 173). From approximately the same time on, archaeologists and anthropologists did not hesitate to write about territoriality among even the most ‘primitive’ human associations—those of non-specialized foragers (e.g. Campbell 1968; Peterson 1975; Cashdan 1983; Casimir and rao 1992). Finally, sociobiologists, basing their premise on the ethnographic evidence from the most archaic cultures, postulate that the sense of territoriality (that is, the feeling of a territory as his or her and a willingness to protect it from outsiders’ intrusions) is an inborn human feature inherited from the pre-human ancestors (Ardrey 1966; malmberg 1980). meanwhile, historians (especially medievalists) have also shown that typologically non- and originally prestate institutions of kinship could and did remain important in state societies (e.g. Bloch 1961/1939–40: 141f.; Genicot 1968; Duby 1970). Susan reynolds even complained in 1990 that though ‘all that we know of medieval [Western European] society leaves no doubt of the importance of kinship … we [medievalists] have in the past tended to stress kinship at the expense of other bonds’ (1990: 4). As for anthropologists, by the mid-1950s, ‘experience in the ield has shown again and again that for thousands of years and in many latitudes, kin ties have coexisted with the pre-capitalist state’ (murra 1980: XXi).5 in fact, it has eventually turned out that the kinship vs. territory problem is that of measure and not of almost complete presence or absence, although the general socio-historical tendency is really to gradual substitution of kinbased institutions by territory-based ones at the supralocal levels of sociocultural and political complexity. At the same moment, testart insists on control over a well-deined territory’s omitting from the deinition of the state. He is right in emphasizing that it is only the modern time legal tradition to relate a state as an association of its citizens to a territory; the tradition that put a clear imprint on anthropological thought (testart 2005: 81–2).6 indeed, in the archaic societies the sovereign’s power is typically regarded as that over people, not over a certain part of the Earth’s surface Kinship and the State 165 (see, Kopytof 1987). For example, in the Benin Kingdom till the very end of its pre-colonial history, not a person born or living outside the polity’s boundaries but the one who did not recognize the supreme ruler of Benin as his or her sovereign was considered and treated as a foreigner (melzian 1937: 43). morton Fried was precise in postulating that the state is organized not on a non-kin but ‘suprakin’ basis (1970/1960: 692–3). Besides the problem of appearance of the state as a territory-based sociopolitical unit is complicated by an important circumstance: on the one hand, the early state is invariably by deinition, hierarchic, or ‘homoarchic’ as i prefer to call such cultures (e.g. Bondarenko 2005a, 2006, 2007a, 2007b; Bondarenko and nemirovskiy 2007),7 and on the other hand, non-state homoarchic societies are characterized just by a greater role of kinship ties in comparison with the role these ties play in heterarchic societies of the same overall complexity levels (see Bondarenko 2006). this regularity is observable among non-human primates whose associations ‘with more despotic dominant style of relations are more kin-oriented’ (Butovskaya 2000: 48). A comparison of heterarchic and homoarchic societies of primitive hunter-gatherers (e.g. the San and the Australian Aborigines) demonstrates the same (Artemova 2009).this pattern persists in much more complex cultures as well, including many contemporary Second and third World cultures (see Bondarenko 2000; Bondarenko and Korotayev 2004). Within them the connection between kinship orientation and homoarchic sociopolitical organization is much more sophisticated, the kinship orientation being normally institutionalized and sanctioned by conspicuous bodies of cultural norms, myths, beliefs and traditions, which in their turn signiicantly inluence the processes of sociopolitical transformation. thus, strong kin orientation serves as a precondition for sociocultural and political homoarchization necessary for early state formation, and as an obstacle on the way to the state being a predominantly non-kin based unit, at one and the same time. tricky point is that while the state as a societal type, including the early state, cannot but be based primarily on territorial ties, this does not mean that there have never been complex non-state societies based along lines other than kinship. Furthermore, the most complex of such societies, like the mountainous Daghestani traditional unions of neighbour communities— ‘republics’ (‘respubliki’) or ‘free associations’ (‘vol’nye obshchestva’) of the contemporary russian sources, may be called legitimately ‘alternatives to the (early) state’, i.e. they should be regarded as essentially non- rather than pre-state (vide stricto Korotayev 1995; Bondarenko 2006; Shtyrbul 2006). taking all the aforesaid into account, i nevertheless still agree with the argument that ‘the most fundamental … distinction [between the state and non-state societies] is that states are organized on political and territorial 166 Dmitri M. Bondarenko lines, not on the kinship lines…’ (Diamond 1997: 280). Hence, i also believe that the ‘kinship–territoriality’ criterion of diferentiation between the state and non-state societies is valid and deserves attention. What should be realized clearly and not forgotten while dealing with this criterion is that it is really evolutionary: ‘Kinship-based divisions [in the society] gradually lose their importance in favour of institutional, political and economic divisions’ (tymowski 2008: 172; emphasis mine). in this respect, history is a continuum of sociopolitical forms in the typological sequence. in this sequence one can observe a general dynamics from greater to less importance of kin versus territorial relations that eventually resulted in the fact that ‘kinship and other types of ascriptive relationship have ceased to be central organizing principles of society’ (Hallpike 1986: 1). So, by no means should one expect a gap from complete (or even almost complete) domination of kinship to absolute prominence of territorial ties. Bearing in mind the older idea that in the state, ‘territory’ dominates over ‘kinship’ on the one hand, and taking into account the earlier mentioned achievements of the twentieth-century anthropologists and historians, i shall say that the state in its full sense may be ixed in the situation when territorial ties clearly (though not overwhelmingly) dominate over those of kinship on the supralocal levels of a society’s complexity (Bondarenko 2008). indeed, categories like ‘clear but not overwhelming dominance’ sound inadequately deined and probably leave too much room for a researcher’s voluntarism, not like, for example, in the case when the state is deined through the category of ‘the kinship ties’ absence’. But such a ‘milder’ categorization does relect and capture the essentially evolutionary, gradual nature of the state formation process. the state and the community What i see as a true and reliably veriiable criterion of the territorial organization’s coming into prominence, is getting the practical possibilities by the government to recarve arbitrarily traditional, determined by kin grouping, division of the country’s territory into parts. Given it is possible,8 one has good reasons to argue that even if those social entities preserved their initial structure and the right to manage their purely internal afairs, they were nothing more than administrative (and taxpaying as well as labour providing) units in the wider context of state polity. naturally under such circumstances, such social entities are administered by functionaries either appointed or conirmed outside the community—in the political centre of the regional or/and the whole-polity level. Characteristically, with transition to the state the internal structure of communities tends to become simpler, Kinship and the State 167 communalists are not only burdened by diferent obligations but also given the right to sell community land, which would have undoubtedly undermined the society’s background if it had really been communitybased (Bondarenko and Korotayev 1999: 134). the third–second millennia bc near East gives especially vivid examples of the aforesaid. this is vitally important for an early state: if it fails to adapt the community to its needs, stagnation and decline of the political system follow (as it occured, for example, in the cases of the nineteenth-century West African Samori’s state and Kenedugu [tymowski 1985, 1987: 65–6]). in modern and contemporary polities, structural discrepancies between the community and the state, the dependent position of the former with regard to the latter, are completely apparent (see, mcGlynn and tuden 1991: 181–272). Generally, in a successful state, supreme power does not develop the community matrix further but rather ‘on the contrary begins to restructure society’ in its own image (Beliaev 2000: 194). indeed, as Kurtz rightly points out, ‘… the reduction of the inluence of local level organization upon the citizens’ is ‘a major goal’ of states’ legitimation strategies (Kurtz 1991/1984: 162; see also 2008). if it is a success, ‘the encompassment of the local sphere by the state’ (tanabe 1996: 154) becomes the case. in the meantime, the community’s adaptation to the needs of the state does not obligatorily mean the end of its development: the examples of the community and state structures’ co-evolution are given, for instance, by medieval and modern northern india and russia.9 the community usually decays only in the process of the wider society’s transition to capitalism10 as well as early institutions of kinship (Parsons 1960, 1966). Examples of the community’s disappearance in agricultural societies are seldom, Egypt from not later than the middle Kingdom on being the most prominent one (Vinogradov 1989: 143; Diakonof and Jakobson 1998: 26–7). However, even there ‘it is possible … that the ancient Egyptian peasantry, which for the most part seems to have continued to live in traditional villages long after the Old Kingdom, may have preserved signiicant aspects of communal social life …’ (trigger 1985: 59). Besides, ‘… probably in some respect whole Egypt was considered as a community with the pharaoh as its leader, and as not a neighbor [community] but a kin one…’ (Diakonof and Jakobson 1998: 27). it is true that bureaucracy can be developed poorly in early states. it also difers in a number of respects from its modern incarnation (Weber 1947, 1922: 333–4, 343; see also morony 1987: 9–10; Shiferd 1987: 48– 9).11 Yet, notwithstanding all this, in my opinion the presence or absence of the stratum of professional administrators, that is of bureaucracy, is a proper indicator of the state or non-state nature of a society. the very prospect for 168 Dmitri M. Bondarenko its political organization’s becoming bureaucratic may arise not from the presence or absence of the community but from its essentially community or non-community foundations.the situation when the family, lineage, and community organization inluences the form and nature of supralocal institutions was reversed with the rise of the state which tends to encompass all spheres of social life including family relations (trigger 2003: 194, 271, 274). in fact, this as well as the bureaucracy’s appearance and existence, becomes possible due to territorial ties coming into prominence. Only under such circumstances can a stranger unrelated to any member of a community by kin ties efectively be appointed the community ruler or his supervisor from above this local unit. this possibility can serve as another means of a society state nature’s veriication. the state and ideology of kinship As it is especially stressed by Godelier, ‘Kinship can be at any time transformed into an ideological construction…’ (1989: 6; emphasis mine). the very social nature of kinship that allows declaring and regarding as relatives of not only those who are such in the purely biological sense, provides the opportunities for manipulating kinship as ideology for various ends. Due to this, ‘in complex societies… you ind… strategies using kinship in order to keep or to acquire wealth and power. Kinship is manipulated in order to handle the relations of wealth and power existing beside and beyond kinship’ (Godelier 1989: 8). indeed, not only ‘primitive’ but also ‘extensive sociopolitical systems can be legitimized in kinship terms…’ (Claessen 2000b: 150). For example, in the inca state, manipulating kinship terminology was a common practice employed extensively for diferent political ends (Silverblatt 1988; zuidema 1990). Already in typologically pre-state societies, the ideology of kinship may become an efective means for manipulating mass consciousness for the sake of building up unequal social and political relations. the native and invader chiefs’ ictive genealogies and attraction of the poor’s labour by the rich under the mask of kin assistance are the most readily recalled relections of this fact. Of course, also ‘in most early states, ... overarching identities were usually expressed in terms of symbolic kinship, with gods, kings and queens often portrayed as the ‘fathers and mothers’ of their people’ (Spier 2005: 120; see also trigger 1985).thus it was typical of the early states’ subjects to perceive the state by analogy with the family and the sovereign by analogy with its head (see, ray 1991: 205; Vansina 1994: 37–8; tymowski 1996: 248). Exceptions to this rule could be represented by vast pristine ‘territorial states’ (not numerous in history), for example, in Egypt or China, where the Kinship and the State 169 supreme ruler’s sacrality was universalizing by character, destined to substantiate the ideology of territorial state by overcoming the resistance of the ideology of kinship (Demidchik 2002). Furthermore, the connotations of society with a family and of an authoritarian ruler with a family’s head, become consciously exploited for the sake of power’s irmer legitimation in mature states either, as it was, for example, in the sixteenth- and eighteenth-century France (Crest 2002). Queen Elizabeth i of England in the sixteenth century refused to marry, as her ideological premise was that she was mystically betrothed with her nation, and the royal propaganda persistently represented her as ‘the mother of the Country’ (Smith 1976). in pre-1917 russia, the paternalistic discourse of the monarch—subjects relations if not instilled oicially and formalized, yet was cultivated in the mass consciousness and determined the popular ideas of the ideal sovereign’s way of behaviour and responsibilities (Lukin 2000).12 Even Joseph Stalin in the industrialized, territory-based, and heavily bureaucratized Soviet union was unoicially but routinely called ‘father of the peoples’ by the propaganda (while children at kindergartens and primary schools were encouraged to call the leader of the socialist revolution ‘grand-dad Lenin’ till the very end of the Soviet era). Also, the founder of the modern secular turkish state is known by the name of Atatürk—‘the Father of the turks’ while in China Sun Yat-sen was posthumously (in 1940) oicially declared ‘the Father of the nation’ by the government.13 the exploitation of the idea of the society’s likening of the family and the Head of State to the family head is wide spread in the third World countries with authoritarian and totalitarian political regimes: for example, the former President of togo Gnassingbe Eyadema during his long stay in oice was proclaimed ‘the father of the nation’ as well as the President of Kenya Daniel arap moi (Sadovskaya 1999: 58). in zaïre (now Democratic republic of the Congo) the populace was encouraged to learn by heart and sing in chorus songs about the ‘matrimonial union of the people and the chief ’—the then Head of State mobutu (Sadovskaya 1999: 61). Another aspect of the problem of kinship ideology’s lourishing in postcolonial African states is grasped by Abbink: ‘most conspicuous in present day African political culture is the role of ethnicity and its constructions: Culture and “ictive kinship” are turned into a collective identity on the basis of which social and political claims are made and movements are made’ (2000: 5). So, it is obvious that the idea of likening a society to the family and hence its ruler to the latter’s head looks natural and suggest itself within the igurative thinking framework. it is not by chance that this image was readily exploited already in ancient states of the East and the West, Confucius’s teaching being the most prominent but not at all the only one 170 Dmitri M. Bondarenko of the respective sort (see nersesjants 1985; Stevenson 1992). it is also clear that this ideological postulate was not a complete innovation that appeared with the rise of the state but an outcome of reinterpretation under new circumstances of an older, pre-state ideology.14 However, the cases of the ideology of kinship’s exploitation in states should not be confused with cases of completely another sort. Even in very complex pre-industrial societies, not less complex than many early states, one can observe the circumstances of the sociopolitical construction’s encompassment not from above (as it must be in states) but from below, that is from the local community level while the community itself is underpinned by kin ties. i believe that such societies cannot be labelled as states and hence, taking into account their high overall complexity level, should be designated as ‘alternatives to the state’ (Bondarenko 2006). For example, in the thirteenth–nineteenth centuries Benin Kingdom, political relations were ‘naturally’ perceived and expressed in kinship terms—as is typical of an African society disregarding its classiication as a state or not. the spirits of royal ancestors ‘spread’ their authority on all the sovereign’s subjects. However, in Benin, kinship was not only an ideology; it was much more than this: it was the true, ‘objective’ sociocultural background of this supercomplex society that tied it into a ‘megacommunity’—a hierarchy of social and political institutions from the extended family to community,15 to chiefdom, and to kingdom, built up by the kin-based community matrix (see, Bondarenko 1995, 2004, 2005a, 2006: 64–88, 96–107). the integrity of the construction of the megacommunity was provided by the same mechanisms as that of a community while at the same time its very existence and prosperity of the populace was believed to be guaranteed by the presence of the dynasty of sacralized supreme rulers titled Obas (see Bondarenko 1995a: 176–80). megacommunity institutions towered above local communities and chiefdoms, established their dominance over them but in the essentially communal Benin society with a lack of pronounced priority of territorial ties over kin ones, even those who governed at the supreme level could not become professional administrators. the Benin mega community’s speciicity was in integration on a rather vast territory of a complex, ‘many-tier’ society predominantly on the basis of the transformed kin principle supplemented by a ‘grain’ of a territorial one.this basis was inherited from the community, within which extended families preserved kinship relations not only within themselves but with each other as well, supplementing them by neighbourhood relations. in the Benin community, kin ties were accompanied and supplemented by territorial ones. no doubt, in the process and after the megacommunity formation (probably by the mid-thirteenth century), the importance of territorial ties grew considerably. However, it should be emphasized once again that, as well as before, such ties were built in the kin relations not in the ideological Kinship and the State 171 sphere alone but in realities of the sociopolitical organization (Bradbury 1957: 31).the community did not just preserve itself when the supercomplex sociopolitical construction of the kingdom appeared: it went on playing the part of the fundamental socio-political institution notwithstanding the number of complexity levels overbuilding it. Besides the thirteenth–nineteenth centuries Benin Kingdom, i shall also designate as megacommunity, for instance, the Bamum Kingdom of the late sixteenth–nineteenth centuries in present-day Cameroon which as a whole represented an extension up to the supercomplex level of the lineage principles and organization forms, so the society acquired the shape of ‘maximal lineage’ (tardits 1980). Analogously, in traditional kingdoms of another part of that post-colonial state, in the Grasslands, ‘the monarchical system … is … in no way a totally unique and singular form of organization but displays a virtually identical structure to that of the lineage groups’ (Koloss 1992: 42). Outside Africa megacommunities (although not obligatorily of the Benin, that is based on the kin-oriented local community, type) may be recognized, for example, in the indian societies of the late irst millennium bc–irst century ad. naturally, difering in many respects from the Benin pattern, they nevertheless it the main distinctive feature of megacommunity as a non-state social type: the integration of a supercomplex (exceeding the complex chiefdom level) society on the community basis and the whole society’s encompassment from the local level upwards. in particular, Samozvantsev describes those societies as permeated by communal orders notwithstanding the diference in sociopolitical organization forms (2001). ‘the principle of communality’, he argues, was the most important factor of social organization in india during that period (see also Lielukhine 2009). in the south of india this situation lasted much longer, till the time of the Vijayanagara Empire—the mid-fourteenth century when the region inally saw ‘… the greater centralization of political power and the resultant concentration of resources in the royal bureaucracy…’ (Palat 1987: 170). A number of other examples of supercomplex societies in which ‘the supracommunity political structure was shaped according to the community type’ is provided by the irst millennium ad South-East Asian societies, like Funan and possibly Dvaravati (rebrikova 1987: 159–63; see, however, mudar 1999). the speciicity of the megacommunity becomes especially apparent at its comparison with the ‘galaxy-like’ states studied by tambiah (1977, 1985) in South-East Asia. Like these states, a megacommunity has the political and ritual centre—the capital which is the residence of the sacralized ruler—and the near, middle, and remote circles of periphery round it. However, notwithstanding its seeming centripetality, a megacommunity culture’s true focus is the community, not the centre, as in those South-East Asian cases. As a heterarchic non-kin-ties-based megacommunity, or a civil megacommunity, one can consider the societies 172 Dmitri M. Bondarenko of the polis type (Bondarenko 1998, 2000, 2006: 92–6; Shtyrbul 2006: 123–35). thus, there is no direct conformity between the sociopolitical (transition to the state) and ideological (departure from the ideology of kinship) processes—a fact that should be acknowledged and given due attention by researchers. notes 1. However, see Kurtz’s (2001: 189–213) reasonings on postmodernists’ positive contribution to inding better political anthropological approaches to some speciic problems related to contemporary issues such as terrorism. 2. in the marxist theory, the transition from kin to territorial ties has begun to serve as an essential precondition for social classes formation prior to which the rise of the state was declared impossible, as the state was seen as a political organization predestined for guaranteeing the exploitative class’ dominance in society. Particularly, Engels wrote: As far as the state arose due to the need to keep in check the opposite of classes; as far as at the same time it arose in the very clashes of those classes, according to the general rule it is the state of the most powerful, economically dominant class which with the help of the state becomes the politically dominant class as well, and thus acquires new means for suppression and exploitation of the oppressed class. (1985/1884: 198–9) most rigidly this postulate was formulated by Lenin: ‘the state appears where and when the division of society into classes appears’ (1974, 1917: 67). in fact, hardly not the main point of a marxist social scientist’s departure from the camp of ‘orthodoxes’ to that of ‘creative marxists’ was his or her desire to reconcile this dogma with historical and ethnographic facts. Particularly, in the West this led to the appearance of ‘structural marxism’ with its tendency ‘… to reverse the causal relationship between base and superstructure…’ (Sanderson 2003:180). At the same time, in the Soviet union the meaningless euphemism for the Early State, ranneklassovoe obshchestvo (‘early-class society’) was invented. 3. See maine 1861, 1875; morgan 1877; Engels 1985, 1884 vs., e.g. EvansPritchard 1940: 198 f.; Fortes and Evans-Pritchard 1987, 1940: XiV–XX, 6–7, 10–11; Lowie 1927, 1948: 10–12, 317–18; Schapera 1956; middleton and tait 1958: 5; mair 1970, 1962: 11–16; 1965: 99–100. recent criticisms on contemporary evolutionists’ attempts to look at the process of complex growth (including state formation) in the light of the idea of an unlinching move from kinship to territory see mcintosh 1999: 1–30, 166–72. 4. For overview of changes in the dominant standpoints on the biological or social nature of the phenomenon of kinship from the mid-nineteenth till the early twenty-irst century and the substantiation of kinship as a biology-related social phenomenon see Bondarenko 2006: 64–6. 5. See also: Lewis 1965: 99–101, 1999: 47–8; Claessen 1978: 589; Claessen and Skalník 1978a: 641, 1978b: 22; Korotayev and Obolonkov 1989. Kinship and the State 173 6. However, it should not be overlooked that this modern time legal tradition was rooted in the political and ideological heritage of the preceding, medieval, historical period. it reminds one of the transformation from the merovingian title ‘King of the Franks’ to the Capetian ‘King of France’. 7. i have added emphases to those parts of the Claessen and Skalník’s well-known definition of the early state that testify to their understanding of this phenomenon as clearly hierarchic/homoarchic by nature: the early state is a centralized socio-political organization for the regulation of social relations in a complex, stratiied society divided into at least two basic strata, or emergent social classes—viz. the rulers and the ruled—, whose relations are characterized by political dominance of the former and tributary obligations of the latter, legitimized by a common ideology of which reciprocity is the basic principle (1978a: 640). 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. in the most recent version of the early state deinition, the passages emphasized by us in the deinition of 1978 remained practically unchanged (Claessen et al. 2008: 260). Another deinition of the irst form of the state, called ‘archaic’ by its authors, stresses the same, homoarchic, features of it: ‘… archaic states were societies with (minimally) two class-endogamous strata (a professional ruling class and a commoner class) and a government that was both highly centralized and internally specialized (marcus and Feinman 1998: 4, emphasis mine). the examples of such deinitions could be multiplied easily. For instance, if the central authority can solute original units with others or cut them into parts. Of course, the coexistence of community and state is among the most typical and important features of the sociopolitical composition of many contemporary post-colonial countries, especially African. However, such examples are nonapplicable to the present discussion as far as the state, at least in its present form, appeared there due not to internal processes explication but as a result of external imposing and implantation in the nineteenth–twentieth centuries. So, these cases demonstrate the community and state’s coexistence rather than organic co-evolution. See, e.g. Kamen 2000: 126–37. though numerous coincidences between modern Western and pre-modern Chinese bureaucratic machines are striking, and was noticed by Weber (see Creel 2001, 1970: 13–17). in particular, the paternalistic discourse was relected and expressed vividly in many widely-used russian-language idioms, such as tsar’-batjushka (‘tsarfather’) or tsaritsa-matushka (‘tsarina-mother’) the author is grateful to Dr Vladimir Golovachyov for the information about Sun Yat-sen. this prestate legacy is especially vivid in the political philosophy of Confucius wherein a state is likened to a clan and the sovereign is likened to the latter’s head. noteworthy, the ideas of Confucius were rooted deeply in the archaic popular religious beliefs (Baum 2004). First of all, this was the ancestor cult observable in China from the Longshan period on (third millennium bc) (Stepugina 2004: 379). 174 Dmitri M. Bondarenko 15. in Benin a community typically integrated more than one extended family. references Abbink, Jon (2000), ‘Violence and State (re)formation in the African Context:the General and the Particular’, paper presented at the Seminar ‘War and Society’, Aarhus university, Denmark. Ardrey, robert (1966), The Territorial Imperative: A Personal Inquiry into the Animal Origins of Property and Nation, new York: Atheneum. Artemova, Olga Yu (2009), Koleno Isava: Okhotniki, sobirateli, rybolovy (opyt izuchenija al’ternativnykh sotsial’nykh sistem) [The Kin of Iesau: Hunters, Gatherers, Fishers (A Study of Alternative Social Systems)], moscow: Smysl. Baum, richard (2004), ‘ritual and rationality: religious roots of the Bureaucratic State in Ancient China’, Social Evolution and History, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 41–68. Beliaev, Dmitri D. (2000), ‘Early State in the Classic maya Lowlands: Epigraphic and Archaeological Evidence’, in Alternatives of Social Evolution, ed. nikolay n. Kradin, Andrey V. Korotayev, Dmitri m. Bondarenko,Victor de munck and Paul K. Wason,Vladivostok: Far Eastern Branch of the russian Academy of Sciences Press, pp. 188–95. Belkov, P.L. (1995), ‘rannee gosudarstvo, predgosudarstvo, protogosudarstvo: igra v terminy?’ [‘Early State, Prestate, Protostate: terms Game?’], in Rannie formy politicheskoj organizatsii: ot pervobytnosti k gosudarstvennosti [Early Forms of Political Organization: From Primitivity to Statehood], ed.V.A. Popov, moscow:Vostochnaja literatura, pp. 165–87. Bloch, marc (1961/1939–40), Feudal Society, Chicago: university of Chicago Press. Boas, Franz (1940), Race, Language and Culture, new York: macmillan. Bondarenko, Dmitri m. (1995), ‘megacommunity as a Variant of Structure and type of the Socium: Precolonial Benin’, in Alternative Pathways to Early State, ed. Kradin and Lynsha, Vladivostok: Dal’nauka, pp. 100–8. ——— (1997), Teorija tsivilizatsij i dinamika istoricheskogo protsessa v dokolonial’noj Tropicheskoj Afrike [Civilizations Theory and the Historical Process Dynamics in Precolonial Tropical Africa], moscow: institute for African Studies Press. ——— (1998), ‘mnogolinejnost’ sotsial’noj evoljutsii i al’ternativy gosudarstvu’ [‘the multilinearity of Social Evolution and Alternatives to the State’], Vostok/ Oriens, vol. 1, pp. 195–202. ——— (2000), ‘Homologous Series of Social Evolution and Alternatives to the State in World History’, in Alternatives of Social Evolution, ed. nikolay n. Kradin, Andrey V. Korotayev, Dmitri m. Bondarenko, Victor de munck and Paul K. Wason, Vladivostok: Far Eastern Branch of the russian Academy of Sciences Press, pp. 213–19. ——— (2004), ‘From Local Communities to megacommunity: Biniland in the 1st millennium B.C.—19th Century A.D.’, in The Early State, Its Alternatives and Analogues, ed. Leonid E. Grinin et al., Volgograd: uchitel, pp. 325–63. Kinship and the State 175 ——— (2005a), ‘A Homoarchic Alternative to the Homoarchic State: Benin Kingdom of the 13th—19th Centuries’, Social Evolution and History, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 18–88. ——— (2005b), ‘Benin Xiii—XiX vv.: byli li verkhovnye vozhdi bjurokratami, a strana—gosudarstvom?’ [‘Benin of the 13th—19th Centuries: Were titled Chiefs Bureaucrats and Was the Country a State?’], in Granitsa, Rubezh, Perekhod, Sotsiokul’turnoe pogranichje v global’nom i regional’nom aspektakh [Frontier, Border, Passage: Socio-cultural Borderline in Global and Regional Aspects], ed. igor V. Sledzevski, moscow: institute for African Studies Press, pp. 80–8. ——— (2006), Homoarchy: A Principle of Culture’s Organization: The 13th—19th Centuries Benin Kingdom as a Non-State Supercomplex Society, moscow: uSSr. ——— (2007a), ‘Homoarchy as a Principle of Socio-Political Organization: An introduction’, Anthropos, vol. 102, pp. 187–99. ——— (2007b), ‘What is there in a Word? Heterarchy, Homoarchy and the Diference in understanding Complexity in the Social Sciences and Complexity Studies’, in Explorations in Complexity Thinking: Pre-Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Complexity and Philosophy, ed. Kurt A. richardson and Paul Cilliers, mansield, mA: iSCE Publishing, pp. 35–48. ——— (2008), ‘Kinship, territoriality and the Early State Lower Limit’, Social Evolution and History, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 19–53. Bondarenko, Dmitri m. and Andrey V. Korotayev (1999), ‘Politogenez, “gomologicheskie rjady” i nelinejnye modeli sotsial’noj evoljutsii (K krosskul’turnomu testirovaniju nekotorykh politantropologicheskikh gipotez)’ [‘Political Organization, ‘Homologous Series’, and non-linear models of Social Evolution (to Cross-cultural testing of Some Political-anthropological Hypotheses)’], Obshchestvennye nauki i sovremennost’, vol. 5, pp. 128–39. ———, eds., (2000), Civilizational Models of Politogenesis, moscow: Center for Civilizational and regional Studies Press, pp. 35–53. ——— (2004), ‘A Historical-anthropological Look at Some Sociopolitical Problems of Second and third World Countries’, in Community, Identity and the State. Comparing Africa, Eurasia, Latin America and the Middle East, ed. moshe Gammer, London; new York: routledge, pp. 14–41. Bondarenko, Dmitri m. and Alexander A. nemirovskiy, eds. (2007), Alternativity in Cultural History: Heterarchy and Homoarchy as Evolutionary Trajectories. Third International Conference ‘Hierarchy and Power in the History of Civilizations’, June 18–21 2004, Moscow: Selected Papers, moscow: Center for Civilizational and regional Studies Press. Bradbury, robert E. (1957), The Benin Kingdom and the Edo-Speaking Peoples of Southwestern Nigeria, London: international African institute Press. Butovskaya, marina L. (2000), ‘Biosocial Preconditions for Socio-political Alternativity’, in Civilizational Models of Politogenesis, ed. Dmitri m. Bondarenko and Andrey V. Korotayev, moscow: Center for Civilizational and regional Studies Press, pp. 35–53. Campbell, John m. (1968), ‘territoriality among Ancient Hunters: interpretations from Ethnography and nature’, in Anthropological Archaeology in the Americas, ed. 176 Dmitri M. Bondarenko Betty J. meggers, Washington, DC: Anthropological Society of Washington, pp. 1–21. Cashdan, Elizabeth A. (1983), ‘territoriality Among Human Foragers: Ecological models and an Application to Four Bushman Groups’, Current Anthropology, vol., 24, pp. 47–66. Casimir, michael J. and Aparnu rao, eds. (1992), Mobility and Territoriality: Social and Spatial Boundaries among Foragers, Fishers, Pastoralists and Peripatetics, Oxford: Berg. Claessen, Henri J.m. (1978), ‘the Early State: A Structural Approach’, in The Early State, ed. Henri J. m. Claessen and P. Skalník, the Hague: mouton, pp. 533–96. ——— (2000a), ‘Problems, Paradoxes, and Prospects of Evolutionism’, in Alternatives of Social Evolution, ed. nikolay n. Kradin et al.,Vladivostok: Far Eastern Branch of the russian Academy of Sciences Press, pp. 1–11. ——— (2000b), Structural Change: Evolution and Evolutionism in Cultural Anthropology, Leiden: Leiden university. Claessen, Henri J. m., renée r. Hagesteijn and Pieter van de Velde (2008), ‘Early State today’, Social Evolution and History, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 245–65. Claessen, Henri J.m. and Petr Skalník (1978a), ‘the Early State: models and reality’, in The Early State, ed. Henri J.m. Claessen and Petr Skalník,the Hague: mouton, pp. 637–50. ——— (1978b), ‘the Early State: theories and Hypotheses’, in The Early State, ed. Henri J.m. Claessen and Petr Skalník, the Hague: mouton, pp. 3–30. Creel, Herrlee G. (2001, 1970), Stanovlenie gosudarstvennoj vlasti v Kitae: Imperija Zapadnaja Chzhou [The Origins of Statecraft in China: The Western Chou Empire], St. Petersburg: Evrazija. Crest, Aurélie du (2002), Modèle familial et pouvoir monarchique (XVIe—XVIIIe siècles), Aix-en-Provence: Presses universitaires d’Aix-marseille. Creveld, martin van (1999), The Rise and Decline of the State, Cambridge: Cambridge university Press. Demidchik, A.E. (2002), ‘Primechatel’naja osobennost’ ideologii drevnejshikh territorial’nykh gosudarstv’ [‘A remarkable Feature of the most Ancient territorial States’ ideology’], in Istorija i kul’tura Vostoka Azii [History and Culture of the East of Asia], ed.V.S. Alkin, vol. i, novosibirsk: institute of Archaeology and Ethnography Press, pp. 76–9. Diagne, Pathé (1970), ‘Contribution à l’analyse des régimes et systèmes politiques traditionnels en Afrique de l’Ouest’, Bulletin de l’Institut Fondamental d’Afrique Noire (Sér. B), vol. 32, pp. 845–87. Diakonof, i.m. and V.A. Jakobson (1998), ‘Grazhdanskoe obshchestvo v drevnosti’ [‘Civil Society in Antiquity’], Vestnik drevnej istorii, vol. 1, pp. 22–30. Diamond, Jared (1997), Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies, new York and London: norton. Diop, Cheikh A. (1960), L’Afrique Noire précoloniale: Etude comparée des systems politiques et sociaux de l’Europe et de l’Afrique Noire, de l’antiquité à la formation des états modernes, Paris: Présence africaine. Duby, George (1970), Struktura sem’i v srednevekovoj Zapadnoj Evrope [Family Structure in Medieval Western Europe], moscow: nauka. Kinship and the State 177 Engels, Friedrich (1985, 1884), Proiskhozhdenie sem’i, chastnoj sobstvennosti i gosudarstva [The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State], moscow: Politizdat. Evans-Pritchard, Edward E. (1940), The Nuer: A Description of the Modes of Livelihood and Political Institutions of a Nilotic People, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Fortes, meyer, and Edward E. Evans-Pritchard, eds. (1987, 1940), African Political Systems, London and new York: KPi and international African institute. Fried, morton H. (1970/1960), ‘On the Evolution of Social Stratiication and the State’, in The Logic of Social Hierarchies, ed. Edward O. Laumann, Paul m. Siegel and robert W. Hodge, Chicago: markham, pp. 684–95. Geertz, Cliford (1973), The Interpretation of Cultures, new York: Basic Books. ——— (1983), Local Knowledge: Further Essays in Interpretative Anthropology, new York: Basic Books. Genicot, Léopold (1968), Le XIIIe siècle européen, Paris: Presses universitaires de France. Gledhill, John (1994), Power and Its Disguises: Anthropological Perspectives on Politics, London and Chicago: Pluto Press. Godelier, maurice (1989), ‘Kinship and the Evolution of Society’, in Kinship, Social Change, and Evolution. Proceedings of a Symposium Held in Honour of Walter Dostal, ed. André Gingrich, Siegfried Haas, Sylvia Haas and Gabriele Paleczek, Wien: Berger und Söhne, pp. 3–9. Haas, Jonathan, ed. (2001), From Leaders to Rulers, new York and Boston: Kluwer Academic and Plenum Publishers. Hallpike, C.r. (1986), The Principles of Social Evolution, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Herskovits, melville J. (1955), Cultural Anthropology, new York: Knopf. ingold, tim (1996), ‘General introduction’, in Key Debates in Anthropology, ed. tim ingold, London and new York: routledge, pp. 1–14. Jaspers, Karl (1953 [1949]), The Origin and Goal of History, new Haven, Ct: Yale university Press. Kamen, Henry (2000), Early Modern European Society, London and new York: routledge. Koloss, Hans-Joachim (1992), ‘Kwifon and Fon in Oku: On Kingship in the Cameroon Grasslands’, in Kings of Africa: Art and Authority in Central Africa, ed. Erna Beumers and Hans-Joachim Koloss, maastricht: Foundation Kings of Africa, pp. 33–42. Kopytof, igor, ed. (1987), The African Frontier: The Reproduction of Traditional African Societies, Bloomington, in and indianapolis, in: indiana university Press. Korotayev, Andrey V. (1995), ‘mountains and Democracy: An introduction’, in Alternative Pathways to Early State, ed. n. Kradin and A. Lynsha, Vladivostok: Dal’nauka, 1995, pp. 60–74. Korotayev, Andrey V. and A.A. Obolonkov (1989), ‘rodovaja organizatsija v sotsial’no-ekonomicheskoj strukture klassovykh obshchestv’ [‘unilineal Descent Organization in the Socio-economic Structure of Class Societies’], Sovetskaja etnograija, vol. 2, pp. 36–45. Kradin, nikolay n. and Valery A. Lynsha, eds. (1995), Alternative Pathways to Early State, Vladivostok: Dal’nauka. 178 Dmitri M. Bondarenko Kurtz, Donald V. (1991, 1984), ‘Strategies of Legitimation and the Aztec State’, in Anthropologocial Approaches to Political Behaviour, ed. F. mcGlynn and A. tuden, Pittsburgh: university of Pittsburgh Press, 1991, pp. 146–65. ——— (2001), Political Anthropology: Paradigms and Power, Boulder, CO and Oxford: Westview Press. ——— (2008), ‘Social Boundary networks and the Vertical Entrenchment of Government Authority in Early State Formations’, Social Evolution and History, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 131–53. Lenin,V.i. (1974/1917), ‘Gosudarstvo i revoljutsija’ [‘the State and the revolution’], in Polnoe sobranie sochinenij [Collected Works], ed.V.i. Lenin, vol. XXXiii, moscow: Politicheskaja literatura, pp. 1–120. Lewis, ioan m. (1965), ‘Problems in the Comparative Study of unilineal Descent’, in The Relevance of Models for Social Anthropology, ed. michael Banton, London: tavistock, pp. 87–112. ——— (1999), Arguments with Ethnography: Comparative Approaches to History, Politics and Religion, London and new Brunswick, nJ: Athlone Press. Lielukhine, Dmitri n. (2002), ‘Problem of the State and its Criteria’, in Second International Conference ‘Hierarchy and Power in the History of Civilizations. Abstracts, ed. Dmitri D. Beliaev, Dmitri m. Bondarenko and Serguei A. Frantsouzof, moscow: russian Academy of Sciences, pp. 83–5. ——— (2009), ‘Kollektivnye organy upravlenija i ikh rol’ v structure indijskogo gosudarstva’ [Collective Administrative Bodies and their role in the indian State’s Structure’], Istorija i sovremennost’ vol. 1, pp. 56–72. Lowie, robert H. (1927), The Origin of the State, new York: russel and russel. ——— (1948), Social Organization, new York: rinehart. Lukin, P.V. (2000), Narodnye predstavlenija o gosudarstvennoj vlasti v Rossii XVII veka [Popular Ideas of State Power in the 17th Century Russia], moscow: nauka. ——— (1861), Ancient Law: Its Connection with the Early History of Society and Its Relation to Modern Ideas, London: murray. maine, Henry S. (1875), Lectures on the Early History of Institutions, London: murray. ——— (1965), An Introduction to Social Anthropology, Oxford: Clarendon Press. mair, Lucy (1970/1962), Primitive Government, Baltimore, mD: Penguin Books. malmberg, torsten (1980), Human Territoriality: Survey of Behavioral Territories in Man with Preliminary Analysis and Discussion of Meaning, the Hague: mouton. marcus, Joyce and Gary m. Feinman (1998), ‘introduction’, in Archaic States, ed. Gary m. Feinman and Joyce marcus, Santa Fe, nm: School of American research Press, pp. 3–13. mcGlynn, Frank and Arthur tuden, eds. (1991), Anthropological Approaches to Political Behavior, Pittsburgh: university of Pittsburgh Press. mcintosh, Susan K., ed. (1999), Beyond Chiefdoms: Pathways to Complexity in Africa, Cambridge: Cambridge university Press. melzian, Hans J. (1937), A Concise Dictionary of the Bini Language of Southern Nigeria, London: Paul, trench, trubner and Co. middleton, John and David tait, eds. (1958), Tribes without Rulers, London: routledge & Kegan Paul. Kinship and the State 179 morgan, Lewis H. (1877), Ancient Society, Or Researches in the Lines of Human Progress from Savagery through Barbarism to Civilization, Cleveland, OH: World Publishing Co. morony, m.G. (1987), ‘in the City without Watchdogs the Fox is the Overseer: issues and Problems in the Study of Bureaucracy’, in The Organization of Power Aspects of Bureaucracy in the Ancient Near East, ed. mcGuire Gibson and robert D. Biggs, Chicago: university of Chicago Press, pp. 7–18. mudar, Karen m. (1999), ‘How many Dvaravati Kingdoms? Locational Analysis of First millennium AD moated Settlements in Central thailand’, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, vol. 18, pp. 1–28. murra, John V. (1980), The Economic Organization of the Inca State, Greenwich, Ct: JAi Press. nepomnin, O.E. (2004), ‘Aziatsko-despoticheskaja sistema traditsionnogo obshchestva’ [‘the Asiatic-Despotic System of traditional Society’], in Alaica: Sbornik nauchnykh trudov rossijskikh vostokovedov, podgotovlennyj k 70–letnemu jubileju professora, doktora istoricheskikh nauk L.B. Alaeva [Alaica. Festschrift for the 70th Anniversary of Professor, Doctor of Sciences L.B. Alaev], ed. O.E. nepomnin, moscow: Vostochnaja literatura, pp. 67–96. nersesjants, V.S., ed. (1985), Istorija politicheskikh i pravovykh uchenij (Drevnij mir) [A History of Political and Legal Teachings (Antiquity)], moscow: nauka. Palat, ravi A. (1987), ‘the Vijayanagara Empire. re-integration of the Agrarian Order of medieval South india, 1336—1565’, in Early State Dynamics, ed. Henri J. m. Claessen and Pieter van de Velde, Leiden: Brill, pp. 170–86. Parsons,talcott (1960), Structure and Process in Modern Societies, new York: Free Press. ——— (1966), Societies: Evolutionary and Comparative Perspectives, Englewood Clifs, nJ: Prentice-Hall. Peterson, n. (1975), ‘Hunter-Gatherer territoriality:the Perspective from Australia’, American Anthropologist, vol. 77, pp. 53–68. ray, Benjamin C. (1991), Myth, Ritual, and Kingship in Buganda, new York and Oxford: OuP. rebrikova, n.V. (1987), ‘Gosudarstvo, obshchina, klass v buddijskikh obshchestvakh tsentral’nogo indokitaja (V—XV vv.)’ [‘State, Community, Class in Buddhist Societies of Central indo-China (5th—15th Centuries)’], in Gosudarstvo v dokapitalisticheskikh obshchestvakh Azii [The State in Precapitalist Societies of Asia], ed. G.F. Kim and K.z. Ashrafjan, moscow: nauka, pp. 158–80. reynolds, Susan (1990), Kingdoms and Communities in Western Europe, 900—1300, 2nd edn., Oxford: Clarendon Press. Sadovskaya, L.m. (1999), ‘Politicheskaja kul’tura afrikanskogo lidera (kharizma, vozhdizm)’ [‘Political Culture of the African Leader (Charisma, Chieftaining)’], in Afrika: osobennosti politicheskoj kul’tury [Africa: Speciics of Political Culture], ed. n.D. Kosukhin, moscow: institute for African Studies Press, pp. 56–71. Samozvantsev, A.m. (2001), ‘Sotsial’no-pravovaja organizatsija indijskogo obshchestva v kontse i tys. do n.e.—pervoj polovine i tys. n.e.’ [‘the Socio-legal Organization of indian Society in the Late 1st millennium BC—First Half of the 1st millennium AD’], in Gosudarstvo v istorii obshchestva. K probleme kriteriev gosudarstvennosti [State in the History of Society: On the Problem of the Statehood 180 Dmitri M. Bondarenko Criteria], ed. D.n. Lielukhine and Yu.V. Ljubimov, moscow: institute of Oriental Studies Press, pp. 259–92. Sanderson, Stephen K. (2003), ‘review of robert L. Carneiro, Evolutionism in Cultural Anthropology: A Critical History’, Social Evolution and History, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 176–85. Schapera, isaac (1956), Government and Politics in Tribal Society, London: Watts. Schurtz, Heinrich (1902), Alterklassen und Männerbünde: Eine Darstellung der Grundformen der Gesellschaft, Berlin: reimer. Shiferd, Patricia A. (1987), ‘Aztecs and Africans: Political Processes in twenty-two Early States’, in Early State Dynamics, ed. Henri J.m. Claessen and Pieter van de Velde, Leiden: Brill, pp. 39–53. Shtyrbul, A.A.(2006), Bezgosudarstvennye obshchestva v epokhu gosudarstvennosti (III tysjacheletije do n. e.—II tysjacheletije n. e.) [Stateless Societies in the Epoch of Statehood (3rd Millennium BC—2nd Millennium AD)], Omsk: Omsk State teaching university Press. Silverblatt, irene (1988), ‘imperial Dilemmas, the Politics of Kinship, and inka reconstructions of History’, Comparative Studies in Society and History, vol. 30, pp. 83–102. Skalník, Petr (1983), ‘Questioning the Concept of the State in indigenous Africa’, Social Dynamics, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 11–28. ——— (1987), ‘On the inadequacy of the Concept of “traditional State” (illustrated by Ethnographic material on nanun, Ghana)’, Journal of Legal Pluralism and Unoicial Law, vols. 25–6, pp. 301–25. Smith, Edward O. (1976), Crown and Commonwealth: A Study in the Oicial Elizabethan Doctrine of the Prince, Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society. Spier, Fred (2005), ‘How Big History Works: Energy Flows and the rise and Demise of Complexity’, Social Evolution and History, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 87–135. Stepugina, t. V. (2004), ‘Gosudarstvo i obshchestvo v drevnem Kitae’ [‘the State and Society in Ancient China’], in Gosudarstvo na Drevnem Vostoke [The State in Ancient East], ed. E.A. Grantovskij and t.V. Stepugina, moscow: Vostochnaja literatura, pp. 375–448. Stevenson,t.r. (1992), ‘the ideal Benefactor and the Father Analogy in Greek and roman thought’, Classical Quarterly, vol. 42, pp. 421–36. tambiah, Stanley J. (1977), ‘the Galactic Polity: the Structure of traditional Kingdoms in Southeast Asia’, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, vol. 293, pp. 69–97. ——— (1985), Culture, Thought, and Social Action: An Anthropological Perspective, Cambridge, mA: Harvard university Press. tanabe, Akio (1996), ‘indigenous Power, Hierarchy and Dominance: State Formation in Orissa, india’, in Ideology and the Formation of Early States, ed. Henri J.m. Claessen and Jarich G. Oosten, Leiden: Brill, pp. 154–65. tardits, Claude (1980), Le royaume Bamoum, Paris: Colin. testart, Alain (2005), Eléments de classiication des sociétés, Paris: Editions Errance. trigger, Bruce G. (1985), ‘Generalized Coercion and inequality: the Basis of State Power in the Early Civilizations’, in Development and Decline: The Evolution of Kinship and the State 181 Sociopolitical Organization, ed. Henri J.m. Claessen, Pieter van de Velde and m. Estellie Smith, South Hadley, mA: Bergin and Garvey, pp. 46–61. ——— (2003), Understanding Early Civilizations: A Comparative Study, Cambridge: Cambridge university Press. tyler, Stephen A. (1986), ‘Post-modern Ethnography: From Document of the Occult to Occult Document’, in Writing Culture, ed. James Cliford and George E. marcus, Berkeley and Los Angeles: university of California Press, pp. 122–40. tymowski, michal (1985), ‘the Evolution of Primitive Political Organization from Extended Family to Early State’, in Development and Decline: The Evolution of Sociopolitical Organization, ed. Henri J.m. Claessen, Pieter van de Velde and m. Estellie Smith, South Hadley, mA: Bergin and Garvey, pp. 183–95. ——— (1987), ‘the Early State and After in Precolonial West Sudan: Problems of the Stability of Political Organizations and the Obstacles to their Development’, in Early State Dynamics, ed. Henri J.m. Claessen and Pieter van de Velde, Leiden: Brill, pp. 54–69. ——— (1996), ‘Oral tradition, Dynastic Legend and Legitimation of Ducal Power in the Process of the Formation of the Polish State’, in Ideology and the Formation of Early States, ed. Henri J.m. Claessen and Jarich G. Oosten, pp. 242–25, Leiden: Brill. ——— (2008), ‘State and tribe in the History of medieval Europe and Black Africa: A Comparative Approach’, Social Evolution and History, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 171–97. Vansina, Jan (1994), ‘Antécédents des royaumes kongo et teke’, Muntu, vol. 9, pp. 7–49. Vincent, Jeanne-Françoise (1987), ‘Le pouvoir dans les sociétés hiérarchisées’, in L’Afrique d’une société savante, ed. marie-Paule Ferry, Paris: musée de l’Homme, pp. 47–8. Vinogradov, i. V. (1989), ‘rannee i Drevnee tsarstva Egipta’ [‘Early and Old Kingdom Egypt’], in Istorija drevnego mira [Ancient History], vol. i, Rannjaja drevnost’ [Early Antiquity], ed. i.m. Diakonof,V.D. neronova, and i.S. Sventsitskaja, moscow: nauka, pp. 140–60. Weber, max (1947/1922), The Theory of Social and Economic Organization, new York: OuP. Winter, Edward H. (1966), ‘territorial Groupings and religion among the iraq’, in Anthropological Approaches to the Study of Religion, ed. michael Banton, London: tavistock, pp. 155–74. Wittfogel, Karl A. (1957), Oriental Despotism: A Comparative Study of Total Power, new Haven, Ct: Yale university Press. zuidema, reiner t. (1990), Inca Civilization in Cuzco, Austin: university of texas Press.