On the Origins of the State

1
On the Origins of the State

• Anthropology 101
• Scott A. Lukas, Ph.D.

2
The Issue

• The origins of the first civilizations, these
  pristine states, have been the subject of much
  interest and debate in anthropological literature
  (Flannery 1972 400). Indeed, state formation
  theory has been a theoretical mainstay of
  anthropology for some time (Johnson Earle 1981
  246). Around the time of 6000 b.c., in parts of
  the Near East and in other locations, we begin to
  see a great transformation in the quality and
  scale of human life. We see more differences in
  communities, forms of specialization and examples
  of social stratification.

3
The Issue

• In general, we see an interest in the variability
  of increasing worldwide complexity (Binford
  1983). Unfortunately, archaeologists have had
  difficulty with the concept of complexity,
  specifically what causes it (ibid).
  Additionally, at a semantic level, the term
  "complex" is wrought with difficulty (Flannery
  1972 400). At the epistemic level, the origin
  of the state and increasing sociocultural
  complexity has often been misunderstood (Carneiro
  1970 733) - with theories of state origins being
  often unsatisfactory (Carneiro 1970 733,
  Flannery 1972 399).

4
Definition of the State

• The state is defined as a regionally-organized
  society with a population (of hundreds of
  thousands or millions) which is economically and
  ethnically diverse (Johnson Earle 1981 246).
  By 3500 b.c. we see some of the common
  characteristics of civilization (inscription
  cities full-time craft specialists monumental
  architecture social stratification become even
  more distinct and strong hierarchical systems of
  centralized organization, what we traditionally
  classify as being the state.)

Hierarchical, Centralized Political Systems
5
(No Transcript)
6
Characteristics of the State

• Other characteristics of the state (Brumfiel
  1983 261, Carneiro 1970 733) include the
  presence of a military, a bureaucratic level,
  stratification, an emphasis on technology and
  trade (Johnson Earle 1983 248), specifically
  in regards to control over production and
  distribution, and an institutionalized religion
  (ibid.). The state has often been characterized,
  perhaps metaphorically, by the pristine examples
  discussed by Flannery (1972 400).

7
(No Transcript)
8
How Did it Develop?

• Having defined the 'ideal' state, the concern
  becomes the origin of the state specifically how
  did it develop?

9
Those Early Vulgar Theories...

• Early theories of state formation were vulgar and
  simplistic. The superimposition theory,
  forwarded by F. Ratzel, P.W. Schmidt, A. Rüstow
  and F. Oppenheimer, explains the emergence of a
  political ruling class and the development of a
  political order by "nomadic tribes of herdsmen
  who subjugated sedentary farmers and set up a
  rule of conquerors" (Habermas 1976 158).
  Unfortunately, nomadism appeared later than the
  emergence of first civilization. The emergence
  of the state must have had "endogenous causes"
  (ibid).

10
Elizabeth Brumfiel

• Brumfiel (1983 261) discusses two origin
  theories of the state

11
Ecological Approach

• The ecological approach, suggesting that
  demographic growth and resulting pressures
  provide the impetus for state formation, is a
  footnote to Steward and cultural ecology
  (Flannery 1972). The ecological approach suggests
  that the state arises in "socioenvironmental
  contexts where effective management is either
  necessary or especially beneficial" (Brumfiel
  1983 262).

12
Ecological Approach

• Wrights model is represented below

13
Ecological Approach

• According to this model, the interaction of the
  two variables of population growth and
  environmental setting will result in (1)
  overpopulation, (2) decrease in resources (strain
  on carrying capacity). These variables are in
  turn accommodated by the "application of some
  managerial strategy" (Brumfiel 1983). The
  discussion of the ecological approach is relevant
  along lines of environmental circumscription, as
  discussed in Peru and the Amazonian basin
  (Carneiro 1970). The theory of population
  density (R. Coulborn and others) argues that the
  state emerged chiefly through ecological and
  demographic factors. As Habermas said, the
  complexity of densely populated settlements
  could be managed only through state organization
  (Habermas 1976 159).

14
Ecological Approach

• Abernathys suggestion

15
Ecological Approach Critiques

• However, some criticism has been leveled against
  the ecological approach. Flannery (1972), for
  example, suggests that ecological variables may
  indeed have implications for hunter-gatherer
  adaptations, but he argues that such variables
  might be irrelevant in the study of state
  development. Additionally, Johnson Earle
  (1981) suggest that the intensification of the
  subsistence economy, along with corresponding
  ecological variables, might not be the main
  variable in state formation economic and
  political integration must first take place
  (ibid.), which suggests, perhaps, a more
  structural-functional approach.

16
Ecological Approach Critiques

• Habermas critique of the ecological approach
• even if population problems of this type could
  be demonstrated to have existed in all early
  civilizations, this theorylike others, does not
  explain why and how these problems could be
  solved (Habermas 1976 159-160).

17
The Structural Approach

• The structural approach, suggesting that the
  state results from "particular sociocultural
  orders" while the relationship between the
  environment and population is seen as relatively
  stable, has roots in Marx and Engels (Brumfiel
  1983). According to this approach, certain
  sociocultural systems, because of inherent
  structural principles, are dynamic (ibid.).
  Receiving the most attention as far as state
  origin theories are concerned, the structural
  approach is an argument that the state emerged
  when new industrial techniques made possible an
  array of economic institutions, destined to
  divide society into a variety of classes
  (Engels) the state arose to mediate conflict
  between these various classes.

18
The Structural Approach

• Many such structural theories of state
  organization have relied on the (often reifying)
  concepts of status contract, community
  (Gemeinschaft) vs. society (Gesellschaft), social
  forces productive forces, the legitimation and
  monopoly of force, the hierarchical organization
  of class and office (Peebles 1988). One must
  question whether or not these concepts lead us
  any further to an understanding of the state, or
  if they simply serve to muddle our picture of it.
  

19
The Structural Approach

• Or as Flannery (1972) suggests, the state is
  necessitated by new problems and risks arising
  from technological innovation, increased
  complexity, trade (Rathje), and inherent
  conflict (Wittfogel). Another variation of this
  theory is the inequality theory, forwarded by
  G.E. Lenski and to some extent Habermas in his
  early years, which traces the emergence of the
  state directly to problems of distribution
  (Habermas 1976 159). With the productivity of
  labor "there arose a surplus of goods and means
  of production. The growing differences in wealth
  resulted in social differences that a relatively
  egalitarian kinship system could not manage. The
  distribution problems required a different
  organization of social intercourse" (Habermas
  1976 159).

20
The Structural Approach

• The "classic Marxist" argument, namely that base
  determines superstructure and social being
  determines consciousness, has been appropriated
  by the structural Marxists to explicitly
  deterministic ends. The structural Marxist model
  of the state (below) places complete reliance on
  the relations of production its argument is that
  these relations of production completely
  determine the state.

21
The Structural Approach Critiques

• There have been numerous criticisms leveled
  against the structural approach. Service argues
  against the structural approach disputing notions
  of economic inequality and wars between social
  classes. Brumfiel (1983) adds that, like the
  ecological model, the structural approach is also
  dependent upon environmental factors. Others
  have argued against its simple deterministic
  nature. Habermas concludes that the structural
  division of labor theory is "not coherent" (1976
  158). A social division of labor implies
  functional specification within the vocational
  system however, vocational groups
  "differentiated by knowledge and skill need not
  per se develop opposing interests that result in
  differential access to the means of production"
  (Habermas 1976 158-9). Additionally, the
  structural approach fails to address why the
  functions of domination had to "emerge from the
  contrast of interests rooted in vocational
  specialization" (ibid 159).

22
The Structural Approach Critiques

• The Marxist Diakonov offers the following model
  (Wright 1977)

23
Voluntaristic and Coercive Models

• Carneiro (1970) sees the evolution of states as
  having been explained through either a
  voluntaristic model or a coercive one. The first
  is rooted in the Rosseauian idea of the social
  contract.

24
The Voluntaristic Model

• One representation of the voluntaristic model is
  the "automatic theory" of Childe a food surplus
  and agricultural development leads to free time,
  craft specialization, and the eventual
  integration of people into a state. Carneiro
  doubts that this always takes place in this
  manner.

25
Voluntaristic Model Hydraulics

• Another manifestation of a voluntaristic model is
  the hydraulic hypothesis (Habermas 1976 159)
  proposed by Wittfogel as people got together,
  the completion of large-scale irrigation works
  led to the construction of the state.

26
Voluntaristic and Coercive Models

• Again, Carneiro suggests that the model
  disregards many archaeological instances in which
  the state developed prior to such irrigation
  implements. Coercion models are exemplified by
  the classic Mayan example - war lies at root of
  the state.

27
Voluntaristic and Coercive Models

• The documentation of political evolution in state
  formation has gained significant attention. The
  case of state formation in thirteenth and
  fourteenth century Aztec civilizations in the
  Valley of Mexico characterizes the role of
  political evolution, specifically as seen in the
  conflicts between small polities, militaristic
  expansionism, and resulting internal political
  structure.

28
Voluntaristic and Coercive Models

• Carniero's discussion of political evolution
  includes variables of environment, demography and
  circumscription the abundance of food in the
  Peru coastal region led to population increase
  the restrictedness of the food, however, resulted
  in complete occupation of all exploitable areas
  the carrying capacity reached a critical stage
  competition resulted and thus internal evolution
  took place. The evolution of political economy,
  along other lines, often represents the erosion
  of smaller aggregates, such as the family unit
  (Johnson Earle 1981). At the highest level of
  inclusion, elements such as symbolization
  (perhaps a result of state religion) represent a
  further erosion of smaller units.

29
Voluntaristic and Coercive Models

• Carniero's discussion of political evolution

30
Voluntaristic and Coercive Models

• Johnson Earle (1981 24) suggest a multilineal
  - evolutionary perspective in their various case
  studies. Dispelling simple notions of "feudal"
  societies, the authors embark on a
  cross-continent comparison of Middle Age Japan
  and France. They suggest many commonalties both
  were influenced by external empires, both
  represented a steady population growth at the
  bases of their societies and a resultant change
  in food production, both saw an intensification
  of existing land or a use of marginal lands
  through new techniques (irrigation).

31
Voluntaristic and Coercive Models

• Developing their notions of a dual evolution of
  economic bases, the authors look at the Inka case
  study in terms of political integration and
  political economy with its interregional
  institutions. Brumfiel's model of the birth of
  the Triple Alliance looks at a variety of
  conditions which were conducive to the rise of
  political centralization in the Aztec case,
  eventually resulting in the development of
  bureaucratic complexity. Brumfiel's argument
  addresses an "interplay of ecological variables
  and political dynamics" (1983 278).

32
Voluntaristic and Coercive Models

• Carneiro (1970 733) provides that state origin
  theories based upon notions of (1) race, (2)
  genius, and (3) historical accidents are
  unacceptable. The development of a state is not
  a fortuitous act, but rather a result of "a
  regular and determinate cultural process"
  (ibid.). The early theories of socio-cultural
  complexity, those of Morgan, Maine and Service,
  offer little more than simplicity. Indeed, many
  archaeologists have been vexed by the simplicity
  of such models in turn, they have re-examined
  them in a new light. Flannery, for instance,
  addresses the notion of impetus of state
  formation and suggests a prime-mover scheme
  (1972 401).

33
Voluntaristic and Coercive Models

• Adopting the understood model of complexity (band
  - tribe - chiefdom - state), Flannery is
  interested in exactly how a band, for example,
  might become a tribe, and eventually, perhaps, a
  state. The author identifies various mechanisms
  which may have lead to state formation
  irrigation (Wittfogel), warfare (Carneiro),
  population growth and social circumscription
  (high population density produces effects similar
  to environmental circumscription, Chagnon), trade
  symbiosis (Rathje), cooperation and competition,
  integrative power of art and religion

34
Voluntaristic and Coercive Models

• Johnson Earle (1981) provide some additional
  mechanisms, or conditions it should be said,
  including the necessity of (1) a high population
  density (with need for a system of integration),
  and (2) opportunities of economic control, thus
  leading to class formation, and general
  population control and stability functions
  (Brumfiel 1983 277).

35
Voluntaristic and Coercive Models

• Habermas (1976) approaches the problem of the
  state through a model of co-evolutionary
  development of (1) technical knowledge, (2)
  practical / moral knowledge. The evolution of
  the state, and the rise of communicative action,
  is related to the development of production which
  is nourished through the application of these two
  forms of knowledge.

36
Voluntaristic and Coercive Models

• Habermas' model is an attempt to explain the
  fundamental importance of communication within
  the context of the state, and a call to put the
  individual back in the center of the picture.
  His model argues that Neolithic societies, with
  complex kin organizations, eventually became
  hierarchical ones. The initial infantile 'state'
  was presented with particular systemic problems,
  including population over-density and land
  scarcity. The testing of new structures (the
  administration of justice at a conventional
  level, for example) lead to institutionalization.
  

37
Voluntaristic and Coercive Models

• As Ember suggests in Peebles (1988)

38
Voluntaristic and Coercive Models

• Stabilization then occurred through the formation
  of these new systems. In turn new class
  structures emerged and the development of
  productive forces occurred, i.e. the forces of
  production discovered at the Neolithic Revolution
  could now be used on a large scale (Habermas
  1976 161-3). Unfortunately, Habermas' model
  seems reminiscent of the ecological models
  discussed earlier.

39
The Major Locations of States

• Southern Iraq
• Sumerian Civilization
• Mesoamerica
• Teotihuacan
• Monte Alba (Oaxaca)
• Africa
• Axum (Ethiopia)
• India
• Harappan

• China
• Shang dynasty
• South America
• Moche
• Nazca
• North America
• Cahokia

40
The Theories

• The problems of state formation are tied to
  deficiencies in the archaeological record and
  deficiencies in the epistemic theories to which
  the record is attached. It seems frivolous to
  attribute state formation to a single variable
  rather, we might look at a multitude of reasons
  behind the apparent increase in social
  complexity. As with the study of agricultural
  origins, archaeologists need to re-evaluate
  existing theories of the state (Gasser Bond
  1988), as well as develop sound methods of
  inquiry, including studies of chronology, from
  cultural remains.

41
References Cited

• Binford, Lewis R.
• 1983 In Pursuit of the Past Decoding the
  Archaeological Record.
• NY Thames and Hudson.
• Brumfiel, Elizabeth
• 1983 "Aztec State Making Ecology, Structure,
  and the Origin of the
• State." American Anthropologist 85(2)261-284.
• Carniero, Robert
• 1970 "A Theory of the Origin of the State."
  Science 169733-738.
• Flannery, Kent V.
• 1972 "The Cultural Evolution of Civilization."
  Annual Review of
• Ecology and Systematics 3399-426.
• Gasser, L. Bond, A.
• 1988 Readings in Distributed Artificial
  Intelligence. Morgan
• Kaufmann.

42
References Cited

• Habermas, Jürgen
• 1976 Communication and the Evolution of Society.
  Boston Beacon Press.
• Johnson, Allen Earle, Timothy
• 1987 "The Archaic State," "Conclusion. " InThe
  Evolution of Human Societies. Pps. 246-270,
  313-325. Stanford Stanford University Press.
• Peebles, Christopher
• 1988 Lecture on the origins of the state.
  11-2-88. Bloomington
• Indiana University
• Wright, Henry T.
• 1977 "Toward an explanation of the origin of the
  state." In The
• Explanation of Prehistoric Change. J. Hill,
  ed. Pps. 215-230.
• Albuquerque University of New Mexico Press.