The paper presented at the 2nd International Conference ‘HIERARCHY AND POWER IN THE HISTORY OF CIVILIZATION’

St. Petersburg 7 July 2002

Leonid GRININ

General context of the social evolution at the early state formation

The general evolutionary and historical backgrounds of politogene-sis and formation of state are connected with а whole set of changes in economy and society noted by many various researchers (Ambrosino 1995; Adams 1966; Bondarenko & Korotayev 2000; Bondarenko & Sledzevski 2000; Carneiro 1970; 1978; 2000; 2002; Chase-Dunn & Hall 1997; Claessen 2000; 2002; Claessen & Scalnik 1978; 1981; Claessen & Oosten 1996; Cohen 1978a; 1978b; Cohen & Service 1978; Daniel 1968; Earle 1997; 2001; Feinman & Marcus 1998; Frazer 1980; Fried 1967; 1978; Grinin 1997, 1999; 2000a, 2000b, 2000c; 2001, 2002a; 2002b; Haas 1995; 2001; Johnson & Earle 2000; Kradin & Lynsha 1995; Kradin et all 2000; Kubbel` 1988; Sahlins 1960; 1972; Service 1975; Spenser 2000; Vasiliev 1980; Wittfogel 1957 etc.). Along with that, the multifactoral nature of politogenesis is stressed, often enough. However, the monolinear view of the problem of the origin of state still dominates (Kradin 1995:7), and, in fact, most researchers, manifestly or discretely, show inclination towards monolinear models (Service 1978; Haas 1995). So case material from history or ethnography can be found to support or refute an these positions and other as well (Cohen 1978a: 8; 1978b).

Among the researchers who deal with the problems of politoge-nesis the actually predominant tendency is to narrow the analysis to its ‘pure’ line. However, it is necessary to consider the genesis of early state in the general context of socioevolutionary processes coeval with it. It seems impossible to say that such an approach was always ignored (Claessen & Scalnik 1978; Claessen 2000). However, notwithstanding substantial achievements in the analysis of the general cultural context of

The ideas of this report are presented in detail in my work consisting of separate pub-

lishings (Grinin 2001; 2002a; 2000b).

state formation processes, this problem still appears to be far from its real solution.

One of the reasons is the fact that the process of politogenesis becomes а central issue not only because of the formulation of the prob-lem itself – which is quite justifiable – but also because it seems to be-come actually central among other evolution processes coeval with it. The latter circumstance is far from always being fair since political as-pects of society complication not infrequently proved to be of secondary importance (although later they could became of primary importance).

Often enough politogenesis is illegitimately reduced to а more narrow process – that is, the formation of state. I name this approach as statocentrism (Grinin 2001; Bondarenko, Grinin, Korotayev 2002). However, many historical and ethnographical examples of polities are known which morphologically and otherwise differ significantly from early state but are quite comparable with it in the range of their func-tions and/or level of their structural complexity (Bondarenko & Koro-tayev 2000; Grinin 1997, 2000a, 2000b, 2001, 2002a; Kradin & Lynsha 1995; Kradin et all 2000). It is also noted that differences between com-plex chiefdoms and rudimentary early states are insignificant (Kocha-cova 1999). Therefore, from the point of view of development stages, such chiefdoms and other polities can be regarded as equal to state, and they can legitimately be named as early state analogues (Grinin 1997, 2000a, 2000b, 2000с; Bondarenko, Grinin, Korotayev 2002). In certain conditions, the early state analogues could transform into state proper.

Therefore, for the solution of early state genesis problems I con-sider it very important to make а much stronger distinction, both in the-ory and terminology, between: а) politogenesis not only as an earlier but also as а wider phenomenon, and b) state formation process proper as а more specific and а later process that can be termed as statogenesis (Grinin 2002a; Bondarenko, Grinin, Korotayev 2002). In the Western, at least in the one that uses the English language, anthropological sci-ence the terminological situation resembles а mirror reflection. The no-tion of politogenesis does not exist there, and political anthropologists consider the term ‘state formation process’ to be sufficient. We suggest to use the term ‘politogenesis’ in order to denote the formation of any types of complex political organization (Grinin 2002a; Bondarenko, Grinin, Korotayev 2002).

The general evolution context of post-primitive stage is con-nected with powerful changes caused by the transition from foraging to

2

food production. Population growth, increase in the quantity of welfare and more complicated distribution of it, as well as other processes, lead to а situation when previous ways of the formation of societies, of rela-tions inside of them and between them could no longer solve all the emerging problems. For this reason, the already more complex sociums faced а principally similar evolution problem: to find new ways of structuring and unification of societies and establishing intersociety relations. The vast diversity of specific socio-political forms yielded, in а sense, different answers to this evolution problem. It should also be taken into consideration that these processes were very syncretic and they easily transformed into each other: social into professional and vice versa; sacral into political and vice versa (Wason and Baldia 1995: 142), ethnical into political and vice versa (Kubbel` 1988; Cabezas 2000); po-litical and social into proprietary and vice versa (see Sahlins 1972: 140). In this aspect, politogenesis can also be regarded only as one of the ways – for а long time not the most important from the point of view of evolution at that – of solving the mentioned evolution problem, along with other processes (such as ethnogenesis, emergence of inequality, other socio-cultural changes) (Grinin 2001).

Although now many deny the necessity to single out stages in this or that process (Shanks and Tilley 1987; see criticism of this by Wason 1995:19), I am inclined to agree with Robert Carneiro in that op-posing the process and the stages is false dichotomy (Carneiro 2000). In the general evolution aspect the following stages can be singled out in politogenesis: 1. Prestate. 2. Early state. 3. State, i. e. the stage of al-ready formed state.

But, in contradistinction to the concepts by Service (Service 1975), Fried (Fried 1967) and some other researchers that are also based evolution phases of development, I most specifically point out that: when societies reach the mentioned stages they may possess quite differ-ent political and social forms. There is no, and cannot be, any unifica-tion and singular linearity. The aims of such division into periods are: а) to reveal similarities in complexity, development level and functions of outwardly dissimilar societies, and b) to emphasize the multilinearity of evolution, at the same time not forgetting that among evolution lines the main (or general) one can be singled out which is the formation of state (the latter has been reflected in the names of stages pertaining to state).

3

Although in every type of society different domains developed unevenly, I am still inclined to suppose that in most cases politogenesis started as а side process and followed as an addition to strengthening high birth, status, sacrality and, in part, other processes. Even in the so-cieties of early state stage it frequently occupied still а subordinate posi-tion. And only in the next, the state stage, politogenesis, now basically in the form of statogenesis, may be regarded as an evolutionally leading process.

That is why, speaking in very general terms, both the appear-ance of social inequality and invention of primary mechanism to secure it were the most universal evolutionary result of the development of the prestate phase of politogenesis (Grinin 2002a). However, this inequality is not antagonistic yet. As to political aspects, their essential develop-ment is far from being characteristic of all societies. Nevertheless, in many cases the power is concentrated with the minority, and so its de-tachment from the basic population starts. But, as а rule, its detachment is very incomplete, the power still being poorly differentiated and re-maining rather conciliatory than compelling. So in the second, the early state stage the most universal task for sociums still was to make mainte-nance of inequality steady enough and easily reproducible (Grinin, 2002a). The political subsystem of the society is actively forming, too, and detachment of power from the population is on the whole increas-ing.

Although the second stage is called ‘the early state stage’, the emergence of early state analogues was not at all an exception (see Doornbos 1994; Schaedel 1995, on the proportion of ‘norm’ during the formation of state and non-state forms). On the contrary, it was the for-mation of early state that for а long period remained а rarer phenomenon in politogenesis. So, over а long period of time, the complicating of so-cial structure, the exploitation of neighbourhood and wars, the develop-ment of commerce, property inequality and private ownership, amplify-ing of the part of religious cults and corporations and other could be enough alternative of properly administrative and political decisions of above-mentioned evolution problem. And in these terms, the early State is only one of the forms of new organization of the society and intersociety relations. Evolution advantages of the early State over its analogs cold be ulterior during very long time (Grinin 2001).

4

The differences between societies of early state stage (both early states proper and their analogues) and societies of prestate stage can be formulated as follows:

1. Changes in production base, increase in territory and popula-tion growth.

2. Increase in the complexity of society and the number of its structural complexity levels.

3. Essential changes in traditions and institutions related to the regulation of socio-political life.

4. Division of society into two or more strata differing from each other in rights and duties. Growing degree of material indepen-dence of the highest stratum from the lowest one.

5. Emergence of an ideology that acquits and legitimizes socio-political changes in the society.

All these differences are obvious enough, while those in par 1, 2 and even 4 can also be expressed in figures.

Same features serve to distinguish the early state from pre-state forms – but only as of the polities of а higher politogenesis stage from the formations of а lower stage. The above-mentioned features do not belong exclusively to the early state since other analogous forms of the early state also possess them.

That is why, contrary to what one may often read in some re-searchers’ papers, neither the degree of complexity, nor the territory size and population density, nor the division into two or more strata (Claessen & Scalnik 1978; Claessen 2002), nor the performance of obli-gationd demanded from the population (Claessen & Scalnik 1978; Claessen 2002), nor the presence of towns (Adams 1966; see criticism of this: Servise 1975; Claessen 1978), nor the spatial integration of set-tlements (Lozny 1995: 90), nor the presence of ceremonial centres which were all dense aggregations of buildings (see criticism of this: Schaedel 1995: 51), nor the so-called secondary features of а primary state formation process (Lozny 1995: 90) will not serve as an exclusive feature of а state distinguishing it from pre-state formations. They are encountered in many, or at least in some of the analogues of early states. At the same time, however, some of these features may not be observed in some or other early states.

The more so, such features do not allow to distinguish an early state from its analogues. Many researchers implicitly believe that there is only а single criterion (which actually is regarded as а single feature

5

by some of them or as а system of interconnected features by others), but it is the only one by which an early state is distinguished from all other forms of polities once and for all. However, there are at least three such criteria distinguishing an early state from: а) pre-state forms; b) early state analogues and c) already formed states. Applying only one single criterion to all cases is practically impossible and unproductive. Therefore, to solve the problem of disclosing the specifics of the early state all the same, it should be divided into the following stages:

– First, to show the differences between the societies of the early state stage from those of the pre-state stage. This has been done above.

– Next, to look for the differences between an early state and its analogues belonging to the same stage.

– Still next, to point out both similarity and dissimilarity be-tween an early state and already formed state. At this point one can ob-serve the emerging, still vague features of an early state become more pronounced in а mature state, and, on the contrary, the transitional and residual moments disappear.

When looking for dissimilarities between early states and their ana-logues, one should take into consideration the fact. That, since both be-long to the same development stage, the differences between them are not as strong as between the societies of pre-state and early state stages; they are not so evident, noticeable only in retrospect. This calls for more delicate approaches and means, as well as more detailed anal-ysis. To distinguish an early state from its analogues, I have elaborated four features (Grinin 2002b) described as follows:

1. Special attributes of supreme power.2. New principles of labour division in society administration.3. Ability to break off from traditions and substitute traditions with

political will.4. Redistribution of powers.These features are abstract enough, and within their framework

some or other more specific trends prevailed in each of the polities. For example, it should be understood that no early state could break away from many of the traditions, not to mention all of them, immediately. In each case it was most important to break away from one or another.

The singled out features make it possible to concentrate in them – that is, to include as constituents – many of the moments pointed out by various researchers as distinguishing features of the early state. This

6

concerns, for example, the differentiation and specialization of the power and ability to delegate it (Claessen 1978: 576; Wright 1977; Spenser 2000), the division of the society into the governing and gov-

erned strata, the emergence of the apparatus and repressive bodies (this feature is especially frequently mentioned in Godiner 1991: 68), – all these are included into the feature ‘the new principles of labour division in society administration’. Or let us take Weber’s idea of state monop-oly for employment of coercion. This attribute is not infrequently re-garded as а feature of state. It is an organic component of the feature the ability to break off from traditions.

However, it should be pointed out that although each of these fea-tures must, to this or that extent, be present in each early state, none sep-arate of them is exclusively characteristic of the state only. They may also be found in some (or even many) analogues. But each feature un-failingly demonstrates distinctions between the early state and certain analogues in which it is missing. Thus, the features of an early state that make it different from analogues should be regarded as а sys-tem since no analogues exist that could exhibit all the features listed in the required volume and completeness. Which shows that ‘we must not think in terms of ‘pure’ types. The state is distinct even though it holds many features in common with chiefdoms’ (Wason 1995: 23).

Now we shall elaborate on the features that we have singled out and mark several lines within each of them.

1. Special attributes of supreme power

– Sufficient strength of the supreme power is what distinguishes early states from those analogues in which it is quite weak or missing, as well as from those where the primary task of the supreme power is to preserve unity and consensus – of the types such as the Iroquois

(Vorobyov 2000), or Mesoamerican confederations (Beliaev 2000) or more complex societies, for instance, Gaulish chiefdoms and towns (see Le Roux 2000: 123–127). The indications of Reality and strength of the supreme power are: sufficiently systematic character of its activities – at least in certain important directions – and possibility to make any sub-stantial changes in the controlled territories and to expand its authority.

– It is very important to point out the sufficient completeness of functions of the supreme power (on functions see Service 1975: XIII; Claessen 1978: 576). This is what distinguishes early states from their

7

analogues where the domestic rule is weak (since based traditions) while the foreign-policy function is quite well developed – like in nomadic empires (Kradin 1992, 1996, 2001).

– The ability to resist disintegration processes and tendencies (Co-hen 1981).

2. New principles of labour division in society administration

– Divisibility of power and ability to delegate it. Indivisible power is such power that cannot be temporarily transferred, delegated, distributed and divided between several people without the risk of losing it partially or completely. That is what it used to be in the pre-state and the majority of the complex societies (Wright 1977; Spenser 2000). It is worth men-tioning that indivisibility of power also means indivisibility of responsi-bility of the ruler for of failures and disasters of all sorts. Accordingly, divisibility of power does not mean its complete or partial loss but а possibility to endow somebody with а measured portion of power pre-serving the possibility to take it back or redistribute.

Turning to the early state, one may already talk about а considerable degree of power divisibility. In pre-state and non-state societies, using а sociological term, the rule of the Zero sum is in force meaning that if somebody’s amount of power has increased, somebody else’s amount of power has decreased (Smelser 1994: 545). As the apparatus develops, the centre may delegate power to somebody, and the amount of its power does not decrease because of this delegation (at least, it should not). But since every functionary also has the power, as whole the amount of power increases which fact definitely increases the opportu-nities of an early state in comparison with its analogues. In this way power differentiation and specialization as well as division of adminis-trative labour become possible which opens great possibilities for а soci-ety to develop politically.

– In an early state, execution of supreme power functions becomes detached from the supreme power itself (as the bearer of these func-tions). Sometimes the delegation of tasks is mentioned (Claessen 1978: 576), but it is а somewhat narrower notion, it can be fond in analogues as well. Now the functions of supreme power begin to be executed by functionaries, deputies, specialists, etc.

– Peculiarities of apparatus formation. Greater social mobility of the persons who execute state functions is characteristic of the state as compared to many of its analogues. It is important to take into account

8

the degree of easiness with which people not belonging to certain elite circles (kin, clan, etc.) are admitted to the apparatus (and the army).

– New type of professional administrators. Wittfogel used to say that the state is administration by professionals (Wittfogel 1957). How-ever ‘а professional’ has quite а broad meaning. Many of the analogues were also ruled by professionals. Mostly they were professionals by in-heritance. That is what the chieftains of various ranks were in chief-doms. As to the state, there were enough professionals by inheritance, but professional functionaries (their classification see in Claessen 1978: 576) started to play а more and more significant part. Their rights for а position differed, but among all of them we would specifically single out the nominees – those who are appointed or hired to take certain po-sitions or posts and are fully dependent from the ruler and the power (e. g. see material on the role of royal servants in administration in the Old Kingdom, Ancient Egypt) (Janssen 1978: 223). The advent of func-tionaries intensified labour division in the sphere of administration. (On dissimilarities in administration between chiefdom and state see Dia-mond 1999: 274).

3. Ability to break off from traditions and substitute its with po-litical will

Administration of power according to tradition does not require а special apparatus. But the deeper is the break off from tradition, the stronger is the need for it. Therefore, paraphrasing the well-known defi-nition by Lenin, it can be said that the state starts there and then, where and when traditional methods of administration stop working. Since the number of traditions is great, they could change in as many directions as well. But in each early state traditions change only at certain moments determined by historical and geographical circumstances. Some of the important trends of such changes can be singled out:

а) Changes in the structure of the state and in the order of power transfer; introduction or abolition of positions and bodies; b) changes in the status, rights and obligations of persons, groups and total population (e. g. see Tokarev, Kobishahchanov 1978: 257); c) changes in the ritual, norms and customs; d) changes in the territory organization (see Koro-tayev 2000: 245–246; Bondarenko 1995: 183–189) and spatial integra-tion of settlements (Lozny 1995: 90); e) improvement of the material in-dependence of the government from the population. As а rule, forced expropriation from the population has а larger scale in the early states

9

than in their analogues. However, the incomes of an early state are not always connected with taxes levied upon its subjects or forced labour (Chase-Dunn and Hall 1997: 236).

4. Redistribution of powers (I have devised this concept (Grinin 2000a, 2002b) on the analogy with redistribution of goods). To control а political situation, traditions are not always а sufficient means when po-litical situation exchanges especially. That is why the kind of fluctua-tions и dislocations of the power happens from time to time in the ana-logues (from the centre to the periphery and vice versa, from the popula-

tion to the elite and vice versa, from ones groups to others and vice versa, from the aristocracy to the chieftain and vice versa etc). In the early state this phenomena starts to transform into redistribution of powers, that is, redistribution of powers and rights to take (execute) de-cisions from the population, settlements, provinces and territories by the centre (as а withdrawal of powers and rights from ones and transfer of them to others).

Redistribution of powers means а more or less permanent two-way traffic between the centre and the periphery, to and from, of power functions, directives, actions and manpower and material re-sources involved in it. This movement is aimed at maintenance of cer-tain order, balance of interests in the society and solution of the prob-lems that it faces, but by all means under the aegis of and control from the supreme power. Conventionally speaking, it’s a re-orientation of the streams of power functions and actions towards the centre where con-siderable portion of the power is withheld (Cf.e.g. the statuses of metro-politan and provincial nobility in the Old Kingdom, Ancient Egypt – Perepyolkin 2001:191-192). As a result, the early state starts to change relationships from within much faster than the analogues. The above said does not exclude hesitations and temporary weakening of the centre, disorder in the power redistribution system. Ultimately the powers are redistributed in its favor.

But as the redistribution of welfare does not yet follow a permanent, systematic and strictly controlled order, – the properties that taxes begin to acquire, – the redistribution of powers similarly does not mean that power circulates freely so that a power will would not face any obstacles in bringing it to those to whom it is turned and controlling its implemen-tation. Redistribution of powers is a state of transition from conciliatory power to coercive. The political order has not been established yet, so it

10

requires heavy efforts from the government to retain the redistributed power.

REFERENCES

Adams, R. 1966. The Evolution of Urban Society: Early Mesopotamia and Pre-historic Mexico. – Chicago: Aldine.

Ambrosino, J. N. 1995. Inter-societal contact and the rise of the state: a brief note work in progress. In Kradin & Lynsha: 54-59.

Beliaev, D. D.2000. ‘Joint Government’ in Mesoamerican History. In Bondarenko

and Sledzevski 2000: 13–14.

Bondarenko D. M., Grinin L. E., Korotayev A. V. 2002. Alternative Pathways of Social Evolution. Social Evolution & History 1: 54-79.

Bondarenko, D. M. (Бондаренко, Д. М.) 1995. Бенин накануне первых контактов с европейцами. Человек. Общество. Власть. М: Институт Африки РАН.

Bondarenko, D. M. & Korotayev, A. V. (eds.). 2000. Civilizational Models of Politogenesis. Moscow: IAf RAN. Bondarenko, D. M. & Sledzevski, I. V. (eds) 2000. Hierarchy and Power in the History of Civilizations. Moscow: IAf RAN.

Cabezas, J. M. 2000. Ethnogenesis and Politogenesis: Social Identify, Frontier and Ethnogenesis as an Ongoing Dinamic. In Bondarenko & Sledzevski 2000: P. 29.

Carneiro, R. 1970. A Theory of the Origin of the State. Science 169: 733-738. 1978. Political Expansion as an Expression of the Principle of Com-petitive Exclusion. In Cohen & Service 1978: 205-223. 2000. Process VS. Stages: A False Dichotomy in Tracing the Rise of the State. In Kradin et all. 2000: 52-58. 2002. Was the Chiefdom a Congelation of Ideas? Social Evolution & History 1: 80-100.

11

Chase-Dunn, C. & Hall, T. D. 1997. Rise and Demise: Comparing World-Systems. Boulder, CO: Westview Press,

Claessen, H. J.M. 1978. The Early State: A Structural Approach. In Claessen & Scalnik 1978: 533-596. 2000. Problems, Paradoxes, and Prospects of Evolutionism. In Kradin et all. 2000: 1-11. 2002. Was the State Inevitable? Social Evolution & History 1: 101-117.

Claessen, H. J. M. & Scalnik, P. (eds.) 1978. The Early State. The Hague: Mouton. Claessen, H. J. M. & Scalnik, P. (eds.) 1981. The Study of the State. The Hague: Mouton.

Claessen, H. J. M. & Oosten, J. G. (eds.) 1996. Ideology and the Formation of Early States. Leiden: Brill.

Cohen, R. 1978a. Introduction. In Cohen & Service 1978: 1-20. 1978b. State Origins: A Reappraisal. In Claessen & Scalnik 1978: 31-75. 1981. Evolution, fission and early state. In Claessen & Scalnik 1981: 96-112. Cohen, R. & Service, E. R. (eds.) 1978. Origins of the state. Philadelphia: Institute for the Study of Hu-man Issues. Crumley, C. L. 2001. Communication, Holism, and the Evolution of Sociopolitical Complexity. In Haas 2001: 19-33. Daniel, G. 1968. The First Civilizations. London: L.C. Card Diamond, J. 1999. Guns, Germs, and Steel. The Fates of Human Societies. New York, London: W. W. Norton & Company. Doornbos, M. 1994. Early State formation and the present; reflection on identity and power. In Bakel, M. van, Hagesteijn R., Velde, P. van de (eds.) 1994. Pivot Politics: Changing cultural identities in early state for-mation processes (pp. 281-295). Amsterdam: Het Spinhuis.

12

Earle, T. K. 1997. How Chiefs Come to Power: The Political Economy in Prehis-tory. Stanford, Cal.: Stanford University Press, 2001. Institutionalization of Chifdoms. Why Landscapes Are Built. In Haas 2001: 105-124. Frazer, G. G. (Фрезер, Дж. Дж.) 1980. Золотая ветвь: исследование магии и религии. Пер. с англ. М.: Политиздат. Feinman, G. M. & Marcus, J. (eds.) 1998. Archaic States. Santa Fe – New Mexico: School of American Research Press. Fried M. H. 1967. The Evolution of Political Society. An Essay in Political Anthro-pology. New York: Random House. 1978. The State, the Chicken, and the Egg; or What Came First? In Cohen & Service 1978: 35-48. Godiner E. S. (Годинер, Э.С.) 1991. Политическая антропология о происхождении государства. В: Этнологическая наука за рубежом: проблемы, поиски, решения (С. 51-78). М.: Наука. Grinin. L. E. 1997. Formatsii i tsivilizatsii. Gl. 4. Sotsial’no-politicheskie, etnich-eskie i dukhovnye aspekty sotsiologii istorii [Formations and Civiliza-tions. Ch. 4. Socio-Political, Ethnic, and Spiritual Aspects of the Sociol-ogy of History]. Filosofija i obshchestvo 5: 5–64. 1999. Соотношение развития государства и производительных сил (в рамках всемирно-исторического процесса). Вест. Моск. ун-та. Сер. 12. Политические науки. 1: 17-27. 2000а. Proizvoditel’nye sily i istoricheskij protsess [Productive Forces and Historical Process]. Мoskva: Teis. 2000b. Политогенез: генеральная и боковые линии (доклад на Международной конференции «Иерархия и власть в истории цивилизаций», Москва, 15-18 июня 2000). Волгоград: Учитель. 2000c. Politogenesis: General and Lateral Branches. In Bondarenko & Sledzevski 2000: P. 51. 2001. Genesis gosudarstva kak sostavnaja chast’ protsessa perehoda ot pervobytnosti k tsivilizatsii (obshchij kontekst sotsial’noj evoljutsii pri obrazovanii rannego gosudarstva) [State Formation as a Component of the Civilization Formation Process (General Socioevolutionary Context of the Early State Formation)]. Part 1. Filosofija i obshchestvo 4: 5–60.

13

2002a. Genesis gosudarstva kak sostavnaja chast’ protsessa perehoda ot pervobytnosti k tsivilizatsii (obshchij kontekst sotsial’noj evoljutsii pri obrazovanii rannego gosudarstva. [State Formation as a Component of the Civilization Formation Process (General Socioevolutionary Con-text of the Early State Formation)]. Part 2. Filosofija i obshchestvo 2: 5-74. 2002b. Genesis gosudarstva kak sostavnaja chast’ protsessa perehoda ot pervobytnosti k tsivilizatsii (obshchij kontekst sotsial’noj evoljutsii pri obrazovanii rannego gosudarstva) [State Formation as a Component of the Civilization Formation Process (General Socioevolutionary Con-text of the Early State Formation)]. Part 3. Filosofija i obshchestvo 3 (in print). Haas, J. 1995. The Roads to statehood. In Kradin & Lynsha: 16-18. Haas, J. (ed.) 2001. From Leaders to Rulers. New York etc : Kluwer Academic/ Plenum Publishers.

Janssen, Jac. J. 1978. The Early State in Ancient Egypt. In Claessen & Scalnik 1978: 213-234. Johnson, A. W. & Earle T. K. 2000. The Evolution of Human Societies: from foraging group to agrarian state. Second Ed.– Stanford, Cal.: Stanford University Press.

Kochacova N. B. (Кочакова, Н. Б.) 1999. Ранее государство и Африка (аналитический обзор публикаций Международного исследовательского проекта «Раннее государство»). М.: Институт Африки РАН. Kradin, N. N. (Крадин, Н. Н.) 1992. Кочевые общества. Владивосток: Дальнаука. 1995. From unilinear view to the state origin to the multilinear. In Kradin & Lynsha: 7-15. 1996. Империя Хунну. Владивосток: Дальнаука. 2001. Кочевники в мировом историческом процессе. Философия и общество 2: 108-137.

Kradin, N. N., Korotayev, A. V., Bondarenko, D. M., de Munck, V., and Wason, P. K. (eds.) 2000. Alternatives of Social Evolution. Vladivostok: FEB RAS.

Kradin, N. N. & Lynsha, V. A. (eds.)

14

1995. Alternative Pathways to Early State. Vladivostok: Dal'nauka.

Korotayev, A. V. (Коротаев, А. В.) 2000. От государства к вождеству? От вождества к племени? (некоторые общие тенденции эволюции южноаравийских социально-политических систем за последние три тысячи лет). В: Попов, В. А. (сост. и отв. ред.). 2000. Ранние формы социальной организации. Генезис, функционирование, историческая динамика (С. 224-302). СПб.: МАЭ РАН.

Kubbel`, L. E. (Куббель, Л. Е.) 1988. Очерки потестарно-политической этнографии. М.: Наука.

Le Roux F. (Леру, Ф.) 2000. Друиды. Пер. с фр. С.- Петербург: Евразия.

Lozny, L. 1995. The Transition to statehood in Central Europe. In Kradin & Lynsha: 84-92.

Perepelkin, Yu. Ya. (Перепелкин, Ю. Я.) 2001. История Древнего Египта. С.-Петербург: Журнал «Нева», Летний сад.

Sahlins, M. D. 1960. Political Power and the Economy in Primitive Society. In Dole, G. E. & Carneiro, R. L. (eds.). Essays in the Science of Culture (pp. 390-415). New York: Tomas Y. Crowell Company. 1972. Stone Age Economics. – Chicago: Aldine. Schaedel, R. 1995. The temporal variants of proto-state societies. In Kradin & Lynsha: 47-53.

Service, E. R. 1975. Origins of the State and Civilization. The Process of Cultural Evolution. New York: Norton. 1978. Classical and Modern Theories of the Origins of Government. In Cohen & Service 1978: 21-34.

Shanks, M. and Tilley, C. 1987. Social Theory and Archaeology. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Smelser N. (Смелзер, Н.) 1994. Социология. Пер. с англ. М.:Феникс.

15

Spenser, C. S. 2000. The Political Economy of Pristine State Formation. In Kradin et all. 2000: 154-165.

Tokarev S. A., Kobishahchanov, Yu. M. (eds.) (Токарев, С. А., Кобищанов, Ю. М. (ред.)) 1978. Община в Африке: проблемы типологии. М.: Наука.

Vasiliev, L. S. (Васильев, Л. С.) 1980. Становление политической администрации (от локальной группы охотников-собирателей к протогосударству-чифдом). Народы Азии и Африки 1: 177-186.

Vorobyov, D. V. 2000. The Iroquis (15th–18th centuries AD). In Bondaren-ko & Koro-tayev 2000: 157-174.

Wason, P. K. 1995. Social Types and the Limits of Typological Thinking in Social Archaeology. In Kradin & Lynsha: 19-27.

Wason, P. K. and Baldia, M. O. 2000. Religion, Communication, and Genesis of Social Complexity in European Neolithic. In Kradin et all. 2000:138-149.

Wittfogel, K. A. 1957. Oriental Despotism. New Haven; Yale university Press.

Wright, H. T. 1977. Recent Research on the Origin of the State. Annual Review of Anthropology 6: 379-397.

16