RUSSIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCES CENTER FOR CIVILIZATIONAL AND REGIONAL STUDIES CIVILIZATIONAL MODELS OF POLITOGENESIS Moscow 2000 The “CIVILIZATIONAL DIMENSION” Series Editorial Board of the Series: IGOR V. SLEDZEVSKI (Editor-in-Chief) DMITRI M. BONDARENKO, NATALIA A. KSENOFONTOVA, ALEXEI M. VASSILIEV Editors of the Volume: Dmitri M. Bondarenko, Andrey V. Korotayev The volume represents an attempt of a complex study of the politogenetic processes in their regional and temporary variety. The authors hope that their survey can and should also promote a better understanding of the general tendencies and mechanisms of cultural and sociopolitical evolution, of the interrelation and interaction of cultural, social, and political formats in the human society. The authors believe that the use of principles and methods of the civilizational approach in politogenetic studies, on the one hand, and the inclusion of the politogenesis into the problem area of civilizations studies, on the other hand, creates the effect of novelty in terms of both anthropology and civilizations studies, enriches their scientific toolkit and expands heuristic limits. ISBN 5-201-05100-6 © Institute for African Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2000 © Center for Civilizational and Regional Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2000 © The authors, 2000 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors and editors of the present volume are grateful to Mr. Dmitri D. Beliaev for his assistance in editing of some chapters of the present volume, as well as to Mr. Pavel A. Seslavin and Mr. Dmitri V. Gru- shkin who translated into English Mr. Vorobyov and Prof. Dozhdev’s chap- ters. We are also thankful to the Director of the Institute for African Studies Press Dr. Natalia A. Ksenofontova and Mrs. Galina N. Terenina, the techni- cal editor, for their help and advice. CONTENTS 1. Dmitri M. Bondarenko & Andrey V. Korotayev. INTRODUCTION ......... 5 I. PRECONDITIONS FOR ALTERNATIVITY AND INITIAL PHASES OF POLITOGENESIS 2. Marina L. Butovskaya. BIOSOCIAL PRECONDITIONS FOR SOCIO-POLITICAL ALTERNATIVITY 35 3. Olga Yu. Artemova. INITIAL PHASES OF POLITOGENESIS .............................. 54 II. HIERARCHICAL ALTERNATIVES OF POLITOGENESIS 4. Timothy K. Earle. HAWAIIAN ISLANDS (AD 800–1824) ……….....................…..... 73 5. Dmitri M. Bondarenko. BENIN (1st millennium BC 19th century AD) .… 87 6. Dmitri D. Beliaev. CLASSIC LOWLAND MAYA (AD 250–900) .......................................... 128 III. NON-HIERARCHICAL ALTERNATIVES OF POLITOGENESIS 7. Denis V. Vorobyov. THE IROQUOIS (15th – 18th centuries AD) ........................ 157 8. Vladimir O. Bobrovnikov. THE BERBERS (19th – early 20th centuries AD ) .............. 175 9. Andrey V. Korotayev. NORTH–EAST YEMEN (1st and 2nd millennia AD) ....................... 191 10. Moshe Berent. GREECE (11th – 4th centuries BC) …........……….. 228 IV. HIERARCHICAL NON-HIERARCHICAL FORMS: MODELS OF TRANSITION 11. Dmitri V. Dozhdev. ROME (8th – 2nd centuries BC) ……............…… 255 12. Nikolay N. Kradin. THE HSIUNG–NU (200 BC – AD 48) ….......................…… 287 13. Dmitri M. Bondarenko & Andrey V. Korotayev. CONCLUSIONS ..... 305 I. PRECONDITIONS FOR ALTERNATIVITY AND INITIAL PHASES OF POLITOGENESIS 1 Dmitri M. Bondarenko Andrey V. Korotayev INTRODUCTION It has always been peculiar to evolutionists to compare social and bio- logical evolution, the latter as visualized by Charles Darwin. But it also seems possible and correct to draw an analogy with another great discovery in the field of biology, with the homologous series of Nikolay Vavilov (1921; 1927; 1967). However, there is no complete identity between cultural paral- lelism and biological homologous series. Vavilov studied the morphological homology, whereas our focus within the realm of social evolution is the func- tional one. No doubt, the morphological homomorphism also happens in the process of social evolution (e.g. on the Hawaii Islands where a type of the sociocultural organization surprisingly similar with other highly developed parts of Polynesia had independently formed by the end of the 18th century [Sahlins 1958; Goldman 1970; Earle 1978]). But this topic is beyond the pre- sent monograph's problematique. What is important for us here is that there are reasons to suppose that an equivalent level of socio-political (and cultural) complexity, which makes it possible to solve equally difficult problems faced by societies, can be achieved not only in various forms but on essentially different evolutionary pathways, too. Thus it is possible to achieve the same level of system com- plexity through differing pathways of evolution which appeared simultane- ously (and even prior to its origins [Butovskaya & Feinberg 1993; Butovskaya 1994 and this volume]) and increased in quantity alongside socio-cultural advancement (Pavlenko 1996: 229–251). Hence, human asso- ciations may be compared not only “vertically” (hierarchically) but also “horizontally” (non-hierarchically) in that they may be on the same or on different evolutionary staircases, but comparable with each other in the sense implied by the principle of the “law of homologous series” in biology. Hence, on the first level of analysis, all evolutionary variability can be reduced to two principally different groups of homologous series, just be- cause any society is based either on a vertical or horizontal principle (Bon- darenko 1997: 12–15; 1998a; 1998c; 2000; Bondarenko & Korotayev 1998; 1999a; 1999b). However, on the further level of analysis this dychotomy turns out not 5 to be rigid at all. No doubt, it is necessary to qualify that a certain hierarchy could be found in any society. The actual organization of any society em- ploys both vertical (dominance – subordination) and horizontal (appre- hended as ties among equals) links. Nevertheless, those links play different parts in different societies. Hence, according to the relative role of the two types of links, all the societies could be ranged along an axis with an indefi- nite dividing line between societies yearning towards either extreme. It is important to emphasize that this axis should not be regarded as an evolution- ary line which correlates with the staircase of growing socio-political com- plexity. The growing socio-political complexity could go hand in hand with the “hierarchization” (i.e. the development of vertical links), but it could well be accompanied by the “de-hierarchization” (i.e. the growth of the relative importance of horizontal links). Take, e.g. the famous Sahlins/Service staircase of the “levels of cul- tural integration” (Service 1971 [1962]; its outline is, however, already con- tained in Sahlins 1960: 37): band - tribe - chiefdom - state. The scheme im- plies precisely the evolutionary interpretation of the above-mentioned axis whereas less hierarchisized societies are automatically considered to be less developed than more hierarchical ones. It implies that the growth of cultural complexity (at least up to the stage of the agrarian state) is inevitably accom- panied by the growth of inequality, stratification, the social distance between the rulers and the ruled, the “authoritarianism” and hierarchization of the po- litical system, decrease of the political participation of the main mass of population etc, i.e. by the constant growth of the relative importance of verti- cal ties. Of course, these two sets of parameters seem to be related rather closely. It is evident that we observe here a certain correlation, and rather a strong one. But, no doubt, this is just a correlation, and by no means a func- tional dependence. No doubt, this correlation implies a perfectly possible line of socio-political evolution – from an egalitarian, acephalous band, through a big-man village community with much more pronounced inequality and po- litical hierarchy, to an “authoritarian” village community with a strong power of its chief (found for example among some Indians of the North-West Coast – see e.g. Carneiro 2000), and than through the “true” chiefdoms hav- ing even more pronounced stratification and concentration of the political power in the hands of the chief, to the complex chiefdoms where the political inequality parameters reach a qualitatively higher levels, and finally to the agrarian state where all such parameters reach their culmination (though one could move even further, up to the level of the “empire” [e.g. Adams 1975]). However, it is very important to stress that on each level of the growing po- 6 litical complexity one could find easily evident alternatives to this evolution- ary line. Already among the primates with the same level of morphological and cognitive development, and even among primate populations belonging to the same species, one could observe both more and less hierarchically organized groups. Hence, the non-linearity of socio-political evolution appears to origi- nate already before the Homo Sapiens Sapiens formation (Butovskaya & Feinberg 1993; Butovskaya 1994 and this volume). If we then proceed to the human societies of the simplest level of socio-cultural complexity, we shall see that the acephalous egalitarian band is indeed found among most of the unspecialized hunter-gatherers. However, as has been shown by Woodburn (1972; 1979; 1980; 1982; 1988a; 1988b) and Artemova (1987; 1989; 1991; 1993; Chudinova 1981; see also Whyte 1978: 49–94), some of such hunter-gatherers (the inegalitarian ones, first of all most of the Australian aborigines) display a significantly different type of socio-political organization