Sociopolitical organization

The volume represents an attempt of a complex study of the politogenetic processes in their regional and temporary variety. The authors hope that their survey can and should also promote a better understanding of the general tendencies and mechanisms of cultural and sociopolitical evolution, of the interrelation and interaction of cultural, social, and political formats in the human society. The authors believe that the use of principles and methods of the civilizational approach in politogenetic studies, on the one hand, and the inclusion of the politogenesis into the problem area of civilizations studies, on the other hand, creates the effect of novelty in terms of both anthropology and civilizations studies, enriches their scientific toolkit and expands heuristic limits.

The authors of this article depart from the idea that certain alternatives of development can be distinguished for every level of social evolution complexity. Different social and political forms have co-existed, competed with each other for a long time, and for some specific ecological and social niches non-general (in the retrospect) lines, models and variants could turn out more competitive and adequate than those that became dominant later. Hence as a rule, the argument about any inevitable outcome of evolution is true only in the most general respect (and only if certain conditions are observed): as an outcome of long-lasting competition between different forms, their disappearance, transformations, social selection, adaptation to various ecological conditions and so forth, while such an outcome could be not inevitable for each and every society in particular.

Проблема истории властных отношений и институтов является сегодня одной из наиболее актуальных для целого ряда научных дисциплин: антропологии, истории, политологии, культурологии, философии. Особое значение данная проблематика имеет для все более активно развивающихся ныне междисциплинарных исследований в области общественных наук. Целью авторов коллективной монографии является изучение на материалах большого количества конкретных обществ древности, средних веков и раннего нового времени, комплекса явлений, обусловленных тем фундаментальным, но зачастую не понимаемым и игнорируемым фактом, что политическая культура, политическая организация являются частью, проявлением и отражением типа культуры, присущего данной цивилизации в целом. Этот цивилизационный тип культуры, разнящийся в разных цивилизациях, и определяет многообразие, вариативность темпов, форм, направлений, пределов социокультурной эволюции, в том числе форм и объема сакрализации власти и ее носителей. Книга рассчитана на ученых (антропологов, историков, политологов, философов, культурологов,), преподавателей и учащихся вузов, а также на широкий круг любителей истории и культуры.

"Issues of formation and evolution of the early (archaic) state continue to remain among those problems which have not found their generally accepted solutions yet. Contributors to The Early State , Its Alternatives and Analogues represent both traditional and non-traditional points of view on the evolution of statehood. However, the data presented in the volume seem to demonstrate in a fairly convincing manner a great diversity of pathways to statehood, as well as non-universality of transformation into states of complex and even supercomplex societies. The diversity of sociopolitical forms, non-unilinearity of social evolution, presence of alternatives / analogues of the early state and complexity of state formation process far exceeding the ones indicated by conventional evolutionist schemes can be regarded as general ideas going through most contributions to the volume.


Contents


Introduction


Part I: Theory

1 Alternatives of Social Evolution ………………………………… 3

Dmitri M. Bondarenko, Leonid E. Grinin, and Andrey V. Korotayev

2 Was the Chiefdom a Congelation of Ideas? …………………… 28

Robert L. Carneiro

3 Beyond States and Empires: Chiefdoms and Informal Politics 46

Patrick Chabal, Gary Feinman, and Peter Skalnik

4 Alternative Models of Middle Range Society.

‘Individualistic' Asia vs . ‘Collectivistic' America ? …………… 61

Yuri E. Berezkin

5 Was the State Inevitable? ………………………………………… 72

Henri J. M. Claessen

6 The Early State and Its Analogues: A Comparative Analysis 88

Leonid E. Grinin


Part II: Early States

7 Early Dynastic Egypt : A Socio-Environmental/Anthropological

Hypothesis of ‘Unification' ………………………………………. 139

Dmitri B. Proussakov

8 The Ruler as Possessor of Power in Sumer …………………….. 181

Vladimir V. Emelianov

9 Ritual and Rationality:

Religious Roots of the Bureaucratic State in Ancient China 196

Richard Baum

10 Conquest Warfare, Strategies of Resistance, and the Rise

of the Zapotec Early State ……………………………………… 220

Charles S. Spencer and Elsa M. Redmond

11 The Pristine Myth of the Pristine State in America ……………. 262

Richard P. Schaedel and David G. Robinson

12 The Transition to Statehood in Central Europe ………………. 278

Ludomir R. Lozny

13 Formation and Development of States in the Congo Basin …… 288

Eleonora S. L'vova


Part III: Sedentary Alternatives and Analogues

14 The Chiefdom: Precursor of the Tribe? (Some Trends of Political

Evolution in North-East Yemeni Highlands) …………………… 300

Andrey V. Korotayev

15 From Local Communities to Megacommunity: Biniland

in the 1 st Millennium B.C.–19 th Century A.D. ………………… 325

Dmitri M. Bondarenko

16 Greece : The Stateless Polis (11 th – 4 th С enturies B.C.) …………. 364

Moshe Berent

17 Rome : Socio-political Evolution in the 8 th – 2 nd Centuries B.C. 388

Dmitri V. Dozhdev

18 Early State and Democra с y ……………………………………… 419

Leonid E. Grinin


Part IV. Nomadic Alternatives and Analogues

19 Cultural Capital, Livestock Raiding, and the Military Advantage

of Traditional Pastoralists ……………………………………… 466

William Irons

20 Nomads of the Eurasian Steppes in Historical Retrospective 476

Anatoly M. Khazanov

21 Nomadic Empires in Evolutionary Perspective ………………… 501

Nikolay N. Kradin

22 Mongolian Nomadic Society of the Empire Period …………… 525

Tatyana D. Skrynnikova"

"PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION
(Saarbrücken: Lambert Academic Publishing, 2011)

The notion of evolution is not popular in contemporary Anthropology. Many researchers do not use it preferring to write about transformation,
transit, or change. Evolution for them is synonymous to dogmatic understanding of human history (Yoffee 2005; Pauketat 2008). However,
even critics of evolutionism do not appear to reject= the very fact of continuous social change. In prehistory people were hunters and gatherers and were integrated in small bands. Later some of them experienced sedentarization and transition to food production, began to found towns and invent complex tools. It would be ridiculous to reject such changes. Another point is that contemporary vision of cultural transformations differs greatly from the naïve ideas of the 19th century evolutionists (see, e.g., Earle 2002; Claessen 2000; Carneiro 2003, Marcus 2008; Hanks, Linduff 2009; Earle, Kristiansen 2010 etc.). Contemporary approaches are more flexible and are based on a much more considerable set of evidence. That is why it would be wrong to criticize the scholars of the past for their knowledge of something worse than ours. They ought to be estimated in comparison with their contemporaries. So, we believe that the notion of evolution has a right to exist, and for already several decades we have been elaborating the ideas that can be called “new wave evolutionism”, or multievolutionism (non-linear evolution theory).
The first edition of the present volume was published over ten years ago, in 2000, in two languages, English and Russian (under the Альтернативные пути к цивилизации [Alternative pathways to the civilization] title given by the publisher for commercial reasons). It was the response of the then young generation of post-Soviet anthropologists in league with prominent Western and Russian scholars to dogmatic Marxist interpretations of older, Soviet ethnologists and archaeologists (see also Korotayev, Chubarov 1991; Kradin, Lynsha 1995). Several other collective edited volumes (Bondarenko, Korotayev 2000; Kradin, Bondarenko, Barfield 2003; Grinin et al 2004; Bondarenko, Nemirovsky 2007; Grinin, Beliaev, Korotayev 2008 etc.), monographs (Korotayev 1995; 1996; 2003; Bondarenko 2001; 2006; Korotayev et al 2006; Kradin, Skrynnikova 2006; Grinin 2007; Kradin 2007; 2010; Grinin, Korotayev 2009) and journal articles (Beliaev, Bondarenko, Korotayev 2001; Kradin 2002; Bondarenko, Korotayev 2003; Bondarenko 2007a; 2007b) have appeared since then. Five “Hierarchy and Power in the History of Civilizations” international conferences held in Moscow and St. Petersburg between 2000 and 2009 turned out very important for elaboration of the non-linear sociocultural evolution theory. The Social Evolution & History English-language journal published in Russia since 2002 has become a venue for discussion of the non-linear evolution theory, ideas and evidence related to it. In particular, besides an impressive number of separate articles, the following special issues and sections, among others, have been published in it: Exploring the Horizons of Big History (2005, Vol. 4, No 1), Thirty Years of Early State Research (2008, Vol. 7, No1), The Early State in Anthropological Theory (2009, Vol. 8, No 1), Analyses of Cultural Evolution (2009, Vol. 8, No 2), Urbanization, Regional Diversity and the Problem of State Formation in Europe (2010, Vol. 9, No 2). One more discussion, Chiefdoms in the process of social evolution: theory, problems and comparative studies, is to appear in
the Journal soon (was published in 2011 as Vol.10, Iss. 1. - D.B.).
Alternatives of Social Evolution consists of five parts. The first part includes theoretical studies of non-linear evolution. Articles on the alternative pathways of the prehistoric societies’ evolution form the volume’s second part. The evolutionary pathways of complex societies and state origins are the topics of the volume’s third and forth parts. The closing part is devoted to nomadic societies. We hope that the book has not lost its relevance and will remain in demand by readers."

What is important for us here is that there are reasons to suppose that an equal level of sociopolitical (and cultural) complexity (which makes it possible to solve equally difficult problems faced by societies) can be achieved not only in various forms but on essentially different evolutionary pathways, too. Thus, it is possible to achieve the same level of system complexity through differing pathways of evolution which appeared simultaneously (and even prior to the formation of Homo Sapiens Sapiens) and increased in quantity alongside so­ciocultural advancement. Diversity could be regarded as one of the most important preconditions of the evolutionary process. This implies that the transition to any qualitatively new forms is normally not possible without a sufficient level of variability of sociocultural forms (among both the given culture’ s predecessors and contemporaries).

"The authors reanalyze Claessen’s data set on the “Early States.”
Though Claessen’s Early State typology is largely justified, we suggest
some corrections and amendments to his typologization and
his model of Early State evolution. We show that the development of
personal ownership of land correlates rather weakly with the political
development of the Early State, and that political development
might be accompanied by the strengthening of communal ownership.
We also examine the correlation between Early State political
development and ruler sacralization. Though this correlation is insignificant
for the whole sample, its insignificance is accounted for
by two distinct evolutionary patterns. The pattern observed in the
“axial age” zone is characterized by a strong negative correlation between
political development and ruler sacralization, while the pattern
observed throughout the rest of the world is characterized by a
strong positive correlation between the two variables. The authors
discuss possible causes of this difference."

Las comunidades nativas Yáneshas se encuentran ubicadas a lo largo de las regiones de Pasco, Huánuco, Junín y Ucayali, 38 de ellas conforman la Federación de Comunidades Nativas Yáneshas (FECONAYA). Parte importante de su cosmovisión es la conservación de los espacios naturales en los que habitan y que, por lo general, se encuentran dentro de las cuatro Áreas Naturales Protegidas (ANP) de la Reserva de Biosfera Asháninka-Yánesha (BIOAY). El presente artículo tiene como objetivo principal explicar el rol de las mujeres Yánesha dentro de la FECONAYA, y la conservación de los espacios naturales de la BIOAY. Para ello, se hará un recuento histórico de la cultura Yánesha, los cambios en la participación de las mujeres dentro de la FECONAYA y se analizará tres entrevistas a mujeres Yánesha líderes de la FECONAYA. Resulta importante entender que la cultura Yánesha posee una estructura jerárquica dentro de sus interacciones sociales y políticas, donde el Kornesha o Yompor (hermano de nuestro padre) posee la autoridad máxima dentro de la FECONAYA. Además, los Yánesha consideran relevante mantener la unidad de sus pueblos y protegerse unos a otros. Sin embargo, existe una diferenciación de género al momento de recibir beneficios, por ejemplo, el conocimiento que las abuelas han sido transmitido de generación en generación a lo largo de la historia. El rol de la mujer dentro de la FECONAYA ha cambiado, ahora ya pueden acceder a cargos de poder como ser jefas de comunidades o ser parte de la Junta Directiva, que actualmente hay una Secretaría de la Mujer que lidera la profesora Feliciana Hayde Gaspar, pero debido a la cosmovisión de su cultura nunca podrán ser Kornesha (jefe de jefes). Además, acceder a cargos políticos importantes dentro de sus comunidades o ser coordinador de proyectos, provoca que sean más cuestionadas.