State Formation
State Formation
A Historical Systems Approach
Note: This page is part of the archives of the Phrontistery, but is no longer being updated.
This is a revised version of a paper originally written in 1995 as part of an honours degree project. It is somewhat academic in nature, so be warned. While my opinions on some of the issues discussed herein have changed somewhat, my theoretical interests are substantially similar to those in this paper.
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
II. Illusory Dichotomy: Coercion and integration in early states
III. Illusory Pyramid: Egalitarianism and the growth of complexity
IV.Illusory Force: Processes and causes of social evolution
V. Illusory Universality: Systems and history
VI.Conclusion: Implications for future state research
I. Introduction
The study of state formation, and social evolution in general, has fallen out of fashion in recent years, particularly among ethnologists.
However, there is no methodological justification for this collapse, although some researchers have been convinced to abandon this topic.
Relying on evidence from archaeology, ethnohistory and ethnology, I argue that despite the serious errors committed by some scholars of political evolution, the general evolutionary framework is essentially valid. I feel that an approach to state formation generally informed by systems theory is essential and workable; however, consideration must be given to the specific historical conditions extant in any specific state society. We must come to recognize that societies are neither infinitely particular nor widely generalizeable, and that while many causal factors may lead to state formation, trends of increasing political complexity are evident in widely divergent societies. I offer the proposal that many aspects of societies which are invisible to archaeologists can be fruitfully studied by ethnographic and ethnohistorical research, and that interdisciplinary co- operation is essential if
A Historical Systems Approach
Note: This page is part of the archives of the Phrontistery, but is no longer being updated.
This is a revised version of a paper originally written in 1995 as part of an honours degree project. It is somewhat academic in nature, so be warned. While my opinions on some of the issues discussed herein have changed somewhat, my theoretical interests are substantially similar to those in this paper.
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
II. Illusory Dichotomy: Coercion and integration in early states
III. Illusory Pyramid: Egalitarianism and the growth of complexity
IV.Illusory Force: Processes and causes of social evolution
V. Illusory Universality: Systems and history
VI.Conclusion: Implications for future state research
I. Introduction
The study of state formation, and social evolution in general, has fallen out of fashion in recent years, particularly among ethnologists.
However, there is no methodological justification for this collapse, although some researchers have been convinced to abandon this topic.
Relying on evidence from archaeology, ethnohistory and ethnology, I argue that despite the serious errors committed by some scholars of political evolution, the general evolutionary framework is essentially valid. I feel that an approach to state formation generally informed by systems theory is essential and workable; however, consideration must be given to the specific historical conditions extant in any specific state society. We must come to recognize that societies are neither infinitely particular nor widely generalizeable, and that while many causal factors may lead to state formation, trends of increasing political complexity are evident in widely divergent societies. I offer the proposal that many aspects of societies which are invisible to archaeologists can be fruitfully studied by ethnographic and ethnohistorical research, and that interdisciplinary co- operation is essential if