Archaic States (School of American Research Advanced Seminar Series)

219 Pages·1998·16.66 MB·English

by  Gary M. Feinman

Ar(hoi(
Stote~
Idited by Gory M. feinDlon ond )oyce Monus
School of American Resemh Press • Sonto fe • New Mexico
SchoolofAmericanResearchPress
Post OfficeBox 2188
SantaFe,NewMexico87504-2188
www.press.sarweb.org
DirectorofPublications:JoanK.O'Donnell
Editor:June-elPiper
Designer:DeborahFlynn Post
Indexer:AndrewL.Christenson (ontents
Typographer:G&STypesetters Inc.
Printer:Thornson-Shore,Inc.
Library ofCongressCataloging-in-PublicationData:
y Cj~.6Archaic states/ editedbyGary M.FeinmanandJoyce Marcus.
p. cm.- (School ofAmericanResearchadvanced seminarseries)
Includes bibliographicreferences and index.
ISBN0-933452-98-5 (cloth).- ISBN0-933452-99-3 (pbk.)
1.Political anthropology. 2.State,The-Origin. 3.Civilization,
List ofIllustrations ix
Ancient. I.Feinman. Il.Marcus,Joyce. Ill.Series.
GN492.6.A72 1998
List ofTables I xi
306.2-dc21 97-50302
CIP
Preface I Xlll
Gary M. Feinman and]oyce Marcus
© 1998bythe SchoolofAmericanResearch.Allrights reserved.
Manufacturedin the UnitedStatesofAmerica.Library ofCongress
CatalogCardNumber97-50302.InternationalStandard BookNumbers
Introduction I 3
0-933452-98-5 (cloth) and 0-933452-99-3 (paper).
]oyceMarcus and GaryM. Feinman
Fourthpaperbackprinting2005.
Cover:Lintel 8from the ClassicMayacenterofYaxchilan,showing 2
theYaxchilanruler BirdJaguar (farright) and asubordinatelord (far The GroundPlans ofArchaic States I 15
left)taken captives.This event tookplaceinMay,AD755.Drawingby Kent V.Flannery
JohnKlausmeyer,courtesyofJoyceMarcus.
3
ThePeaks andValleysofAncient States:
An Extension ofthe Dynamic Model I 59
]oyceMarcus
4
Scale and Social Organization:
Perspectives on the Archaic State I 95
Gary M. Feinman
viii I CONTENTS
5
Beyond Centralization:
Steps TowardaTheory ofEgalitarianBehavior
in Archaic States I 135
RichardE. Blanton
6
Uruk Statesin Southwestern Iran I 173
Illustrations
HenryT. Wright
7
Order, Legitimacy, and Wealth in AncientEgypt and Mesopotamia I 199
JohnBaines and NormanYoffee
8
Sociocultural ComplexityWithout the State:
The Indus Civilization I 261 2.L Emergence ofsettlements on the SusianaPlain I 17
Gregory L. Possehl 2.2. Central-place lattices aroundancient cities I 19
2.3. Minoanpalace ofKnossos I 23
9 2.4. Rivero Compound, Chan Chan I 25
Inka Strategies ofIncorporation and Governance I 293 2.5. Palace A at Kish I 26
CraigMorris 2.6. The Ciudadela, Teotihuacan I 28
2.7. Tetitla, 'Ieotihuacan I 30
10 2.8. Palace ofNestor, Pylos I 32
Warfare and Status Rivalry: 2.9. Structure Ill, Calakmul I 33
LowlandMaya and Polynesian Comparisons I 311 2.10. Smallresidential palace, Monte Alban I 34
DavidWebster 2.1L RoyalVilla,Knossos I 35
2.12. Early Mesopotamiantemples I 38
References I 353 2.13. HouseD, Khafajah I 39
2.14. Temples from Mesoamerican states I 41
Index I 421 2.15. Conjunto Plaza Oeste, Teotihuacan I 42
2.16. Temple and "priests' residence," Pacatnamu I 44
2.17. "CultArea," Mycenae I 45
2.18. Royal tombs atUr I 48
2.19. Tomb 2, Sipan I 49
2.20. Royalburialplatform, Laberinto Compound, Chan Chan I 51
2.2l. Tomb 1, Structure Ill, Calakmul I 52
2.22. Mycenaeantombs I 53
3.l. TheDynamicModel, Maya Lowlands I 62
3.2. Consolidationand breakdown, Maya Lowlands I 68
3.3. The Zapotec state I 70
3.4. Consolidation and breakdown, CentralMexico I 73
x I ILLUSTRATIONS
3.5. Consolidationand breakdown, Andes I 75
3.6. Expansion ofthe Chimu state I 77
3.7. Mesopotamia's Urukstate I 79
3.8. Consolidation and breakdown, Mesopotamia I 80
3.9. Area controlledby the Akkaddynasty I 82
3.10. ThirdDynasty ofUr I 83
3.11. Mesopotamia, Isin-Larsa period I 84
3.12. The "double crown" ofUpperand LowerEgypt I 87
Tables
3.13. Consolidation and breakdown, ancient Egypt I 88
3.14. Consolidation and breakdown, ancient Aegean I 90
4.1. The state ofOaxaca, southernMexico I 115
4.2. Monte AlbanV pettykingdoms, based onshatterzones I 117
4.3. Monte Alban V pettykingdoms, based on ethnohistoric
accounts I 118
4.4. Monte AlbanV settlement clusters I 119
4.5. Monte Alban IV settlement clusters I 122
4.6. Rosario phase settlement clusters I 125 4.1. Population ofLate Postclassicpolities, central valleysof
4.7. Monte Alban Late Isettlement clusters I 127 Oaxaca I 120
4.8. Monte Alban IlIAsettlement clusters I 130 4.2. Population ofotherLate Postclassicpolities in Oaxaca I 121
6.1. A portion ofMesopotamia I 176 4.3. Period IV population clusters, centralvalleysofOaxaca I 124
6.2. Mid-fourth-millenniumsouthwest Iran I 178 5.1. Expressions ofintermemberexclusionary domination I 142
6.3. SusaAcropole I, Layer 17B2 I 185 5.2. Strategies in the development ofsystemic power I 143
6.4. SusaAcropole Ill, Layer 2 I 187 5.3. Strategies ofsystemic exclusionary domination I 144
6.5. Late Urukfeatures, Farukhabad I 192 5.4. Elements ofcorporate powerstrategy I 145
7.1. Mesopotamia I 200 7.1. Prehistoric periods, historic periods, and dynasties: Egyptand
7.2. Egypt and Syria-Palestine I 201 Mesopotamia I 202
8.1. Principalsites,Early and Mature Harappanstages I 262 8.1. Site counts, totalsettledarea, and average site size:Indus Age I 269
8.2. Mohenjo-daro and Harappa I 263 8.2. Occupation changes in settlement: Sindh and Cholistan I 273
8.3. Domain ofthe Indus Age I 275
8.4. Mound ofthe GreatBath, Mohenjo-daro I 278
8.5. Bronze dancing girl, Mohenjo-daro I 279
8.6. Harappan "priest-king" sculpture I 280
9.1. The Inka empire I 294
9.2. Huanuco Pampa I 300-301
10.1. Lintel, Yaxchilan I 317
10.2. The Maya Lowlands I 322
10.3. TheBecanfortifications I 325
10.4. Palisadesand gates I 326
10.5. Maoripaearthworks, palisades, and fighting platforms I 327
ne ofthe most challengingproblems thatfaces contemporary archaeol
O
ogy concerns the operation and diversity ofancient states. Because ar
chaeologists, historians, and other social scientists have tended to focus
on the rise and decline ofearly polities, questions concerninghow archaic
states worked (or broke down) have been givenlessattention. It can be ar
gued, however, that it isdifficult to understand astate's rise orfallifwe do
not comprehendwhatit lookedlike atits peak. Furthermore, can we eval
uate general explanations ofstate origins ifwe do not apprehend the full
range ofvariationin howstates operated?
We proposedthis session to the SchoolofAmericanResearch in the fall
of1989. At that time, there had not been a major comparative seminar on
the operation and structure ofancient states for more than 15 years. That
gap in the recentliterature on archaic states remains assignificant now asit
waswhenthe meetingwas heldinNovember1992.Asthe cycle from con
ference papersto finished chaptersnears completion,we believethatthe ar
ticles in this bookcollectivelytake significantstridesinaddressingquestions
ofstate diversity and operation, aswell asin helpingdefine key avenues for
researchand discussion in the decades ahead.
The participants in this session were selected to provide both broad
geographic coverage and a range oftheoretical viewpoints. We wanted to
include diverse scholars, includingseveral who workprincipallywithdocu
ments, others who mostly examine the archaeological record, and a third
group who studies both. In regard to archaic states, there is relatively little
xiv I PREFACE
that we allwouldagree on otherthan the deep interestthatwe share in the
topic. It was this passion and the wealth ofexperiences we brought to the
seminartable that kept ourdiscussions goingfar into the night.
Aseditors, we wish to thankalltheparticipantsfor theirthoughtfulpre
sentations and papers. We also are grateful to them for responding quickly
and with good humor to Gary's bibliographic queries as we readied the
book for press. George L. Cowgill and an anonymous reviewer provided
valuable reviews ofthe entire volume. It is abetterbookasaresult oftheir Anhoi( Stotes
suggestions. Linda M. Nicholas, Sandra Austin, Lane Fargher, and Steve
Germain assisted in numerous ways aswe edited and prepared the manu
scriptsfor publication. We alsoappreciate the greatcare and comfortgener
ously provided by Doug Schwartz and the entire School of American
Research staffin Santa Fe, aswell as the production and editorial support
given usbyJoan O'Donnell andthe staffofthe SAR Press.
We dedicatethisvolume to RobertMcCormickAdams, apioneerinthe
comparative analysis ofOld and NewWorldstates.
1
Introdu(1:ion
IDYU MUCUS GUY M.H1HMAH
AND
uringthe past 25 years, ancientstateshave beenthesubjectofnumerous
D
volumes and conferences around the world. Two dominant themes of
this work have been the "origins" and "collapses" ofsuchstates.'
Believingthatmanyotherthemes-includingthe operationandbehav
ior ofancient states through time-had not been exhaustively treated, we
assembledten scholars at the School ofAmericanResearchbetween Octo
ber 30 and November 6, 1992. One ofour goals was to produce a volume
that could be used in conjunction with previously published books on the
originsand collapsesofancientstates. We hopedto do thisbyprovidingnew
comparative studies ofearly states in the Old and New Worlds, emphasiz
ingsimilaritiesand differences. We alsohopedto shednewlightonanum
beroftheoreticalissues. Included among those issues are the operation and
structure ofancient states, their scale and territorial extent, the nature of
state-levelpoliticalandeconomicinstitutions, the diversityofancientstates,
andthevalue oftheirsystematiccomparison. Thesetopicsare ones we share
withotherscholars, such asSouthall (1991:77), who recentlywrote, "I am
now more interested in how states work, what basic similarities in their
working (processes) can be found (a)at different erasofworldhistory, (b) at
different stages oftheir development, (c)in different climates and ecologies,
and (d) in different historicalstreams."
Given that most ofthe seminarparticipantswere archaeologists, we de
cided to focus on archaic states, those that arose early in the history oftheir
particularworld region and were characterizedby class-endogamous social
4 IJOYCE MARCUS AND GARY M. FEINMAN
INTRODUCTION I 5
stratawithroyal families, majorand minornobles, andcommoners. Mostof
exacting tribute, controlling information, drafting soldiers, and regulating
thestateswe considerwerefirst-, second-, orthird-generationstatesin their
manpower and labor (Flannery 1972, 1995; Marcus 1976a, 1993a; Sanders
region. We have not included more recent states with democratic institu
1974; Wright 1977, 1978). For some well-known states where texts are
tions, presidents, parliaments, and global market economies.
available, one couldadd to this the stipulationthat archaic stateswere ruled
Amongthethemes discussedin this volumeare thescale, size, and orga
by kings rather than chiefs, had standardized temples implying a state reli
nizationofancientstates (GaryM. Feinman); an evaluation ofstate typolo
gion, had full-time priests rather than shamans or part-time priests, and
gies and corporate political economy (Richard E. Blanton); a comparative
couldholdonto conqueredterritoryin ways no ranksocietycould. Forless
studyofthe groundplans ofbuildingsin archaic states, aimedat helpingthe
well known states, where texts are absent, perhaps the best definition isthe
archaeologist determine ifastate isin fact present and whether certain in
most general and simple, so as to encompass marked historical variability.
stitutions and groups ofpersonnel have emerged (Kent V. Flannery); the
One source of disagreement was over such terms as "chiefdom" and
strategiesofstate expansion, theincorporationofautonomouspolitiesin the
"state," which archaeologists have borrowed from ethnology and political
state, and theirsubsequentgovernance (JoyceMarcus, CraigMorris, Henry
science. Many participants argued that such terms have been used in very
T. Wright); evidence for warfare and status rivalry in chiefdoms and states
productiveways for alongtime (Carneiro 1970a, 1970b, 1978, 1981, 1987;
(David L. Webster); evidence for order, legitimacy, and wealth in ancient
Drennan and Uribe 1987; Earle, ed. 1991; Flannery 1972, 1995; Kirch
states (John Baines and Norman Yoffee); and the political and social com
1984; Krader 1968; Marcus 1983a; Sahlins 1958, 1970; Sahlins and Service
plexityofstates (GregoryL.Possehl). Worldregionsrepresentedincludethe
1960; Service 1975; C. Spencer 1987, 1990, 1993). Otherparticipants see
NearEast, India and Pakistan, Egypt, Mesoamerica, and the Andes.
lessvalue in suchtypologies, includingService's (1962) more specific band,
Another theme discussed by various participants at the seminarwas the
tribe, chiefdom, andstate, and Fried's (1967) more general egalitariansoci
relationship between "state" and "civilization." The former was seen as a
ety, ranksociety, andstratified (or political) society.
political or governmental unit, while the latter was seen as the cultural
Critics such asCrumley (1987, 1995); Ehrenreich, Crumley, and Levy
sphere associated with that political or governmental unit. In this volume,
(1995); Mann (1986); and Patterson and Gailey (1987) have previously at
"the state" isnotconsideredto be isomorphic with "civilization" in the In
tacked the notion that each stage of evolution (chiefdom, states, etc.) is
dus region (Possehl), the NearEast (Yoffeeand Baines), orthe Maya region
"uniform," that each type is "static" or "restrictive," and that each type is
(Marcus). Even for Egypt, it is only during the politicallymore centralized
the "inevitableproduct" ofanotherstage. Otherparticipants (e.g., Flannery
periodscalled "kingdoms"thattherewasareasonablyclose arealfitbetween
and Marcus) responded that all these criticisms were based on problematic
"state" and "civilization."
assumptions. They stated that few evolutionary anthropologists had ever
Such historical differences were a central theme in seminar discussions.
suggested that such stages were uniform, static, or inevitable; ifsuch as
We pondered why in some regions several states arose that shared a single
sumptionshadbeenmade, itwas by archaeologistswho had triedto use the
ethos ofcivilization, while in other areas the boundaries ofa state and its
scheme like a cookbook. Paleontologists, they argued, never complainthat
civilizationwere roughly coterminous. Althoughwe couldnot explainthis
thestage "reptile" istoo "uniform"; theyknowit includes animals asdiffer
historical variation, allseminarparticipants agreed that this diversity would
entaslizards, snakes, andturtles, and thatnoneofthose categorieshavebeen
be an interestingquestion to examinein the future.
static in an evolutionary sense. Nor do paleontologists see "mammals"
evolvingfrom all"reptiles"; the evidence suggests thatearly mammalsarose
TERMINOLOGY from onlyonetype ofreptile, the cynodonts, andthatsubsequentmammals
arose from thosefirst mammals (seeFlannery 1995).
One ofthe first topics discussed at the seminar was, "What is an archaic
Justaspaleontologists are aware ofthe diversitywithin the categories of
state?" Although definitions varied among participants, many believed that
fossil animals they use, so, too, evolutionists are aware of heterogeneity
in contrastto modemnation-states, archaicstatesweresocietieswith (mini
within categories such as "state" and "chiefdom" (Carneiro 1970a, 1991;
mally) two class-endogamous strata (aprofessional ruling classand a com
de Montmollin 1989; Easton 1959; Feinman and Neitzel 1984; Perguson
monerclass)and agovernmentthatwasbothhighlycentralizedand internally
1991; Flannery 1995; Johnson and Earle 1987; Marcus 1983a; Marcus
specialized. Ancient states were regarded as having more power than the
and Flannery 1996; McGuire 1983; Shifferd 1987; C. Spencer 1990,1993;
rank societies that preceded them, particularly in the areas ofwaging war,
H. Spencer1967; Trigger 1993). Simplyput, zoologistsandanthropologists
6 I,OYCE MARCUS AND GARY M. FEINMAN INTRODUCTION I 7
use typologies because the creation of such categories facilitates general while denying its citizens the use ofpersonal, individual force; and (7) the
comparisons and contrasts. establishment ofgovernmental laws and the ability to enforce them. Al
Anthropologistswho use the category "state" are generallyaware ofthe thoughnotallparticipantsconcurredwitheachofthese criteria, adegreeof
dynamic qualities thateachstate displays duringitsspecific historyandtime supportgenerallywas found for each.
span (Claessen 1984; Claessenand van deVelde 1987, 1991; Earle, ed. 1991; Participantsalsoagreedthatancientstatesweredynamicpoliticalsystems
Erickson 1973, 1975; Marcus 1989, 1992a, 1993a; Schreiber 1992). Fur that changed throughout their specific historical trajectories. Each state is,
thermore, such scholars do not believe in inevitability; they know that not therefore, different in some respects from other states, but early states asa
every autonomous village society gave rise to a chiefdom, nor did every group do display similarities. In this volume some authors tend to empha
group ofchiefdoms give rise to a state. A set ofnecessary conditions must size the similarities among states, while others emphasize both similarities
be present before astate isformed; even whensuch conditions are present, and differences.
a new state maybe veryshort-lived and difficult to detect archaeologically.
Amongthe questionsdiscussedattheseminarwere, Whatallowedonestate
SOME POINTS OF AGREEMENT
to adjust and survive for long periods oftime while another broke down
quickly? Followingaperiodofbreakdownand decentralization, what con Although the seminarparticipants chose to disagree on anumber oftopics,
ditions allowed a second-generation state to form? How does a second many felt that the use of two terms-"segmentary states" and "city
generation state differ from the first state in the same region? How do states"-was problematic. The first isan oxymoron, resultingfrom the ill
third- and fourth-generation states differfromfirst- and second-generation advisedphrase originallyappliedto anonstate society. Thesecondisaterm
states?WrightandMarcus, whose research hasincludedseveral generations coined for the Greek polis and indiscriminately applied to dozens ofother
of states, and Blanton and Feinman, who have looked at the settlement societies thatare not similar.
patterns from multiple generations, were particularly interested in such Let usconsider"segmentarystates" first. Theconceptcan be tracedback
questions. to African Political Systems, a volume edited by Fortes and Evans-Pritchard
Althoughnotnecessarilyagreeingonanswers, manyparticipantssingled (1940). Fortesand Evans-Pritchardcontrastednoncentralizedlineagegroups
out three problems that they saw as particularly thorny: how to classify a (acephalous societies) with centralized hierarchical governments (unitary
transitionalsocietythatseems to liepartwaybetweenachiefdomandastate states).Theynotedthatstatelesssocietiesdisplayedmanystructurallyequiva
(Skalnik 1983; Southall 1952, 1965, 1988, 1991); what to call the smaller lent segments, and "ifone segment defeats another it does not attempt to
polities that sometimes follow the collapse ofa centralized state (Ferguson establish politicaldominanceoverit; in theabsence ofanadministrativema
1991; Kristiansen 1991; Marcus 1989; Snodgrass 1977, 1980); and what to chinery there is, in fact, no means by which it could do so" (Fortes and
call the polities on the periphery ofa state when they acquire some ofthe Evans-Pritchard 1940:14).
trappings ofthatstate but are neverreally incorporatedinto it. TheAfricanethnologistAidanSouthall (1956) was unableto fit the Alur
Mostseminarparticipantsbelievedthatitwas importantto callattention intoFortesandEvans-Pritchard'scategoriesof"unitarystate" or "acephalous
to some ofthe differences that have been used to distinguish rank societies society," so he created an intermediate category he called a "segmentary
(including chiefdoms), on the one hand, and states, on the other. Sugges state." Southall thought that this conceptwouldbe useful in describing the
tions included (1) a change in the settlement hierarchy from three to four interaction between the Alurand their political economy; eventually other
levels; (2)a change in the decision-making hierarchyfrom two to three (or scholars (such asBurton Stein [1977] in his historical analysis ofthe Chola
more) levels; (3) afundamental change in the ideology ofstratification and "empire" ofmedievalsouthIndiaandRichard Fox [1977] inhisaccountof
descent, such that rulers were conceded asacredsupernatural origin (estab the Rajput states ofnorth India) adopted the segmentary state concept in
lishing their divine right to rule) while commoners were seen as having a theirstudies.
separatedescentofnondivineorigin; (4)the emergenceoftwo endogamous Unfortunately, however, the phrase "segmentary state" misled many
strata, the resultofseveringthe bonds ofkinship that had oncelinkedlead scholars becausetheytookit to referto a"state-level"societywhenthe Alur
ersto followers in abranchingcontinuumofrelationships; (5)the evolution are no more than aranksocietyatbest. EventuallySouthall (1991:91) him
ofthepalaceastheruler's officialresidence; (6)thechangefromasingle cen selfrecanted: "AlthoughIcalledit [theAlurpolity] asegmentarystate, itwas
tralized leader (e.g., a chief) to a government that employed legal force hardlyastate, hardlyatwo classsociety, and it couldnotpreventsecession."
8 IJOYCE MARCUS AND GARY M. FEINMAN INTRODUCTION I 9
He unfortunatelymade things worse by adding, "I thinkit ispermissible to "The choiceisbetweengivingthe conceptup orresigning oneselfto using
refer to kings and kingdoms in these cases, terms which are appropriately it imprecisely." TomJones (1981:x) has described the term "city-state" as
flexible, rather than chiefs and chiefdoms, in order to avoid discriminating "an awkward one for which, regrettably, there is no acceptable alterna
against themsimplybecause they are notWestern, althoughpoliticallythey tive.... Partofthe difficultywith city-stateisthatone mustincludein this
were not fully states." Most seminar participants rejected this attempt to category small towns that cannot qualifyascities in the modernsense. Fur
avoid "discriminating" against the Alur, and lamented the application of ther, citizens ofcity-stateswere notineveryinstance residents ofthepopu
terms like "king," "kingdom," and "state" to what are actually rank socie lation centers where the governments were housed, nor did such cities or
ties withoutsocial stratification, kingship, and centralized government. centers of government always rule the surrounding countryside. Even
The phrase "segmentarystate" was embraced unwisely by some schol worse, city suggests to many persons urbanization as we know it today."
arsworkingin the Maya area (and elsewhere) before Southall had a chance Otherscholars point outthat manyofthe clusters ofsmall polities thathave
to take it back. They apparently did not realize that the phrase is derived been called city-states are simply the product ofthe breakdown oflarger
from "segmentary lineage system," an expression that describes the act of states (Marcus, this volume). When those states break down, their former
fissioning, with lineages being the units undergoing fission; and that those provincesbecomeautonomouspolitieswhofor atimelackthepowerto in
societieswereliable to fission preciselybecausetheywere notstates. Oneau corporatetheirneighborsintoanewstate. Whatdevelopsisakindofstand
thorwho made this veryclear was MarshallSahlins (1961:323), who wrote offbetween roughly equal small polities. The rulers ofthose polities may
that "asegmentarylineage systemisasocial means ofintrusionand compe continue to behave like kings (and be addressed asifthey were kings), but
tition in an already occupiedniche. More, it isan organization confinedto the territories they control are no larger than a chiefdom and may have no
societies ofa certain level ofdevelopment, the tribal level, asdistinguished more than a two- or three-tiered settlement hierarchy. They are de facto
from less-developed bands and more advanced chiefdoms . . . It develops chiefdomsyet havestratificationratherthanranking;severalseminarpartici
specificallyin atribalsocietywhichismovingagainstothertribes, in a tribal pants believe they belongin their own category.
intercultural environment." Seminar participants suggested a variety oflabels for these groups of
More than a decade ago, Ronald Cohen (1981) argued that fissioning small polities that have appeared in various parts ofthe world. "Balkanized
characterizednon-states,andhe regarded"antifissioninstitutions" asthecri provinces," "petty kingdoms," and "principalities" were but a few ofthe
terionfor statehood. ForCohen, a"segmentarystate"wouldbe impossible; terms considered. Severalparticipantssuggestedthatthelocaltermsfor each
asocietyiseithersegmentary orastate, not both. PeterSkalnik (1983) also world region might be the best: hesps or nomes (Egypt), altepetl (Aztec re
added his misgivings about the application ofterms such as "segmentary gion),cuchcabalob (Maya region), cacicazgos (Mixtecregion), curacazgos(Peru),
state" and"state" to societiesinMricathatare really "chiefdomsand chief and so forth. Many ofthese local terms share a common root origin: they
taincies," notstates. We alsobelievetheterm"segmentarystate"istoomuch mean "the territory controlledby a native lord" (Marcus 1983b). Invirtu
an oxymoron to be useful in thefuture. ally every case, this local term is a more accurate description ofthe polity
Another term many participants would like to see phased out is "city than "city-state."
state."Thistermcameintowidespreaduse asakindofEnglishsynonymfor The term used for the petty kingdoms ofMexico's Mixtec region at
the Greek polis (Burke 1986; Griffeth and Thomas 1981; Jones 1981). AD 1300-1500 isa good example. Incertainways, many cacicazgos (Spores
Thereare two problemswithitsuse: (1)manyAegeanspecialists do notbe 1967, 1974) were not typical states because they had only a two- orthree
lieve thepoliswas astate atall,and (2)manyofthepolitiesallovertheworld tiered hierarchyand displayed the de facto size and administrative structure
to which the term has been applied do not resemble the Greek polis. The ofchiefdoms. On the otherhand, they were not chiefdoms either, because
polis hasbeendefinedasademocraticand self-sufficientpolityinwhichthe class-endogamoussocial stratahadsurvivedfrom the preexistinglarge states
majorityoftowns and villageshadahighdegreeofautonomyandverylittle ofwhich they had been parts; their "kings" stilllivedin palaces.
economic controlovertheircitizens (Snodgrass 1977, 1980). Almostno so Theterm"principality" hasbeenusedby ColinRenfrew (1972:369) to
cietyto which this termhasbeenappliedinMesoamerica (for example) fits refer to Aegean polities that he describes as "something more than chief
this definition. doms, somethinglessthan states." Nicholas Dirks (1993) has used asimilar
Many ofthe seminar participants (and indeed, many ofour colleagues term, "princelystate," to referto those areasofIndia (roughlyathirdofthe
elsewhere) would gladly scrap the term. AsPeterBurke (1986:151) writes, country) that were not conquered by the British. "Princely states" were,