Comparative Frames for the Diachronic Analysis of Complex Societies: Next Steps (2012) more

The Comparative Archaeology of Complex Societies Edited by Michael E. Smith Arizona State University CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, Sao Paulo, Delhi, Tokyo, Mexico City Cambridge University Press 32 Avenue of the Americas, New York, ny 10013-2473, usa www.cambridge.org Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9780521142 120 © Cambridge University Press 2012 This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press. First published 2012 Printed in the United States of America A catalog record for this publication is available from the British Library. Library of Congress Cataloging hi Publication data The comparative archaeology of complex societies / [edited by] Michael E. Smith, p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. isbn 978-0-52 1-19791-5 (hardback) - isbn 978-0-521-142 12-0 (paperback) 1. Social archaeology. 2. Social groups. 3. Complex organizations. I. Smith, Michael Ernest, 1953- cc72,4.c69 201 r 930.1-dc22 2011012709 isbn 978-0-52 1-19791-5 Hardback isbn 978-0-521-142 r2-0 Paperback Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of urls external or third-party Internet Web sites referred to in this publication and does not guarantee that any content on such Web sites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate. CONTENTS List of Tables List of Figures Contributors Foreword by Jeremy A. Sabloff Preface page ix xi xiii xvii xxi CHAPTER 1 COMPARATIVE ARCHAEOLOGY: A COMMITMENT TO UNDERSTANDING VARIATION Robert D. Drennan, Timothy Earle, Gaiy M. Feinman, Roland Fletcher, Michael J. Kolb, Peter Peregrine, Christian E. Peterson, Carla Sinopoli, Michael E. Smith, Monica L. Smith, Barbara L. Stark, and Miriam T. Stark CHAPTER 2 APPROACHES TO COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS IN ARCHAEOLOGY Michael E. Smith and Peter Peregrine CHAPTER 3 COMPARATIVE FRAMES FOR THE DIACH RONIC ANALYSIS OF COMPLEX SOCIETIES: NEXT STEPS Gary M. Feinman v 2o THE COMPARATIVE ARCHAEOLOGY OF COMPLEX SOCIETIES Storey, Glenn R. 1999 Archaeology and Roman Society: Integrating Textual and Archaeological Data. Journal of Archaeological Research 7:203-48. Thomas, Cyrus 1898 Report on Mound Explorations of the Bureau of American Ethnology. Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology 12:3-742. Tilly, Charles 1984 Big Stntctures, Large Processes, and Huge Comparisons. Russell Sage Foundation, New York. Trigger, Bruce G. 1998 Sociocultural.Evolution: Calculation and Contingency. Black- well, Oxford. __2003 Understanding Early Civilizations: A Comparative Study. Cambridge University Press, New York. __2006 A History of Archaeological Thought. 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press, New York. Tylor, Edward B. 1871 Primitive Culture. 2 vols. J. Murray, London. Ward, Kevin 2009 Towards a Relational Comparative Approach to the Study of Cities. Progress in Human Geography 33:1-17. Webster, Jane 2008 Less Beloved: Roman Archaeology, Slavery, and the Failure to Compare. Archaeological Dialogues 15(2): 103-23. Westcoat, James L., Jr. 1994 Varieties of Geographic Comparison in the Earth Transformed. Annals of the Association of American Geogivphers 84:721-25. White, Leslie A. 1959 The Evolution of Culture: The Development of Civilization to the Fall of Rome. McGraw-Hill, New York. Whiting, John W. and B. Ayres 1968 Inferences from the Shape of Dwellings. In Settlement Archaeology, edited by Kwang Chih Chang, pp. 117-33. Ya'e University Press, New Haven. Yengoyan, Aram A. (editor) 2006 Modes of Comparison: Theory and Practice. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor. Yoffee, Norman 1993 Too Many Chiefs? (or, Safe Texts for the '90s). In Archaeolog- ical Theory: Who Sets the Agenda? edited by Norman Yoffee and Andrew Sherratt, pp. 60-78. Cambridge University Press, New York. CHAPTER 3 COMPARATIVE FRAMES FOR THE DIACH RON IC ANALYSIS OF COMPLEX SOCIETIES NEXT STEPS Gary M. Feinman The top scientific discovery according to the journal Science in 2007 (Kennedy 2007) was the finding that the DNA of all humans is not alike. More specifically, the extent of person-to-person genomic diversity is much greater than was expected (Pennisi 2007). To place this breakthrough in context, it was less than ten years ago that the same publication proudly announced the unraveling of "The Human Genome" (Jasny and Kennedy 2001), although in fairness the future comparison of different human genomic sequences was anticipated. What geneticists initially conceived to be a species-wide genomic pattern encompassing relatively minimal ele- ments of individual variation has even at this early date been shown to be more diverse than most scientists imagined. Although these research findings in evolutionary biology have been played out at warp speed, perhaps this path of discovery and interpretation has a degree of analogical utility for those of us who study human soci- eties over long temporal scales or deep history. More than a century ago, early social scientists recognized broad patterns of human societal diversity, (e.g., Morgan 1877). Yet the first recognitions of such diversity were often mistakenly commingled with elements of human biology. More than a half century later, similar overarching schemes of human organization were resurrected and reframed as Marxist and neoevolutionary theoretical per- spectives. But by this time (e.g., White 1959), these ideas were appropriately estranged from the simple biological explanations of prior eras. Neverthe- less, the latter conceptual approaches, like those of an earlier era, stressed broad modes of societal diversity (such as Service's [1971] categories of bands, tribes, chiefdoms, states) that were organized and differentiated by THE COMPARATIVE ARCHAEOLOGY OF COMPLEX SOCIETIES distinct degrees of politico-economic complexity. As with the 2001 early genomic work, the emphasis in these studies was understandably on the broad-brush modal patterns. Thus key works of this era featured titles such as The Evolution of Culture (White 1959), Primitive Social Organization (Service 1971), The Evolution of Political Society (Fried 1967), and The Evo- lution of the Prehistoric State (Haas 1982). The focus of this comparative work was on similarity, and much discussion centered on evaluating the relative merits of different prime movers that might uniformly account for the transition to more hierarchical modes of organization (such as the state) in different regions of the globe. Since the mid-twentieth century, a great deal has been learned about societal change and diversity by both anthropological archaeologists and scholars in adjacent disciplines. As with the investigation of the human genome, much of this new knowledge highlights significant aspects of pat- terned variation within the broad tiers of organizational complexity that were outlined decades ago. In fact, it seems evident that recent compar- ative efforts have recognized this greater diversity, adopting titles with plural nouns such as Archaic States (Feinman and Marcus 1998), Empires (Alcock et al. 2001), Chiefdoms: Power, Economy, and Ideology (Earle 1991), Understanding Early Civilizations (Trigger 2003), and Collective Action in the Formation of Pre-Modeni States (Blanton and Fargher 2008). Nevertheless, it is a central tenet of this chapter that key frames that were part of that mid-twentieth-century framework remain in place and require judicious reevaluation and modification. Specifically, I argue for more systematic and cross-disciplinary approaches to examine the recognized variation within broad organizational modes (such as "states"). In other words, compara- tive approaches now focus on societal variation as well as similarities, and modified theoretical frames are necessary to accommodate and explain the variation in societies that could be lumped under the rubric "states" (or "chiefdoms," for that matter). Furthermore, archaeological dialogues and frameworks for the consid- eration of hierarchically organized societies should be open to theoreti- cal constructs and conceptual frames that are currently being employed in cognate disciplines where the study of societal change and variation is also a serious and ongoing focus. Our comparative archaeological perspec- tives on human groups and groupings should not necessarily be restricted to the past, but should ideally contribute to and profit from compara- tive studies of societal organization in the more recent past and even the present. COMPARATIVE FRAMES FORTHE DIACHRONIC ANALYSIS *3 The Challenge: Understanding Societal Change and Diversity Following decades of sustained fieldwork, in conjunction with inno- vative laboratory analyses, amplified computer technologies, and new archival investigations, diachronic studies of complex/hierarchical soci- eties in anthropological archaeology are on a far firmer and geographically broader empirical footing today than ever before. In most global areas, the depth and quality of published/readily available information on past socioeconomic organizations have increased by several orders of magni- tude over the state of knowledge fifty years ago. And, in certain key places, we now possess significantly amplified, even entirely novel, perspectives at the regional and domestic/house scales. These vantages provide empirical bases to assess settlement, economy, and power relations in ways that were not possible before. In addition to anthropological archaeology, scholars situated in a large number of cognate disciplines (or sectors thereof), including history, clas- sics, area studies, political science, economic history, and sociology, are also studying shifts (and theorizing about variation and change) in human socioeconomic arrangements over long time horizons. Ironically, there is precious little dialogue and almost no consensus across these disciplines regarding how to conceptualize complex sociopolitical formations, or even a broadly accepted metalanguage to facilitate the exchange of information and comparison. Within anthropological archaeology, where the investi- gation of these issues has long been recognized as a focal topic for research, a sizeable faction of practitioners seems to eschew systematic comparison, and relatively little effort is devoted to engaging those researchers with related interests outside of anthropology. In fact, while archaeologists have been effective in conveying to the press and the public their claims for the oldest or the richest, they have been less successful at disseminating die field's long-standing interests in and contributions to the rise of (and variation in) hierarchical political organizations. The lack of effective bridges and communication to other disciplines has its costs. For example, recently Science (Kennedy and Norman 2005) out- lined 125 big/important questions that were driving contemporary scientific research. These included "how can a skin cell become a nerve cell," "can the laws of physics be unified," and "are we alone in the universe." Regrettably, relatively few questions from the social sciences were even placed on the list, and a much smaller subset of them concerned the dynamics of human THE COMPARATIVE ARCHAEOLOGY OF COMPLEX SOCIETIES social formations. Nowhere to be found were issues such as (or related to) "how does inequality become institutionalized in human societies," and "what factors and conditions historically have engendered human societies to rise, fall, and reorganize." Such research issues are not only critical for understanding our history as a species, but they are relevant to evaluating shifting politico-economic dynamics today. On Science's list, the only question that was close in content to aforemen- tioned focal questions about societal organization was "how does cooper- ative behavior evolve" (Pennisi 2005). Certainly this is a pertinent issue, relevant to our broad understanding of human societal change. Yet the path to future breakthroughs was framed almost exclusively within the domains of evolutionary biology and game theory. Absent was any mention of archaeological/empirical findings regarding how human social group- ings and the equations of cooperative behavior have changed over time and varied over space (Pennisi 2005). By raising the issue of broad scien- tific agendas, I do not intend to critique the selections of Science so much as to express a concern regarding the ways that anthropological archaeol- ogy as a discipline communicates and bridges (or not) to other fields and the larger educated public. In this regard, it is curious, if not unsettling, that the most broadly read serious treatises on the rises and collapses of complex societies (Diamond 1999, 2005) were written by a nonarchaeo- logist. The construction of theory and the comparative study of settlement, economy, and power over deep history is in many senses a version of a syn- thetic investigation of "world history" (Yoffee 2005:195; see also Northrup 2005; Sanderson 1990:223) that certainly reflects a focal concern on how human societies rise, expand, reconfigure, and vary over time. The pursuit of these aims falls within the broad mandate that Boas (1932:606) expressed for anthropology more than eighty years ago, when he stated that "we may... best define our objective as the attempt to understand the steps by which man has come to be what he is, biologically, psychologically, and culturally." What is critical about the scholarly enterprise that Boas envi- sioned is that it is globally inclusive, explicitly historical in character, and necessarily comparative. As Smith (2006:6) has emphasized, in the face of several decades of relative theoretical stasis in archaeology, a reenergized and more explicit compar- ative approach to complex societies is in order. For in accord with Hunt (2007:ix), "there is no inquiry, and no knowledge, without comparison." It is also important to stress that comparisons ought not to be restricted to one dimension. In analogical parallel with the current paradigmatic approach to COMPARATIVE FRAMES FOR THE DIACHRONIC ANALYSIS the history of life, the contemporary biological evolutionary synthesis, com- parative analyses of social evolution should be considered and enacted along various dimensions and scales as they inform (and are appropriately framed by) overarching theoretical questions. Although this may seem obvious, I stress this point in contrast to a recent approach (Yoffee 2005) that argues that specific sequences of societal change (looked at in their entirety) are the principal grist for comparative study. The outcome of this approach is to find and emphasize the "uniqueness" of many particular diachronic series. Yet sequences of change tell us little of broader relevance about the past without filtering in some understanding of the dynamics of the social and economic formations and other broader principles that help us interpret and understand these sequences. Here again, an analog)7 with the theoretical frame for the history of life is informative, as the overarching conceptual frame for the investigation of human social evolution will have to be just as complex and multifaceted, if not more so (Shermer 2007; Watts 2007). Specific branching sequences of biological evolutionary change are important for the synthetic theory of life's history (as they are for social evolution). Yet it is not those historical sequences (e.g., the evolution of horses or beetles) when examined on their own that have advanced biological knowledge. Rather, the application of more general, overarching principles - concerning reproductive strategies, predator and prey relations, sociality, population/resource dynamics (and certainly genetics) as well as many other broadly comparative relations to the study of those sequences - serves to explain the history of life, both in the general and specific sense. The remainder of this discussion advances major initiatives to expand and enhance the comparative frame that archaeologists employ to examine complex societies. This broadening agenda ought to include both intensi- fied efforts to dialogue and communicate with other disciplines, and explo- rations toward a metalanguage or theoretical frames that are less parochial in structure (see Pearson and Sherman 2005) and promote more systematic analyses of the variation in complex societies (particularly societies with comparable degrees of hierarchical complexity). If there are intellectual reasons to segregate the study of non-Western cases/histories, arehaeolog- ically known complex societies, or the subset of early (formerly considered "pristine") states, then these reasons should be demonstrated or oriented to specific problem foci. They should not reflect arbitrary or antiquated disciplinary barriers or residues that largely reflect scholarly practices or priorities set decades, if not centuries, ago and maintained for the most part by inertia/practice (Wallerstein 2003). 26 THE COMPARATIVE ARCHAEOLOGY OF COMPLEX SOCIETIES More specifically, I propose that an expansion of the basic two- dimensional frame (that emphasizes hierarchical complexity and idiosyn- cratic/cultural variation), employed for more than fifty years by anthro- pological archaeologists, is necessary to accommodate variation more sys- tematically. Several theoretical propositions, drawn from different scholarly traditions, are introduced that are intended to define and account for impor- tant axes of variation noted in societies with similar degrees of hierarchical complexity. These independent, yet parallel, perspectives offer direction for theoretical expansion, while illustrating the potential gains from enhanced cross-disciplinary communication. At the same time, they challenge tradi- tional ideas regarding restrictions or limitations in which historical cases may fittingly be compared. Expanding the Comparative Frame As outlined earlier, the examination of societal sequences (or more to the point, shifts in the artifactual record) of a given region over time are just as inadequate for understanding societal evolution as narrow treatments of the fossil record alone would be to explain the history of life. Nevertheless, when placed in a broader comparative theoretical context, the analytical advantages of diachronic perspectives over strictly synchronic analyses are evident (Adams 2004:349). For that reason, it is unfortunate that frame- works and findings derived from the comparative examination of archaic complex societies are so rarely engaged by scholarly considerations of later generations of states (e.g., Smith 2006) and vice versa. Clearly, a wide- ranging dialogue, if not even an overarching set of ideas comparing states and statecraft and the cycling (rises, falls, and shifts in implementation) of political power, would be highly informative and could enhance the kinds of patterned variation recognizable in the corpus of complex societies past and present (see Jones and Phillips 2005 for a parallel argument). As Trigger (2003:3) stated succinctly: "The most important issue con- fronting the social sciences is the extent to which human behaviour is shaped by factors that operate cross-culturally as opposed to factors that are unique to particular cultures." Yet, given this call and the related argument to expand the scope of such comparisons, it is necessary to assess and recon- sider how anthropological archaeologists generally have framed the issue of similarities and differences in archaic states/complex societies. Although focused attention has on occasion been given productively to subsets of complex societies, such as small (city-) states (e.g., Hansen 2000; Nichols and Charlton 1997) and empires (Alcock et al. 2001), less theory building COMPARATIVE FRAMES FOR THE DIACHRONIC ANALYSIS 27 and systematic comparison has been devoted to the construction of more general frames that integrate distinct organizational properties into cross- cultural theories (comparisons and contrasts) of dynamics and change (how- ever, see Trigger 1993). I propose that a repositioning or expansion of the predominant neoevolutionary theoretical perspective would bring archae- ological approaches more in line with comparative efforts in cognate dis- ciplines while opening up the potential for more overarching frameworks for the study of past and present complex societies. As implied earlier, the following discussion of variation in complex soci- eties decouples that consideration from any necessary or uniform path- way of change (see Drennan 1991:114). In other words, in examining any specific regional or even global sequence, neither progress nor any broad- brush directional shift over time is assumed (e.g., Blanton etal. 1993:13-23; Claessen 2000:45-69). Empirically, there seems little support either for the notion that small city-states always precede larger polities (cf. Yoffee 2005), or the converse that territorial states generally always arise first only to col- lapse into smaller political units (cf. Marcus 1992, 1998). In fact, collapse and reconfiguration are consistent features of the historical record, and the histories of different regions indicate alternative paths. Where there are convergent patterns of change or even cross-cultural trends that seem directional in nature, such historical patterns require explanation and ought not be considered preordained or "natural." Nevertheless, to describe and understand societal diversity and change, comparative frameworks are nec- essary, and this is the central focus here. In Anglophone anthropological archaeology, most comparative and neo- evolutionary approaches have been grounded for the better part of five decades (if not longer) in the reconciliation crafted by Sahlins and Service (i960) of the seemingly contradictory evolutionary approaches advanced previously by their mentors White (1949, 1959) and Steward (1949). This mediation (see particularly Sahlins i960) previously has been discussed, dis- sected, and amended by many theorists (Claessen 2000:191-95; Flannery 1983; Sanderson 1990:131-38; Segraves 1974; Trigger 1989:292). The reconciliation outlined two core aspects of the neoevolutionary research agenda, general and specific societal evolution. Basically, general evolution was envisioned as a focus on the broad, shared societal patterns directly asso- ciated with increasing organizational complexity (such as the core features of Sendee's [1971] model of band, tribe, chiefdom, state), whereas specific evolution was defined as the focus on the remnant and presumably rather unique aspects of societal variation linked to particular regional traditions and case-specific adaptations to varying socioenvironmental conditions. THE COMPARATIVE ARCHAEOLOGY OF COMPLEX SOCIETIES The focus of specific evolution is the individual pathway followed by each sociocultural grouping, society, or regional population; in contrast, the main concern of general evolution is the definition/identification of the patterned variation {sensii Drennan and Peterson 2006) associated explicitly with stepped increases in organizational complexity. From this theoretical frame, which has been at least implicitly employed in many archaeological analyses, cross-cultural similarities are generally searched for and recog- nized as indicators or properties of distinct levels of hierarchical complex- ity, whereas variation within these modes is presumed to have a basis in more case-specific or idiosyncratic factors. The proposed framework suggested here builds on these prior studies that have recognized broad cross-cultural patterns of variation associated with increasing hierarchical complexity. At the same time, my point is not to take issue with the obvious and important influences of local histories or environs on societal diversity or change in order to account for certain specific features {senm Harris 1968:645). Clearly, local, cultural, seemingly idiosyncratic factors are one dimension of societal variation. Factors associ- ated with different degrees of hierarchical complexity are a second, although this is not an effort to reify societal types (such as "chiefdoms" and "states"). My strong reservations regarding the rigid adherence to (or reification of) such societal taxonomies have been expressed elsewhere (Blanton et al. 1993:13-23; Feinrnan and Neitzel 1984). Nevertheless, if one unpacks such organizational types or modes, it is reasonably clear that cross-culturally there is a strong correlation across societies between hierarchical complex- ity and elements of organizational scale, namely polity size and the size of a society's largest community (e.g., Feinrnan 1995:259-61; Kosse 1990; also Drennan and Peterson, this volume). As has been long documented in many prior studies, other societal variables broadly correlate with these two factors as well (e.g., Fried 1967; Johnson and Earle 2000; Service 1971). Yet the aim here is to expand the extant interpretive frame to include a new comparative dimension, in order to recognize and systematically explore the patterned variation associated with different cross-cultural prac- tices of socioeconomic integration. Diverse yet patterned modes of socio- economic integration may be found across societies with relatively compa- rable degrees of hierarchical complexity. The basic premises of the Sahlins and Service (i960) theoretical recon- ciliation have been widely influential for the interpretation of similarities and differences by anthropological archaeologists over the last decades. The influence of this two-dimensional approach to understanding societal diversity may partly stem from its parallels to earlier approaches including neo-Marxian analyses (e.g., Armillas 1957) and Coon's (1962) terminology COMPARATIVE FRAMES FOR THE DIACHRONIC ANALYSIS 29 of "grade" and "line" (see Sanders and Price 1968:217-18). Nevertheless, this basic framework has had much less impact in other disciplines that study states. To begin a dialogue regarding the structural parallels and transformational histories of states, early and more modern, certain basic theoretical principles or elemental axioms ideally should be broadly shared and not left unexplored by one discipline or subset of scholars. More importantly, and in accord with the wide body of knowledge on states from across the academy, it is becoming clear that key structural similar- ities or cross-cultural patterns of variation cannot be tied exclusively to stepped tiers of hierarchical complexity (or so-called general evolutionary "Bauplan" [senm Spencer 1997:234]). Additional axes of patterned variation are explored in the next section. Organizing Diversity within Hierarchical Modes Although the broad axes of cross-cultural variation have rarely been drawn explicitly (see Trigger 1993 for a notable exception), patterned variability in the large corpus of ancient states has been recognized, particularly in regard to the properties associated with polity scale and/or major technological/communication breakthroughs. A number of studies have found that small states, part of regional networks (and often sharing a cultural tradition), tend to share features (such as high degrees of connectivity with neighboring states, smaller bureaucratic infrastructure, and a reliance on inter-polity exchange) that differ from common properties of larger states (e.g., Feinrnan 1998; Friedman 1977; Trigger 1993). In the same vein, there are properties of empires (size, ethnic/cultural heterogeneity, emergence through conquest/coercion) that distinguish them from smaller polities (Alcock et al. 2001; Doyle 1986; Sinopoli 2001:444-47). Likewise, legal/formal sovereignty and more finite borders (defined territories) are two of a number of features that tend to differentiate many modern states from those of the deeper past regardless of their relative size (Claessen 1985; Spruyt 2002). Industrial-era states generally claim effective legal sovereignty over a territorial domain and its population in the name of the nation in a manner less common deeper in the past (Hansen and Stepputat 2006). Nevertheless, other distinctive properties hypothesized to be associated with Western political "modernity" (Rokkan 1969; Tilly 1975) may also be present in the deeper past (Blanton and Fargher 2008:290-99). Finally, as Marcus (2008:2 59-61) has argued, it is conceivable that the processes associated with the rise of pristine states (the first to be established in a region) were distinct from the processes that led to the formation of secondary/later states, but that 3o THE COMPARATIVE ARCHAEOLOGY OF COMPLEX SOCIETIES does not imply that the organizational properties of these pristine states were more similar as a group as compared to later states. If scale and certain communication/transport technologies can be linked to (or pattern with) other characteristics of states, then other cross-cultural axes of variation in complex societies are also worth investigating. Here, I focus on different modes of politico-economic integration in complex societies. Through an array of different approaches, some more theoretically driven (whereas others work more empirically from a more targeted contrast of specific cases), a range of scholars, working independently in different dis- ciplines and different global regions, have noted that states with highly cen- tralized, individualized power also tend to be characterized by high degrees of inequality and a dependence on externally derived resources. Alterna- tively, political formations with more diffuse access to power or power- sharing arrangements frequently co-occur with lesser degrees of inequality and greater reliance on basic economic production. In the remainder of this discussion, I principally review the broadly parallel patterns of variation that have been noted by researchers in different fields with an eye toward the def- inition of another axis or dimension of cross-cultural societal variation that requires examination in comparative analyses of long-term societal change and diversity. However, before discussing these specific studies, I first briefly review what I mean by societal integration and why cross-cultural variation in integrative modes is deeply rooted in the human career. Means of Integration Along with scale, complexity, and boundary conditions, integration has been proposed as a core feature or characteristic that is basic to all societies and comparable over time and space (Blanton et al. 1993:14-19). Specifi- cally, integration refers to the interdependence between societal units and the means or mechanisms used to achieve the degree of connectivity. The integration of societal segments, such as households or larger units, can be achieved or implemented through various means - the most prominent include economic and political modes of integration. In complex, hierar- chical societies, political integration is related to the sources or funds of power (e.g., Brumfiel 1992:554-55; Wolf 1982:97) that can be mobilized by political actors to accrue followers and pursue their political agendas. Lehman (1969) contrasts power wielded systemically, largely through institutions or groups, with inter-member power, which is found in individual-centered social networks developed through personal social ties. As Blanton (1998:141-49) has argued, both of these means of wielding COMPARATIVE FRAMES FOR THE DIACHRONIC ANALYSIS 3r power encompass material resources as well as cognitive-symbolic bases of power - albeit in different ways that have distinct ramifications on other aspects of society. Of course, none of these strategies or bases of power are mutually exclusive, and they often are employed jointly, but in different ways and to varying degrees. Because a degree of inequality (at least by gender, age, ability, and tem- perament) exists in just about every human social system (e.g., Cashdan 1980; Flanagan 1989), hierarchical or uneven relations of some sort are a key aspect to human social integration. Such hierarchical relations have their roots in many parts of the animal kingdom, including primates (Chase et al. 2002). Yet, in addition to these deeply rooted practices, cooperation and the social learning skills necessary to form and thrive in groups also have been argued (Herrmann et al. 2007; Tomasello 1999) to be a defining feature that distinguishes humans from other animals. These social prac- tices helped keep overtly hierarchical behaviors largely in check for a long era in human history and in many smaller scale societies (e.g., Boehm 1993). Therefore, it is not surprising that very different mixes of these seemingly contradictory practices, hierarchy and cooperation, might characterize how human groupings interrelate (Stone 2008:77-80), and that given the deep roots of these characteristics in what it means to be human, the consequent integrative strategies might pattern in a suite of different but repetitive ways. Analytical Parallels in the Societal Modes of Integration More than a decade ago, my colleagues and I (Blanton 1998; Blanton et al. 1996; Feinman 1995; Feinman et al. 2000) juxtaposed corporate and exclu- sionary (network) modes of politico-economic organization in the corpus of complex societies. Our original comparative frame built on established cross-cultural contrasts between individualizing and group-oriented chief- doms (Renfrew 1974; see also Renfrew 2001), and staple and wealth finance (D'Altroy and Earle 1985). Although our original formulation had a longer list of contrastive characteristics associated with each of these ends of a comparative continuum (e.g., Feinman et al. 2000:453), nere ^ emphasize those key characteristics at the core of these alternative organizational pat- terns. In this section I unpack or trim down those features associated with the corporate or exclusionary strategies of integration. Corporate organi- zation is broadly associated with shared power, less ostentatious manifesta- tions of stratification, and an economy focused on basic/local production, whereas more exclusionary power arrangements are keyed to highly cen- tralized/individualized rule, networks of personal power, more expressed THE COMPARATIVE ARCHAEOLOGY OF COMPLEX SOCIETIES degrees of inequality, and an economy heavily unpinned by long-distance networks and flows. The corporate-exclusionary axis has proven conceptually useful to under- stand seemingly "enigmatic" archaeological cases (Feinman 2000, 2001; Feinman et al. 2000) in which scale, centralization, hierarchy, and inequal- ity do not co-vary in strict (stepped) conformance with each other. In other words, these cases tended to lie outside the predictive parameters of the aforementioned two-dimensional frame in which variation is a consequence either of general evolutionary "Bauplans" or specific, idiosyncratic factors. From this vantage, with the consideration of an additional axis of variation, the notion of corporate yet hierarchically organized polities helps concep- tualize historical instances where political power was unequally distributed but, perhaps, not concentrated in the hands of a single ruler or family and/or where the expression of stratification was muted or (inequality rel- atively unpronounced) despite the presence of supra-household, hierarchi- cal, decision-making institutions. It is important to note that corporate-exclusionary strategies are not meant to be culture-bound. That is, one would expect to see shifts along this continuum in a given region or for a specific society over time. Integra- tive strategies may change as opportunities arise and conditions warrant. For example, such transitions already have been illustrated for both the pre- Hispanic Maya (Blanton et al. 1996) and the Ancestral Pueblos (Feinman et al. 2000). Contrary to Yoffee's (2006:400) assertion, these alternative forms of integration were never intended to be used as a reformulation or resurrection of societal types; rather, the intent is to recognize repetitive patterns of societal variation that can help us understand human organiza- tional diversity and patterns of societal change. As I have examined different integration modes across diverse geographic regions, eras, and disciplines, it has become evident that scholars in an array of academic fields have noted rather similar patterned axes of variation or contrast in the global corpus of complex societies. This includes a num- ber of empirically based studies (e.g., Lehman 1969; Renfrew 1974) that helped inspire thcoriginal contrast of corporate and exclusionary strategies (Blanton et al. 1996). Nevertheless, the prime focus of this remaining discussion is on more recently published parallel/independent concep- tual perspectives. At the same time, it is also worth noting that a num- ber of archaeologists have independently and constructively employed the corporate-exclusionary axis to discuss and explicate diversity and change in complex societies (e.g., Earle 1997; King 2006; Mills 2000; Trubitt 2000; Willey 1999). COMPARATIVE FRAMES FOR THE DIACHRONIC ANALYSIS 33 An important corresponding perspective, advanced by Grinin (2004), draws a contrast between "monarchic" and "democratic" states. He argues that the latter, typified by ancient Athens and the Roman Republic, have most of the basic properties of early states elsewhere, but that political power was not monopolized by a single ruler (rather it was more shared, delegated, and checked). Grinin's argument is significant in that it recognizes that the Athenian state and the Roman Republic were hierarchically organized like other early states, but that the modes of political integration were less centralized, not focused on a single all-powerful ruler. Similar to many corporately organized states, for the "democratic" states (as analyzed by Grinin) agrarian production was critically important for the economy, and its taxation largely financed the government. Socioe- conomic stratification, although certainly present, was less ostentatiously expressed than in other archaic states (Grinin 2004:110-11). As with cor- porate polities, broad social mechanisms and pressures such as ostracism were voted on by the Athenian Assembly (see Ober 2008:75-76). Such sanctions were employed to encourage conformance to cultural codes in the absence of royal fiat or coercion. Grinin tends to associate his "demo- cratic" states principally with the West, but some of the basic integrative properties are shared with non-Western cases described as "corporate," so less hegemonic practices of rule and government should not be considered unique to Europe or Western societies. Independently, and shifting to a consideration of more recent times, die positive association between high degrees of (broad) political participation and relative economic equality has also been described in a cross-national study of contemporary polities (Russett 1964) and a large cross-cultural ethnographic sample (Ember et al. 1997). That these patterns were found in such synchronic samples is significant because factors such as relative income inequality reflect long intergenerational histories of wealth creation and transfer in specific historical contexts. Conversely, the recurrent properties of exclusionary power arrangements are not unique to ancient kingdoms, medieval monarchies, or non-Western contexts. For example, the increasing concentration of executive power and a growing disparity of wealth, both of which have occurred over the last decades in the contemporary United States, are unlikely to be serendipi- tous, unrelated trends (American Political Science Association Task Force Report 2004; Domhoff 2006; Feinman 2010). Correspondingly, mathemat- ical modeling directed at contemporary societies has illustrated in general how strong unitary executives reliant on personal networks to enhance their own power (through economic transactions) are advantaged in contexts THE COMPARATIVE ARCHAEOLOGY OF COMPLEX SOCIETIES already characterized by marked income inequities (Acemoglu 2005; Ace- moglu et al. 2004). In other words, when marked disparities of wealth exist, leaders may find it easier to act unilaterally. Such relationships provide one potential mechanism through which shifts in power and wealth disparities can move in parallel ways in different specific historical contexts over time. These perspectives from studies of contemporary states illustrate that the variation in states may have patterned structural characteristics with broad time-space applicability . For example, the co-occurrence of concentrated political power (and associated individualizing behavior), marked socio- economic stratification, and an emphasis on exchange-based (as opposed to basic productive) economic activity may have broader applicability than was envisioned originally (Blanton et al. 1996). At the same time, if these stud- ies in concert serve to outline repetitive patterns of variation in states that explicitly do not correspond to broad stepped tiers of organizational com- plexity, then a new, more comprehensive frame for analyzing and explaining the variability in states is needed. Conceptually, we could profitably imple- ment a research program to define and account for patterned and modal variation in the corpus of states (over time and space), recognizing that the variation in states is not strictly due to either unique historic pathways or culture-specific, idiosyncratic factors. A Path toward Broader Understandings Critiques of the corporate-exclusionary dimension have questioned why these societal properties tend to co-occur, while also wondering why inte- grative strategies might shift in a given societal context along this con- tinuum. One productive avenue of research on these specific patterns of societal variation may extend to a consideration of the collective action problem (Olson 1965) and related works that have built upon this approach (in particular, Blanton and Fargher 2008; Levi 1988; Lichbach 1996). These ideas endeavor to bridge the micro-macro problem (e.g., Collins 1988) by exploring the extent to which individuals who share common aims may find it in their personal interest to carry the costs of organizational effort (Levi 1988:8). As Lichbach (1996:32) states, a collective action problem or the cooperator's dilemma "arises whenever mutually beneficial cooperation is threatened by individual strategic behavior." Although this line of discus- sion may seem abstract, the fundamental issue is really the key dilemma posed by Hobbs (2003). "What holds society together given the tendency of individuals to pursue their self-interest?" (Blanton and Fargher 2008:6; also Lichbach 1995). In other words, what kinds of integrative strategies COMPARATIVE FRAMES FOR THE DIACHRONIC ANALYSIS and practices keep social systems intact and why might different societal compacts seem to be favored in certain contexts as opposed to others? To assess these questions, the interests of rulers and the ruled must be considered. To explain variability in governing regimes, Levi's (1988) research in particular examined the link between the ways governments are financed and the relative dispersal of political power/voice. Levi's (1988:2) focus is on ruling strategies, political integration, revenue, and resources with an emphasis on the ways in which the latter two finance power. These factors largely encompass those unpacked characteristics of the corporate- exclusionary axis that are our central concern as well as the parallel con- trasts/comparison drawn by other scholars (e.g., Ember et al. 1997; Grinin 2004; Russett 1964). Basically, Levi's thesis is that the more rulers depend on the extraction of localized resources, the more checks and voice the ruled will have. Alternatively, the more external and monopolized a ruler's financial base (e.g., patron-client relations), the more concentrated power is apt to be (Fargher and Blanton 2007). This perspective offers a testable alternative to traditional models that often associate heavily agrarian states with the manifestation of absolute power (Bates and Lien 1985:53-54). In a large global sample of historical cases, Blanton and Fargher (2008) provide strong support for these expectations, while also illustrating that the basic model is supported across the world and in the analysis of cases from the deeper past as well as more recent history. The latter study pro- vides a theoretical underpinning for the patterned variability noted in the suite of core features that marks the poles of the corporate-exclusionary axis. Significantly, parallel politico-economic arrangements can emerge through distinct historical pathways (likely under certain pre-conditions) just as we know that chiefdoms and/or states with similar hierarchical forma- tions/properties can develop in diverse geographic/cultural settings when a set of necessary/sufficient conditions are met (Tilly [2000] makes a similar point for democracies). When examining long-term sequences of societal change, a framework that enables us to document and explicate both shifts in organizational complexity as well as changes in the modes of political and economic integration will yield a more holistic and explanatory perspective on "world history" and the diverse pathways that it encompasses. Concluding Thoughts and Future Directions As outlined earlier, anthropological archaeology can potentially learn a great deal from (and also contribute to) an expansive cross-disciplinary 36 THE COMPARATIVE ARCHAEOLOGY OF COMPLEX SOCIETIES dialogue that explores the diversity of complex societies, ancient and mod- ern; Fletcher (Chapter 11) and Smith (Chapter 12) also explore this theme. In our field, we might better come to understand the patterns of varia- tion, particularly in regard to the means and modes of societal (economic and political) integration, which have been too little explored in a sys- tematic, cross-cultural fashion. Specifically, we also might begin to more explicitly probe and define the differences that exist between preindustrial and industrial polities. Too often that gulf has been assumed rather than documented. Modern states clearly have key differences from those in the past, but not all of the claimed differences necessarily bear up to empiri- cal scrutiny. Such dialogues would likely promote careful examinations of the theoretical and interpretive divides that artificially ghettoize the "Rest" from the West (see Blanton and Fargher 2008; Fargher and Blanton 2007). At a time when our models call for greater consideration of agency and voice, it is important to realize that such a focus naturally leads to an analysis of the different integrative modes and mechanisms that interconnect societies. However, efforts to study and model agency in deep history should not only empower those few voices that had power in the past (cf. Baines and Yoffee 1998). As Claessen and Skalm'k (1978) illustrated decades ago, broad cross- disciplinary comparisons require the unbundling or unpacking of the fea- tures and properties of states and the societies in which they are part. Such a theoretical approach would need to explore (as one example) how degrees of stratification patterned with the relative concentration of polidcal power as discussed earlier. Such a perspective not only would help define axes of variability, but it would enable the recognition of causal connections and dynamics that might account for that patterned variation. This is a critical point; it implies that to understand variation in states it is essential to go beyond the largely synchronic comparisons that composed The Early State and other subsequent comparative works (e.g., Feinman and Neitzel 1984; Hansen ed. 2000). Recently and along these lines, Drennan and Peterson (2006:3960; see also Tilly 1984:14) have made a forceful case that patterned variation in human social formations can only be understood if various cases or exam- ples are examined and compared over long sequences. Although I applaud the kinds of multi-case diachronic comparisons being carried out (Dren nan and Peterson 2006; Peterson and Drennan, Chapter 6), there is no reason that such analyses need be undertaken in a purely bottom-up, inductive fashion. There is a danger that ad-hoc interpretations may betray the unex- pressed biases of the investigators at the expense of more theoretical fram- ing. If this happens, it can lead to mischaracterizations of specific empirical COMPARATIVE FRAMES FOR THE DIACHRONIC ANALYSIS 37 cases and the false disconfirmation of extant models (see Kiser and Hechter I991)- As previously noted, it is important to analyze how different attributes of states change in correspondence with co-occurring changes in other fea- tures. When such patterns are explored over a wide range of sequences, then we will gain a better perspective not just on the generalized properties of states and the idiosyncratic features unique to specific histories, but we should be able to find the patterned and structured variation between differ- ent states (e.g., corporate vs. exclusionary or democratic vs. ruler-centric). I suspect patterned variation that has little connection to the dimension of hierarchical complexity will often be defined, and that such structured diversity will help identify key axes of differentiation between states. At the same time, no model or framework, no matter how robust, can ever singly or fully account for a significant aspect of societal diversity, and so a con- sideration of historical, cultural, and local factors remains important in a comparative context. Although I see diachronic comparisons as a primary theoretical compo- nent in an overarching framework to study states and their diversity and their cycles of decline and regeneration, such an ambitious multidisciplinary framework focused on states across space and time clearly would necessi- tate the bootstrapping (sensu Blanton 1990) of an array of different, mutually reinforcing theoretical exercises, approaches, and frames, some of which are synchronic. As Fracchia and Lewontin (1999:78) state: "Transformational theories of cultural evolution have the virtue that they at least provide a framework of generality with which to give human long-term history the semblance of intelligibility. But the search for intelligibility should not be confused with the search for actual process." There are many ways to try to make sense of global history, and we may ultimately need a number of these approaches in concert to understand settlement, economy, and politics in deep history. This kind of broad encompassing theoretical infrastructure or frame (incorporating more than the two standard dimensions of variation stressed in much archaeological interpretation) may seem ambitious to some or cumbersome to others (see Smith and Peregrine, Chapter 2). Yet a the- oretical frame designed for understanding and explaining the differences and similarities in states is in reality a frame for exploring die global history of human societies, certainly a highly complex set of interrelated ques- tions. So it is not surprising that ultimately we in the social and behavioral sciences will require a theoretical frame analogous in form to the boot- strapped theories, some diachronic and others synchronic, that together aim to explain a comparable grand topic or set of questions: the history 38 THE COMPARATIVE ARCHAEOLOGY OF COMPLEX SOCIETIES of life through biological evolution (see Mayr 1982). Although the theory designed to explain that historical phenomenon (biological evolution) is not appropriately designed or structured to address and account for the suite of research questions of concern to us (e.g., Bryant 2004; Fracchia and Lewontin 1999; Gould 1987), I do suspect that a comparable or analogi- cal multifaceted structure that encompasses phenomena at multiple scales ultimately will be required to explain human societies, their histories, rich diversity, and how and why they change through time (Goldstone 1998). To move toward this broader theory, a concerted initiative toward wider communications and more systematic comparative investigations must be undertaken. References Cited Acemoglu, Daron 2005 Constitutions, Politics, and Economics: A Review Essay on Persson and Tabellini's The Economic Effects of Constitutions. Journal of Economic Literature 18:1025-48. Acemoglu, Daron, James A. Robinson, and Thierry Verdier 2004 Kleptocracy and Divide-and-Rule: A Model of Personal Rule. Journal of the European Economic Association 2:162-92. Adams, Robert McC. 2004 Review of Understanding Early Civilizations: A Com- parative Study. The International History Review 26:349-51. Akock, Susan E., Terrence N. D'Altroy, Kathleen D. Morrison, and Carla M. Sinopoli (editors) 2001 Empires: Perspectives from Archaeology and History. Cam- bridge University Press, Cambridge. American Political Science Association Task Force Report 2004 American Democ- racy in an Age of Rising Inequality. ASPA Task Force Report 2:651-66. Armillas, Pedro 1957 Cronologi'a y Periodificacion de la Historia de America Pre- colmnbina. Escuela Nacional de Antropologi'a e Historia, Mexico. Baines, John, and Norman Yoffee 1998 Order, Legitimacy, and Wealth in Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia. In Archaic States, edited by Gary M. Fein man and Joyce Marcus, pp. 199-260. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe. Bates, Robert H., and Da-Hsiang Donald Lien 1985 A Note on Taxation, Devel- opment, and Representative Government. Politics and Society 14:53-70. Blanton, Richard 1990 Theory and Practice in Mesoamerican Archaeology: A Com- parison of Two Modes of Scientific Inquiry. In Debating Oaxaca Archaeology, edited by Joyce Marcus, pp. 1-16. Anthropological Papers of the Museum of Anthropology 84. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. __1998 Beyond Centralization: Steps toward a Theory of Egalitarian Behav- ior. In Archaic States, edited by GaryM. Feinman and Joyce Marcus, pp. 135-72. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe. Blanton, Richard, and Lane Fargher 2008 Collective Action in the Formation of Pre - Modem States. Springer, New York. 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 37:1-86. COMPARATIVE FRAMES FOR THE DIACHRONIC ANALYSIS 39 Blanton, Richard E., Stephen A. Kowalewski, Gary M. Feinman, and Laura M. Fin- sten 1993 Ancient Mesoamerica: A Comparison of Change in Three Regions. Second Edition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Boas, Franz 1932 The Aims of Anthropological Research. Science 76:605-13. Boehm, Christopher 1993 Egalitarian Society and Reverse Dominance Hierarchy. Current Anthropology 34:2 2 7-54. Brumfiel, Elizabeth M. 1992 Distinguished Lecture in Archeology: Breaking and Entering the Ecosystem - Gender, Class, and Faction Steal the Show. American Anthropologist 94:551-67. Bryant, Joseph M. 2004 An Evolutionary Social Science? A Skeptic's Brief, Theo- retical and Substantive. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 34:451-92. Cashdan, Elizabeth A. 1980 Egalitarianism among Hunters and Gatherers. American Anthropologist 82:116-20. Chase, Ivan D., Craig Tovey, Debra Spangler-Martin, and Michael Manfredonia 2002 Individual Differences versus Social Dynamics in the Formation of Animal Dominance Hierarchies. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 99:5744- 49. Claessen, Henri J. M. 1985 From the Franks to France: The Evolution of Political Organization. In Development and Decline: The Evolution of Sociopolitical Organiza- tion, edited by Henri J. M. Claessen, Pieter van de Velde, and M. Estellie Smith, pp. 196-218. Bergin and Garvey, South Hadley, MA. __2000 Structural Change: Evolution and Evolutionism in Cultural Anthropology. Research School CNWS, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands. Claessen, Henri J. M., and Peter Skalmk (editors) 1978 The Early State. Mouton Publishers, The Hague. Collins, Randall 1988 The Micro Contribution to Macro Sociology. Sociological Theory 6:242-53. Coon, Carleton S. 1962 The Origin of Races. Alfred A. Knopf, New York. D'Altroy, Terence N., and Timothy K. Earle 1985 Staple Finance, Wealth Finance, and the Inka Political Economy. Current Anthropology 26:187-206. Diamond, Jared 1999 Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies. W.W. Norton, New York. --2005 Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed. Viking, New York. Domhoff, William G. 2006 C. Wright Mills 50 Years Later. Contemporary Sociology 35:547-50' Doyle, Michael W. 1986 Empires. Cornell University Press, Ithaca. Drennan, Robert D. 1991 Cultural Evolution, Human Ecology, and Empirical Research. In Profiles in Cultural Evolution, edited by A. Terry Rambo and Kathleen Gillogly, pp. 113-35. Anthropological Papers of the Museum of Anthropology 85. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Drennan, Robert D., and Christian E. Peterson 2006 Patterned Variation in Pre- historic Chiefdoms. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 103:3960-67. Earle, Timothy 1997 How Chiefs Came to Power: The Political Economy in Prehistory. Stanford University Press, Stanford. Earle, Timothy (editor) 1991 Chiefdoms: Poiver, Economy, and Ideology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Ember, Melvin, Carol R. Ember, and Bruce Russett 1997 Inequality and Democ- racy in the Anthropological Record. In Inequality, Demoa-acy, and Economic THE COMPARATIVE ARCHAEOLOGY OF COMPLEX SOCIETIES Development, edited by Manus I. Midlarsky, pp. 110-30. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Fargher, Lane F., and Richard E. Blanton 2007 Revenue, Voice, and Public Goods in Three Pre-Modern States. Comparative Studies in Society and History 49:848-82. Feinman, Gary M. 1995 The Emergence of Inequality: A Focus on Strategies and Processes. In Foundations of Social Inequality, edited byT. Douglas Price and Gary M. Feinman, pp. 255-79. Plenum Press, New York. __1998 Scale and Social Organization: Perspectives on the Archaic State. In Archaic States, edited by Gary M. Feinman and Joyce Marcus, pp. 95-134. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe. __2000 Dual-Processual Theory and Social Formations in the Southwest. In Alternative Leadership Strategies in the Prehispanic Southwest, edited by Barbara J. Mills, pp. 207-24. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson. __2001 Mesoamerican Political Complexity: The Corporate-Network Dimension. In From Leaders to Rulers, edited by Jonathan Haas, pp. 151-75. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York. __2010 Dual-Processual Perspective on the Power and Inequality in the Con- temporary United States: Framing Political Economy for the Present and the Past. In Pathways to Power, edited by T. Douglas Price and Gary M. Feinman, pp. 255-88. Springer, New York. Feinman, Gary M., Kent G. Lightfoot, and Steadman Upham 2000 Political Hierar- chies and Organizational Strategies in the Puebloan Southwest. American Antiq- uity 65:449-70. Feinman, Gary M., and Joyce Marcus (editors) 1998 Archaic States. School of Amer- ican Research Press, Santa Fe. Feinman, Gary M,, and Jill Neitzel 1984 Too Many Types: An Overview of Seden- tary Prestate Societies in the Americas. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 7:39-102. Flanagan, James G. 1989 Hierarchy in Simple "Egalitarian" Societies. Annual Review of Anthropology 18:245-66. Flannery, Kent V. 1983 Divergent Evolution. In The Cloud People: Divergent Evolu- tion of the Zapotec and Mixtec Civilizations, edited by Kent V. Flannery and Joyce Marcus, pp. 1-4. Academic Press, New York. Fracchia, Joseph, and Richard C. Lewontin 1999 Does Culture Evolve? History and Theory 38:52-78. Fried, Morton H. 1967 The Evolution of Political Society: An Essay in Political Anthro- pology. Random House, New York. Friedman, David 1977 A Theory of the Size and Shape of Nations. Journal of Political Economy 85:59-77. Goldstone, Jack A. 1998 Initial Conditions, General Laws, Path Dependence, and Explanation in Historical Sociology. American Journal of Sociology 104:829- 45- Gould, Stephen J. 1987 The Ghost of Protogoras. In An Urchin in the Storm: Essays about Books and Ideas, edited by Stephen J. Gould, pp. 62-72. VV.W. Norton, New York. Grinin, Leonid E. 2004 Democracy and Early State. Social Evolution and History 3:93-149. COMPARATIVE FRAMES FOR THE DIACHRONIC ANALYSIS 41 Haas, Jonathan 1982 The Evolution of the Prehistoric State. Columbia University Press, New York. Hansen, Mogens Herman (editor) 2000 Comparative Study of Thirty City-State Cul- tures. The Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters, Copenhagen. Hansen, Thomas B., and Finn Stepputat 2006 Sovereignty Revisited. Annual Review of Anthropology 35:295—315. Harris, Marvin 1968 The Rise of Anthropological Theory: A History of Theories of Culture. Thomas Y. Crowell Company, New York. Herrmann, Esther, Joseph Call, Maria Victoria-Lloreda, Brian Hare, and Michael Tomasello 2007 Humans Have Evolved Specialized Skills of Social Cognition: The Cultural Intelligence Hypothesis. Science 317:1360-66. Hobbes, Thomas 2003 Leviathan, edited by G. A.J. Rogers and Karl Schuhmann. Thoemmes Continuum, Bristol. Hunt, Robert C. 2007 Beyond Relativism: Comparability in Cultural Anthropology. Altamira, Lanham, MD. Jasny, Barbara R., and Donald Kennedy 2001 Human Genome. Science 291:1153. Johnson, Allen W., and Timothy Earle 2000 The Evolution of Human Societies. Sec- ond Edition. Stanford University Press, Stanford. Jones, Rhys, and Richard Phillips 2005 Unsettling Geographical Horizons: Explor- ing Premodern and Non-European Imperialism. Annals of the American Association of Geographers 95:141-61. Kennedy, Donald 2007 Breakthrough of the Year. Science 318:1833. Kennedy, Donald, and Colin Norman 2005 What Don't We Know? Science 309:75. King, Adam 2006 Leadership Strategies and the Nature ofMississippian Chiefdoms in North Georgia, edited by Brian M. Butler and Paul D. Welch, pp. 73-90. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Occasional Paper, 33. Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. Kiser, Edgar, and Michael Hechter 1991 The Role of General Theory in Compar- ative Historical Sociology. American Journal of Sociology 97:1-30, Kosse, Krisztina 1990 Group Size and Societal Complexity: Thresholds in the Long- Term Memory. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 9:275-303. Lehman, Edward W. 1969 Toward a Macrosociology of Power. Am mean Sociological Review 34:453-65. Levi, Margaret 1988 Of Rule and Revenue. University of California Press, Berkeley. Lichbach, Mark Irving 1995 The Rebel's Dilemma. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor. --1996 The Cooperator's Dilemma. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor. Marcus, Joyce 1992 Dynamic Cycles of Mesoamerican States: Political Fluctuations in Mesoamerica. National Geographic Research and Exploration 8:393-411. --1998 The Peaks and Valleys of Ancient States: An Extension of the Dynamic Model. In Archaic States, edited by Gary M. Feinman and Joyce Marcus, pp. 59- 94. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe. --2008 The Archaeological Evidence for Social Evolution. Annual Review of Anthropology 37:251-266. Mayr, Ernst 1982 The Growth of Biological Thought. Belknap Harvard, Cambridge. Mills, Barbara J. (editor) 2000 Alternative Leadership Strategies in the Prehispanic Southwest. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson. THE COMPARATIVE ARCHAEOLOGY OF COMPLEX SOCIETIES Morgan, Lewis H. 1877 Ancient Society. World Publishing, New York. Nichols, Deborah L,, and Thomas H. Charlton (editors) 1997 The Archaeology of City-States: Cross-Cultural Approaches. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washing- ton, DC. Northrup, David 2005 Globalization and the Great Convergence: Rethinking World History in the Long Term. Journal of World History 16(3). Located at www.historycooperative.org. Ober, Josiah 2008 What the Ancient Greeks Can Tell LTs about Democracy. Annual Review of Political Science 11:67-91. Olson, Mancur 1965 The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. Harvard University Press, Cambridge. Pearson, Robert W., and Lawrence W. Sherman 2005 The Achievements, Frustra- tions, and Promise of the Social Sciences. Annals, American Academy of Political and Social Science 600:6-13. Pennisi, Elizabeth 2005 How Did Cooperative Behavior Evolve? Science 309:93. __2007 Breakthrough of the Year: Human Genetic Variation. Science 318:1842-43. Renfrew, Colin 1974 Beyond Subsistence Economy: The Evolution of Social Orga- nization in Prehistoric Europe. In Reconstituting Complex Societies: An Archaeolog- ical Colloquium, edited by Charlotte B. Moore, pp. 69-95. Supplement to the Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, No. 20. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge. __2001 Commodification and Institution in Group-Oriented and Individ- ualizing Societies. In The Origin of Human Social Institutions, edited by W. G. Runciman, pp. 93-117. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Rokkan, Stein 1969 Models and Methods in the Comparative Study of Nation- Building. Acta Sociologica 12:53-73. Russett, Bruce M. 1964 Inequality and Instability: The Relation of Land Tenure to Politics. World Politics 16:442-54. Sahlins, Marshall D. i960 Evolution: Specific and General. In Evolution and Culture, edited by Marshall D. Sahlins and Elman R. Service, pp. 12-44. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor. Sahlins, Marshall D., and Elman R. Service (editors) i960 Evolution and Culture. Uni versify of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor. Sanders, William T., and Barbara J. Price 1968 Mesoamerica: The Evolution of a Civilization. Random House, New York. Sanderson, Stephen K. 1990 Social Evolutionism: A Critical History. Blackwell Pub- lishers, Cambridge, MA. Segraves, Barbara A. 1974 Ecological Generalism and Structural Transformation of Sociocultural Systems. American Anthropologist 76:530-52. Service, Elman R. 1971 Primitive Social Organization: An Evolutionary Perspective. Second Edition. Random House, New York. Shermer, Michael 2007 The Really Hard Science. Scientific American 297 (4):44-46. Sinopoli, Carla M. 2001 Empires. In Archaeology at the Millennium: A Sourcebook, edited by Gary M. Feinman and T. Douglas Price, pp. 439-71. Kluwer Aca- demic/Plenum Publishers, New York. COMPARATIVE FRAMES FOR THE DIACHRONIC ANALYSIS 43 Smith, Michael E. 2006 How Do Archaeologists Compare Early States? Reviews in Anthropology 35:5-35. Spencer, Charles S. 1997 Evolutionary Approaches in Archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Research 5:209-64. Spruyt, Hendrick 2002 The Origins, Development, and Possible Decline of the Modern State. Annual Review of Political Science 5:127-49. Steward, Julian H. 1949 Cultural Causality and Law: A Trial Formulation of the Development of Early Civilizations. American Anthropologist 51:1-27. Stone, Brad Lowell 2008 The Evolution of Culture and Sociology. The American Sociologist 39:68-85. Tilly, Charles 1975 Western State-Making and Theories of Political Transfor- mation. In The Formation of States in Western Europe, edited by Charles Tilly, pp. 601-38. Princeton University Press, Princeton. __1984 Big Structures, Large Processes, and Huge Comparisons. Russell Sage Foundation, New York. __2000 Processes and Mechanisms of Democratization. Sociological Theory 18:1-16. Tomasello, Michael 1999 Human Adaptation for Culture. Annual Review of Anthro- pology 28:509-29. Trigger, Bruce G. 1989 A History of Archaeological Thought. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. __1993 Early Civilizations: Ancient Egypt in Context. American University in Cairo Press, Cairo. __2003 Understanding Early Civilizations. Cambridge University Press, Cam- bridge. Trubitt, Man'Beth D. 20ooMoundBuildingand Prestige Goods Exchange: Chang- ing Strategies in the Cahokia Chiefdom. American Antiquity 65:669-90. Wallerstein, Immanuel 2003 Anthropology, Sociology, and Other Dubious Disci- plines. Cutrent Anthropology 44:453-65. Watts, Duncan J. 2007 A Twenty-First Century Science. Nature 445:489. White, Leslie A. 1949 The Science of Culture: A Study of Man and Civilization. Grove, New York. __1959 The Evolution of Culture: The Development of Civilization to the Fall of Rome. McGraw-Hill, New York. Willey, Gordon R. 1999 Styles and State Formations. Latin American Antiquity 10:86-90. Wolf, Eric R. 1982 Europe and the People without History. University of California Press, Berkeley. Yoffee, Norman 2005 Myths of the Archaic State: Evolution of the Earliest Cities, States, and Civilizations. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. --2006 Afterword: Lenses on Mississippian Leadership. In Leadership and Polity in Mississippian Society, edited by Brian M. Buder and Paul D. Welch, pp. 398-401. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Occasional Paper, 33. Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.