426 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST [82, 19801

the structure and superstructure are designed and presented simultaneously. This indeed is precisely what some revitalization movements actually do. And Hams does concede the possibility of simultaneous change in all three structures. But that being so, then one must again conclude that the simpler version of the research strategy of cultural materialism needs to be replaced by one that allows for more com- plex processual models.

Harris minimizes the theoretical importance of situations where important change in the mode of production is blocked by structural and superstructural components. I suspect that history (or the course of cultural evolution, if one prefers) is littered with the ruins of com- munities that failed to make needed infrastruc- tural changes fast enough because of an ex- cessively prolonged attachment to their “emic and mentat” superstructures. The processes that lead to the demise of these systems need careful attention because of the comparison of cultures as they are selected in with those being selected out can perhaps teach us as much as cross- cultural comparisons among survivors.

The Early State. H. J. M. Claessen and P. Skal- nik, eds. New Babylon: Studies in the Social Sciences, 32. The Hague: Mouton, 1978. xii + 689 pp. $55.40/DM115.00 (cloth).

David Webster Pennsylvania State University

The first section of this long book consists of four chapters that outline the structure of the book, provide basic definitions, and present a theoretical overview of its basic concerns- the evolution and organization of the “early” state. Cohen’s chapter - a reappraisal of state origins-is probably the most useful and coherent and raises a number of cogent ques- tions, one of the most perceptive of which is why state formation was inhibited in many evolu- tionary sequences. A major deficiency of the in- troductory section is the lack of an adequate definition of the ostensible subject of the whole book-i.e., what exactly is an “earlystate”? The chapter by Khazanov, which was apparently in- tended to address that question, is rather mud- dled; it asserts that early states are unstable societies preserving many characteristics of

earlier developmental stages (what societies don’t?) and that there is no typological unity among them (leaving the reader wondering what the rest of the book is about). The simple working definition provided by the editors is that I ‘ . . . the early state is the organization for the regulation of social relations in a society divided into two emergent social classes, the rulers and the ruled” (p. 2). Such a definition, stressing as it does the relations of social classes, is consistent with the explicitly Marxist orien- tation of the work as a whole. A more serious deficiency of the introductory section is that no rigorous methodology is advanced to structure the later comparative discussions.

The next section provides 21 specific case studies of the “early” state by a cosmopolitan group of scholars representing the disciplines of anthropology and history; most of the contrib- utors are European (many from Eastern Europe), along with several from the United States and one from India. The variety of osten- sible early states considered is wide and seem- ingly haphazard, including such classic ex- amples as Chou China, Old Kingdom Egypt, and the Incas, a variety from the ethnographic present (Hawaii, Tahiti, and several African societies), and, finally, some rather exotic choices (medieval France, Norway, and Soviet Georgia). Exactly why these particular soci- eties were chosen is not explained - indeed, the editors admit that the selection is not “representative” ~ and I am frankly puzzled about many of the choices. Why are the Aztecs, Incas, and Chou Chinese “early” states, domi- nating as they did regions characterized by cen- turies of prior, less complex state development? How may they be fruitfully compared with “simpler states”(?), such as Hawaii, Tahiti, Kuba, and Galla? Are political and socioeco- nomic restructuring in France between 1000 and 1200 A.D. really germane to the central problem of the book? Much of this confusion no doubt results from the previously mentioned deficiency of problem definition. No serious at- tempt seems to have been made to consider societies occupying homotaxial positions on in- dependent evolutionary sequences. We are left trying to compare cultural apples and oranges.

Given the title of the book, the reader might reasonably expect some consideration of prehistoric, archaeologically known sequences of state formation. The reliance, however, is almost entirely upon ethnographic or historic sources, resulting in omission of societies such as the ancient Sumerians, Teotihuacan, the Maya,

GENERAL AND THEORETICAL 427

the Oimec. or the Mochica, all of which would have been appropriate to the subject.

Most of the specific papers are descriptive in- stead of analytical, and several are merely rehashings of older ethnographic materials. Each tends to be self-contained rather than comparative, and functional rather than evolu- tionary in orientation. Read as descriptive over- views, many of the papers are quite useful-I especially enjoyed those on Ankole, Egypt, the Incas, and the Yoruba. Unfortunately, these surveys are not systematically related. No at- tempt is made to have each author deal with a common set of problems such as demography, urbanization, or subsistence systems using a well-defined set of basic concepts, so that draw- ing comparative conclusions is very difficult. Most of the articles touch all of the systemic bases ~ social, political, economic, religious - rather than offer a rigorous examination of a particular variable or institution such as war- fare, trade, economic redistribution, or social stratification in its larger cultural setting.

The third section devotes four summary chapters to a synthesis of the information presented in the substantive central chapters in an attempt to generate a series of structural, functional, and evolutionary conclusions. The results are scarcely earthshaking. Among the structural conclusions, for example, are that trade is commonly practiced in early states, that the most prevalent means of subsistence in early states is agriculture, that basic producers sup- port nonsubsistence specialists through surplus energy production, and - my favorite because of its unassailable logic - that the social strati- fication of early states includes a minimum of two strata.

Three types of early states are generated on the basis of the evidence presented - inchoate, typical, and transitional. These, it is main- tained, comprise an evolutionary series, with sample societies assigned to one or another category depending upon such criteria as the role of kinship in government organization, the presence of communal versus private property, or the degree of development of professional traders and markets. I found the assumptions in this section quite facile. For example, the Incas had a “less developed” economic system than many other groups because of their lack of pro- fessional traders and a large-scale market system. Even more facile is the tacit assumption that the major dimension of variation in the ex- amples presented is in fact evolutionary. Only one author-Lewis, in his article on the Calla

state-seems to recognize that there are other basic dimensions to variability. The focus on evolutionary ordering is partly a result of the Marxist orientation of many of the authors, but stems also from a failure to identify and investi- gate variation in basic ecological, environ- mental, and demographic factors.

Most American anthropologists will find this book a useful collection of basic data on pre- industrial complex societies, but will be dis- appointed by its lack of theoretical and method- ological sophistication.

Origins of the State: The Anthropology of Political Evolution. Ronald Cohen and Elman R . Service, eds. Philadelphia: Institute for the Study of Human Issues, 1978. 2 + 233 pp. $14.95 (cloth), $6.95 (paper).

Marvin Harris Columbia University

An introduction by Ronald Cohen fails to make clear why these essays were combined to make a book. Several are originals but two were published previously (Eva and Robert Hunt’s and Henry Wright’s). Nonetheless, the book is an important source of fact and opinion about the origins of states.

In the first essay, Elman Service proposes that theories of the origin of the state fall into two categories: conflict theories and integrationist theories. Service identifies with the latter, argu ing that the state arose not as a result of a strug- gle between social strata for access to strategic resources, but as a result of the prosperity and security that managerial bureaucracies bestow on grateful followers. Countering Morton Fried, Service declares: “nowhere . . . were these strata based on differences in wealth, forms of property, or ‘differential access to strategic resources.’ The difference was in political and religious power” (p. 33).

Fried’s essay seeks to rebut this view by citing early Mesopotamian texts that show that class exploitation and sharp differences in wealth did indeed exist in the earliest historically knowable states. Unfortunately, Fried’s rebuttal, which I consider fully merited in principle, fails to hit the mark since it pertains not to the phase of pristine formation but to expansion and even empire. To refute Service, one needs to examine the incipient phases of stratification. Here,