Intermediate Societies Flashcards
Anderson, David G.
1994 The Savannah River Chiefdoms: Political Change in the Late Prehistoric Southeast. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Main Point: The book is about chiefdoms. Particularly, it investigates how organizational and administrative structures emerge over time, and how this emergence plays out differently through time and space. The author is specifically interested in cycling, the fluctuation of organizational structures and the emergence of complexity: “Why, furthermore, should large, complex, and seemingly successful societies fall apart, only to have similar forms appear a century or two later?” Cycling, Anderson argues specifically affects chiefdom societies. Previously, “cycling” has been seen as cultural evolution, societies progress and devolve, but Anderson argues that cycling is an inherent aspect of chiefdoms. Cycling refers to changes in the administrative levels in chiefdom societies. They are described as cyclical because they ten to follow a recurrent pattern rather than directional change to greater or lesser sociopolitical complexity. Chapter 2 examines the stability of chiefdoms. It is under the assumption that maintaining stability will impede cycling. Stability according to Anderson takes numerous forms including population growth, tribute mobilization, elite ideology, redistribution (feasting), warfare, and prestige goods.
Arnold, Jeanne E.
1996 Emergent Complexity: The Evolution of Intermediate Societies. International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor.
Main Point: This is an edited volume that attempts to understand the evolution of intermediate societies on its own terms. It argues that archaeologists have long put on the backburners the study of intermediate societies. Rather, they have focused on bigger and better things, states, secondary states, etc. This is and has been changing and also archaeologists have begun to apply theories developed for intermediate society development to their research rather than borrowing concepts from state-oriented research. In this book, the definition of a chiefdom is relatively unencumbered: a society with permanent, ascribed, social hierarchy, which in most cases exhibit supra-community political integration (Johnson and Earle 1987) and distinctive patterns of labor organization in which some individuals control the disposition of labor of non-kin.
This definition is broadly useful along with the term chiefdom. The concept of a chiefdom should not center upon the presence or absence of particular traits, but rather major organizational changes. There are five main contributions of the book: 1) Some hunter-gather societies are now known to have reached the chiefdom level. This demonstrates that we need to distance the concept of chiefdom from the domains of specific subsistence practices (agriculture) and forms of social organization (sedentary life); 2) The classification schemes and models developed by Service (1962) and Fried (1967) should continue to be used a heuristic device but nothing more (Earle 1991). These schemes are nice when talking about societies and comparing, but archaeologists need to know that humans do no automatically and invariably change together as interlocked blocks of traits; 3) What scale does organizational change occur that leads to the emergence of complexity? Household? Shifts in population size?; 4) Are there specific environmental or social criteria that must be met for a chiefdom to emerge (i.e., population thresholds [scalar stress]; particular distribution of resources?); 5) How do elites create and size opportunities to direct the labor of kin and nonkin members? This played a central role in the emergence of chiefly complexity. See book notes.
Blanton, Richard E., Gary M. Feinman, Stephen A. Kowalewski, and Peter N. Peregrine
1996 A Dual-Processual Theory for the Evolution of Mesoamerican Civilization. Current Anthropology 37(1):1-14.
Main point: Neoevolutionary theory is not suitable to examine the evolution of civilization; it is too typological and progressionist. The replacement theory advocated here is based on Bourdieu and Giddens who suggest that political actors variously reproduce society and culture; they reject it or modify it to reach desired outcomes. There are two types of power discussed here (they co-exist but usually one is more dominant than the other): network: wealth-based actor that builds a political system around their monopoly of sources of power, this is usually done through trade, etc, power here is based on prestige goods and there is an emphasis on external ties and many complex social systems develop along trade routes; corporate: power is shared across different groups and sectors of society in a ways such as to inhibit exclusionary strategies.
Clark, John E., and Michael Blake
1994 The Power of Prestige: Competitive Generosity and the Emergence of Rank Society in Lowland Mesoamerica. In Factional Competition and Political Development in the New World, edited by E. Brumfiel and J. Fox, pp. 17-30. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Main Point: This paper attempts to understand why people allow themselves to be ruled. It argues that this is important to the understanding of the “origins of institutionalized social inequality and political privilege.” The authors argue that the emergence of social inequality was a “long-term, unexpected consequence of many individuals promoting their own aggrandizement.” They use the Lowland Maya Mokaya as a case study to show that the change from egalitarianism to ranked society would be quick for transitional societies as competing aggrandizers compete.
Crumley, Carole L.
1995 Heterarchy and the Analysis of Complex Societies. In Heterarchy and the Analysis of Complex Societies, edited by R. M. Ehrenreich, C. L. Crumley, and J. E. Levy, pp. 1-5. Anthropological Papers of the American Anthropological Association No. 6.
Main Point: Here Crumley is suggesting that we see complex societies as having social hierarchies, but non-complex societies and closer to nature. This makes it difficult to recognize and study pattern of relations that are complex but not hierarchical. This is related to the concept of heterarchy. Heterarchy can be defined as the relation of element to one another when they are unranked or when they possess the potential to be ranked in a number of different ways. The use of heterarchy reminds us that forms of order exist that are not exclusively hierarchical and illustrates that institutions in complex societies do not always have to be ranked relative to one another. By contrast, hierarchies are composed of “elements which on the basis of certain factors are subordinate to other and may be ranked.” There are two types, control and scalar. In scalar hierarchies changes in one level affect all, such as global-regional-local weather. In control hierarchies, change and influence is from the top down, an example is the American court system.
Grove, David and Susan Gillespie
1992 Ideology and Evolution at the Pre-State Level: Formative Period Mesoamerica. In Ideology and Pre-Columbian Civilizations, edited by A. Demarest and G. Conrad, pp. 15-36. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe.
Main Point: This paper is concerned with the role of ideology in the transition to chiefdoms in Mesoamerica during the Formative. The paper focuses on the Valley of Oaxaca but draws analogies from the Olmec and Maya regions. The authors argue that ideology was a major part of the development of complexity and that both ideology and its portrayal shifted over time. The Classic period Maya developed a conceptual system first manifested by the Olmec, stressing the identified ruler and his acts of kinship, which they then permanently fixed in time using hieroglyphic writing and the Long Count calendar. In contrast, the later central Mexican ideology of rulership and power as expressed in architecture and monumental are seems to have emphasized the scared center more than the scared king.
Marcus, Joyce and Kent V. Flannery
1996 The Emergence of Rank and the Loss of Autonomy. In Zapotec Civilization: How Urban Society Evolved in Mexico’s Oaxaca Valley, pp. 93-110. Thames and Hudson, London.
Main point: The rise of social complexity in Mesoamerica must be made using multiple lines of evidence, these included miniature copies of four-legged stools, mat motifs, burials, etc. These objects, during later periods, demonstrate status and rank in society. Problems?: they seem to be upstreaming their interpretations of the role of jade, stools, mat motifs to Formative Mesoamerica–these things gain status thru a history of development and symbolism attainted through long periods of time. To suggest that they had this symbolism early on would mean that we need to examine frequencies, contexts, etc.
Pauketat, Timothy R.
1994 The Ascent of Chiefs: Cahokian and Mississippian Politics in Native North America. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscalusa.
Main point: The question of why did people surrender to political authority lies at the heart of the social sciences. The development of social classes and the surrendering of power occurred before the state in the transformation of simple ranked groups into regionally centralized polities. To understand chiefdoms we nee to focus on the nonstate political centralization not typology. Politics are rooted in cultural traditions, we need to understand these traditions to understand the politics. Pauketat argues that the emergence of regionally consolidated chiefly authority at Cahokia was the result of political actions of a restricted number of high-ranking people over a relatively brief period of time. It was based on the expansion and transformation of production and exchange activities supervised by the elite and perpetuated by them to gain regional control. Pauketat argues that the essence of a chiefdom is in its political structure, not economic. In nonstate political hegemonies core groups dominate peripheral relations, the core exploits the periphery by extracting resources, and local political hegemony is dependent on interregional social formation involving a prestige-goods economy—in this the pan-regional circulation of valuables is used as a means by which high-ranking personages perpetuated rank hierarchy. He argues that a beneficial way to look at this problem is to create a theory of practice of political economy of chiefships, we need to understand consciousness. Consciousness is basically practice (praxis) a cultural construction that mediates the actions of individuals within particular sociohistorical contexts. Practice—human actions—reproduces cultural meanings and symbols of a particular cultural tradition (Giddens 1979; Bourdieu 1977). In this ideology brings hegemony. Ideology is a system of beliefs that explains the social order of a group and legitimizes the social status quo through an appropriation of traditional or cosmological references (Rappaport 1979). There are two types of ideology—dominant and subordinate (Gramsci 1971). The dominant ideology rules but because of consciousness doesn’t erase it. A dominant ideology appropriates the consciousness of individuals not by coercion but by consensus, a process of interpretation of dominant ideologies and negotiation between dominant and subordinate ideologies. Authority comes from the negotiation of tradition and ideology. Overall: we need to approach hegemony and the development of chiefdoms through an understanding of practice theory and people’s prescribed beliefs, values, and ethics.
Sebastian, Lynne
1991 Sociopolitical Complexity and the Chacoan System. In Chaco and Hohokam: Prehistoric Regional Systems in the American Southwest, edited by P. Crown and J. Judge, pp. 109-134. School of American Research, Santa Fe.
Main point: Models of cooperation, interaction, and complexity have been based upon questionable ethnographic analogies and interpretations of the political structures of modern Pueblos (e.g., Toll1985). Leadership roles and the number of status markers accorded to him, are based upon general anthropological theories which suggest that the more status markers an individual accrues the more important the person is. However, Feinman and Neitzel (1984:60) have demonstrated that many of the status markers archaeologists seek to examine, are invisible in the archaeological record. In other words, powerful individuals are difficult to find archaeologically. Competition seems to have been the preoccupation of political life in Chaco during the 11th century—architecture served as a medium in this skirmish. Competition may have extended to outside the canyon as demonstrated with outlying great houses and Chacoan roads. Sebastian argues that drought during the late 11th century (A.D. 1080-1090) caused the general population to lose faith in their leaders. As a result of this production downturn was a weakening of the religious power base, a general retreat from the system, and a strengthening of outlying, local communities. Mounds and plazas in the Canyon fell into disuse, while elsewhere in the Chacoan world, new leaders took advantage of the power struggle to establish new, dynamic, and highly competitive centers, drawing to themselves the crowds that once journeyed to Chaco Canyon.
Spielmann, Katherine A.
1998 Ritual Craft Specialists in Middle Range Societies. In Craft and Social Identity, edited by C. L. Costin and R. P. Wright, pp. 153-160. Anthropological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, No.8.
Main Point: In middle range societies—such as the Mimbres and Hopewell—skill, much more than social status, was the deciding factor in who participated in ritual craft specialization. In slightly more hierarchical examples, ritual practitioners tended to be craft specialists, demonstrating the importance of esoteric knowledge in the formation of power. From this data, Spielmann suggests that there are three types of craft specialists in middle range societies: 1) In societies where ritual performance is open, all were available to craft ritual items; 2) In societies where knowledge and performance are paramount in achieving status, ritual craft specialists are likely to be ritual practitioners. (This is where she places the Mimbres); Where ritual knowledge and performance is only one way of achieving status, ritual craft specialists may or may not be ritual practitioners. Nevertheless, skilled artisans could participate. (This is where she places Hopewell).
Van Dyke, Ruth M.
2004 Memory, Meaning, and Masonry: The Late Bonito Chacoan Landscape. American Antiquity 69(3):413-431.
Main point: The monumental architecture of Chaco was constructed to convey, reinforce, and challenge ideas about social, ritual, and cosmological order. Social memory can be used to understand how Chaco used monumental architecture to transform society during the Late Bonito phase. During the Classic Bonito phase, architecture expressed Chacoan worldviews: directionality, balanced dualism, and the canyon as a center place. In the Late Bonito phase, confidence in Chacoan ritual order was shaken by environmental and social developments, and leaders sought to reformalize Chaco as a center place by instituting a new building scheme. Six new great houses were constructed and positioned in oppositional relationships—these new relationships were meant to bolster confidence in Chacoan leaders and to attract followers. At Chaco, leaders needed to create something to retain Chaco’s importance as a center place—it had to be something new and attractive, yet familiar enough to resonate with people emotionally. One way for leaders to cope with competition and waning support was to initiate new building projects that celebrated a renewed world order.
Yoffee, Norman
1993 Too Many Chiefs? (or, Safe texts for the ‘90s). In Archaeological Theory: Who Sets the Agenda?, edited by N. Yoffee and A. Sherratt, pp. 60-78. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Main point: This chapter covers some of the arguments that have been made for and against the typological stage-level neoevolutionary model. Recently (early 90s), archaeologists have critiqued the model and are ready to get rid of it. Some of the model’s shortcoming stem from its adaptation from outside archaeology. Although archaeologists do this quite frequently, for complexity we need theories that come and are linked directly to the archaeological evidence. Yoffee argues that we find cheifdoms because: something must precede states and it needs a name; for reasons of comparison; for ethnographic reasons; and we see them in the contemporary world, so they must have been in the past. The criteria of a chiefdom has changed significantly over the years from the classical description of Service (1962). It began as a social organization with kinship structures with all members ranked pyramidally in terms of distance from the founding ancestors. It was also understood that chiefdoms were primarily theocracies, and that the majority or all of the chief’s power stemmed from esoteric knowledge. Thus, Service believed that Chiefdoms incorporated very little economic differentiation. It was also argued, especially by Sanders (1974), that chiefdoms were redistributive centers (something seen at Chaco at the same time with Judge). But this was questioned by Earle (1987) with his research in Hawaii, which demonstrated that local communities were self-sufficient in staple good (same goes for Chaco). Now, (particularly with the work of Earle), chiefs are no longer seen as powerless and only operating in the spiritual world, but rather seen as controlling strategic resources by achieving ownership to the best land and controlling the labor of commoners. With research by Earle (1987), Wright (1977), Steponatis (1978), and Carniero (1981) (all Michigan people), the chiefdom became a political unit and represented and distinct, political break from anything seen before. Chiefs then were able to organize large populations and control production. This is particularly applicable to paramount or complex chiefdoms. Yoffee critiques neoevolutionism as a development by ethnologists not archaeologists, and that ethnographic stage are merely metaphysical constructions (Flannery 1983). He suggests a new theory, an archaeological theory, called new social evolutionary theory. To Yoffee, the biggest difference in chiefdoms and states is the emergence of socioeconomic and governmental roles that are emancipated from real or fictive kinship. There are three forms of power that are important for tracking the evolution of states: economic, societal, and political. When do these come into play? Economic power lies in creating a dependence on people onto the state—this is achieved from differential access to land and goods. It is also achieved through long-distance trade. Societal or ideological power is seen in the ability to control community goods with the goal to further your own means. Societies like these have horizontal distributions, such as ayllus. Political power refers to the ability to impose force throughout a community through specialized permanent administrators, including military organizations. These three forms all reinforce one another and are all needed. The interplay among these three sources of power leads to the evolution of new society-wide institutions, such as political leadership, in short states and civilizations. New societal evolutionary theory as opposed to neoevolutionism is archaeological theory because it does not rely on ethnographic analogies. (But it really does, examples of power are all based on ethnographic cases; so it is more archaeological but not fully, nothing really can be.) It argues that states are not rare, considers cores and peripheries, secondary states, etc., and examines the variability of state by weighing the dimensions of power.
Neitzel, Jill E.
1999 Great Towns and Regional Polities in the Prehistoric American Southwest and Southeast. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
See notes.
Earle, Timothy
1997 How Chiefs Come to Power: The Political Economy in Prehistory. Stanford University Press, Sanford.
See notes.
