Advertisement

Alternative States

  • Robert Chapman

Debate on different archaeologies and interpretations of the past takes place on varying scales, from the local to the regional and the international. It might be argued that factors such as the expansion of the means of communication (e.g., the use of English as the international language, international educational exchanges, the development of organizations such as the World Archaeological Congress and the European Association of Archaeologists, the availability of more publication outputs, the expansion in the use of digital technologies and the Internet) have enabled debate to the point that we can make claims for a “global” archaeology. In other words, we are now partners in a twenty-first century profession rather than members of different, unequal, regional traditions (for the latter concept, see Trigger & Glover 1981).

Keywords

Early State Alternative State Dominant Class American Anthropological Association Archaeological Theory 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Arteaga, O. (1992). Tribalización, jerarquización y estado en el territorio de El Argar. SPAL, 1, 179–208.Google Scholar
  2. Arteaga, O. (2000). El proceso histórico en el territorio argárico de Fuente Álamo. La ruptura del paradigma del Sudeste desde la perspective atlántica-mediterránea del Extremo Occidente. In H. Schubart, V. Pingel, & O. Arteaga (Eds.), Fuente Álamo: Las excavaciones arqueológicas 1977–1991 en el poblado de la Edad del Bronce (pp. 117–143). Seville: Junta de Andalucía.Google Scholar
  3. Arteaga, O. (2001). La sociedad clasista inicial y el origin del estado en el territorio de El Argar. Revista Atlántica-Mediterránea de Arqueología Social, 3, 121–219.Google Scholar
  4. Barker, G., & Rasmussen, T. (1998). The Etruscans. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
  5. Bate, L. F. (1984). Hipótesis sobre la sociedad clasista inicial. Boletín de Antropología Americana, 9, 47–86.Google Scholar
  6. Bate, L. F. (1998). El Proceso de Investigación en Arqueología. Barcelona: Crítica.Google Scholar
  7. Blanton, R. E. (1998). Beyond centralization: steps towards egalitarian behaviour in archaic states. In G. M. Feinman & J. Marcus (Eds.), Archaic States (pp. 135–172). Santa Fe: School of American Research Press.Google Scholar
  8. Cámara, J. A. (2001). El ritual funerario en la Prehistoria Reciente en el Sur de la Península Ibérica. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, International Series 913.Google Scholar
  9. Cámara, J. A., Contreras, F., Pérez, C., & Lizcano, R. (1996). Enterramientos y diferenciación social II. La problemática del Alto Guadalquivir durante la Edad del Bronce. Trabajos de Prehistoria, 53(1), 91–108.Google Scholar
  10. Castro, P. V., Chapman, R. W., Gili, S., Lull, V., Micó, R., Rihuete, C., Risch, R., & Sanahuja, Ma. E. (1993–1994). Tiempos sociales de los contextos funerarios argáricos. Anales de Prehistoria de la Universidad de Murcia, 9–10, 77–107.Google Scholar
  11. Castro, P. V., Gili, S., Lull, V., Micó, R., Rihuete, C., Risch, R., & Sanahuja Yll, Ma. E. (1998). Teoría de la producción de la vida social. Mecanismos de explotación en el sudeste ibérico. Boletín de Antropología Americana, 33, 25–77.Google Scholar
  12. Castro, P. V., Chapman, R. W., Gili, S., Lull, V., Micó, R., Rihuete, C., Risch, R., & Sanahuja, Ma. E. (1999a). Agricultural production and social change in the Bronze Age of southeast Spain: the Gatas Project. Antiquity 73, 846–856.Google Scholar
  13. Castro, P. V., Chapman, R. W., Gili, S., Lull, V., Micó, R., Rihuete, C., Risch, R., & Sanahuja, Ma. E. (1999b). Proyecto Gatas 2. La Dinámica Arqueoecológica de la Ocupación Prehistórica. Seville: Junta de Andalucía.Google Scholar
  14. Castro, P.V., Chapman, R. W., Gili, S., Lull, V., Micó, R., Rihuete, C., Risch, R., & Sanahuja Yll, Ma. E. (2002). La Sociedad Argárica. In M. Ruiz-Gálvez Priego (Eds.), La Edad del Bronce, Primera Edad de Oro de España? Sociedad, Economía e Ideología (pp. 181–216). Barcelona: Crítica.Google Scholar
  15. Chapman, R. (1990). Emerging Complexity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Chapman, R. (2003). Archaeologies of Complexity. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Clark, J. E. (1993). Una reevaluación de la entitad política olmeca: Imperio, estado o Cacicazgo. Segundo y Tercer Foro de Arqueología de Chiapas (pp. 159–169). Chiapas: Instituto Chiapaneco de Cultura.Google Scholar
  18. Clark, J. E. (1997). The arts of government in early Mesoamerica. Annual Review of Anthropology, 26, 211–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Clemente, I., Gibaja, J. F. and Vila, A. (1999). Análisis funcional de la industria lítica tallada procedente de los sondeos de Gatas. In P. V. Castro et al. (Eds.), Proyecto Gatas 2. La Dinámica Arqueoecológica de la Ocupación Prehistórica (pp. 341–47). Seville: Junta de Andalucía.Google Scholar
  20. Cordy, R. H. (1981). A Study of Prehistoric Social Change: The Development of Complex Societies in the Hawaiian Islands. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  21. Crumley, C. L. (1979). Three locational models: an epistemological assessment for anthropology and archaeology. In M. B. Schiffer (Ed.), Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 2, 141–173.Google Scholar
  22. Cruz-Auñon, R., & Arteaga, O. (1995). Acerca de un campo de silos y un foso de cierre prehistóricos ubicados en “La Estacada Larga” (Valencina de la Concepción, Sevilla). Excavación de urgencia de 1995. Anuario Arqueológico de Andalucía, 600–607.Google Scholar
  23. Earle, T. (2000). Archaeology, property and prehistory. Annual Review of Anthropology, 29, 39–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Eiroa, J. J. (2004). La Edad del Bronce en la region de Murcia. In L. Hernández Alcaraz & M. S. Hernández Pérez (Eds.), La Edad del Bronce en Tierras Valencianas y Zonas Limítrofes (pp. 399–427). Villena: Ayuntamiento de Villena.Google Scholar
  25. Emerson, T. E. (1997). Cahokia and the Archaeology of Power. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
  26. Engels, F. (1972). The Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State. London: Lawrence and Wishart.Google Scholar
  27. Feinman, G. M. (1998). Scale and social organization: perspectives on the Archaic State. In G. M. Feinman & J. Marcus (Eds.), Archaic States (pp. 95–133). Santa Fe: School of American Research Press.Google Scholar
  28. Flannery, K. V. (1972). The cultural evolution of civilizations. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 3, 339–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Flannery, K. V., & Marcus, J. (2000). Formative Mexican chiefdoms and the myth of the “Mother Culture”. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 19, 1–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Fried, M. H. (1967). The Evolution of Political Society. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  31. Gailey, C. W. & Patterson, T. C. (1987). Power relations and state formation. In T. C. Patterson & C. W. Gailey (Eds.), Power Relations and State Formation (pp. 1–26). Washington D.C.: American Anthropological Association.Google Scholar
  32. Gailey, C. W., & Patterson, T. C. (1988). State formation and uneven development. In J. Gledhill, B. Bender, & M. T. Larsen (Eds.), State and Society: The Emergence and Development of Social Hierarchy and Political Centralisation (pp. 77–90). London: Unwin & Hyman.Google Scholar
  33. Gibaja, J. F. (2002). Análisis del material lítico tallado de Fuente Álamo. In R. Risch (Ed.), Recursos naturales, medios de producción y explotación social: Un análisis económico de la industria lítica de Fuente Álamo (Almería), 2250–1400 antes de nuestra era (pp. 163–77). Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern.Google Scholar
  34. Gilman, A. (1991). Trajectories towards social complexity in the later prehistory of the Mediterranean. In T. Earle (Ed.), Chiefdoms: Power, Economy and Ideology (pp. 146–168). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Gilman, A. (2001). Assessing political development in Copper and Bronze Age Southeast Spain. In J. Haas (Ed.), From Leaders to Rulers (pp. 59–81). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.Google Scholar
  36. Grove, D. C. (1997). Olmec archaeology: a half century of research and its accomplishments. Journal of World Prehistory, 11, 51–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hodder, I. (1982). Symbols in Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Hodder, I, (Ed.). (1991). Archaeological Theory in Europe. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  39. Hodder, I. (1999). The Archaeological Process. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  40. Hoffman, J. (1995). Beyond the State. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  41. Holtorf, C., & Karlsson, H. (2000). Changing configurations of archaeological theory: an introduction. In C. Holtorf & H. Karlsson (Eds.), Philosophy and Archaeological Practice: Perspectives for the 21st Century (pp. 1–11). Göteborg: Bricoleur Press.Google Scholar
  42. Hunt, R. C., & Gilman, A. (Eds.). (1998). Property in Economic Context. Lanham: University Press of America.Google Scholar
  43. Jessop, B. (1990). State Theory: Putting the Capitalist State in its Place. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  44. Johnson, G. A. (1978). Information sources and the development of decision-making organizations. In C. Redman et al. (Eds.), Social Archaeology: Beyond Subsistence and Dating (pp. 87–112). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  45. Johnson, G. A. (1982). Organizational structure and scalar stress. In C. Renfrew, M. J. Rowlands & B. A. Segraves (Eds.), Theory and Explanation in Archaeology (pp. 389–421). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  46. Jover, J., & López Padilla, J. A. (2004). 2100–1200 BC: Aportaciones al proceso histórico en la cuenca del río Vinalopó. In L. Hernández Alcaraz & M. S. Hernández Pérez (Eds.), La Edad del Bronce en Tierras Valencianas y Zonas Limítrofes (pp. 285–302). Villena: Ayuntamiento de Villena.Google Scholar
  47. Knappett, C. (1999). Assessing a polity in Protopalatial Crete: the Malia-Lasithi state. American Journal of Archaeology, 103, 615–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kohl, P. (1984). Force, history and the evolutionist paradigm. In M. Spriggs (Ed.), Marxist Perspectives in Archaeology (pp. 127–134). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Kristiansen, K. (1991). Chiefdoms, states and systems of social evolution. In T. Earle (Ed.), Chiefdoms: Power, Economy and Ideology (pp. 16–43). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Kristiansen, K. (1998). Europe before History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Lenin, V. I. (1969). The State and Revolution. London: Central Books Ltd.Google Scholar
  52. Lull, V. (2000). Argaric society: death at home. Antiquity, 74, 581–590.Google Scholar
  53. Lull, V., & Estévez, J. (1986). Propuesta metodológica para el estudio de las necrópolis argáricas. In Homenaje a Luis Siret 1934–84 (pp. 441–452). Seville: Junta de Andalucía.Google Scholar
  54. Lull, V., & Risch, R. (1995). El estado argárico. Verdolay, 7, 97–109.Google Scholar
  55. Lull, V., Micó, R., Rihuete, C., & Risch, R. (2005). Property relations in the Bronze Age of southwestern Europe: an approach based on infant burials from El Argar (Almería, Spain). Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 71, 247–268.Google Scholar
  56. Lumbreras, L. G. (1994). Acerca de la aparición del estado. Boletín de Antropología Americana, 29, 5–33.Google Scholar
  57. Manning, S. (1994). The emergence of divergence: development and decline on Bronze Age Crete and the Cyclades. In C. Mathers & S. Stoddart (Eds.), Development and Decline in the Mediterranean Bronze Age (pp. 221–270). Sheffield: J. R. Collis Publications.Google Scholar
  58. Mathers, C., & Stoddart, S. (1994). Introduction. In C. Mathers & S. Stoddart (Eds.), Development and Decline in the Mediterranean Bronze Age (pp. 13–20). Sheffield: J. R. Collis Publications.Google Scholar
  59. McGuire, R. (1992). A Marxist Archaeology. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  60. Montero, I. (1999). Sureste. In G. Delibes & I. Montero (Eds.), Las Primeras Etapas Metalúrgicas en la Península Ibérica II: Estudios Regionales (pp. 333–357). Madrid: Instituto Universitario Ortega y Gasset.Google Scholar
  61. Nocete, F. (1989). El espacio de la coercion: La transición al Estado en las Campiñas del Alto Guadalquivir (España). Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, International Series 492.Google Scholar
  62. Nocete, F. (1994). Space as coercion: the transition to the state in the social formations of La Campiña, Upper Guadalquivir valley, Spain c. 1900–1600 B.C. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 13, 171–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Nocete, F. (2001). Tercer milenio antes de nuestra era: Relaciones y contradicciones centro/perifería en el Valle del Guadalquivir. Barcelona: Bellaterra.Google Scholar
  64. Olivier, L. (1999). The origins of French archaeology. Antiquity, 73, 176–183.Google Scholar
  65. Olsen, B. J. (1991). Metropolises and satellites in archaeology: on power and asymmetry in global archaeological discourse. In R. W. Preucel (Ed.), Processual and Postprocessual Archaeologies: Multiple Ways of Knowing the Past (pp. 211–224). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University.Google Scholar
  66. Patterson, T. C. (1991). The Inca Empire: The Formation and Disintegration of a Pre-Capitalist State. Oxford/New York: Berg.Google Scholar
  67. Patterson, T. C. (2003). Marx’s Ghost: Conversations with Archaeologists. Oxford/New York: Berg.Google Scholar
  68. Politis, G. G. (2003). The theoretical landscape and the methodological development of archaeology in Latin America. American Antiquity, 68(2), 245–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Potter, D. R., & King, E. M. (1995). A heterarchical approach to lowland Maya Socioeconomics. In R. M. Ehrenreich, C. L. Crumley, & J. E. Levy (Eds.), Heterarchy and the Analysis of Complex Societies (pp. 17–32). Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, No. 6.Google Scholar
  70. Renfrew, C. (1973). Before Civilization: The Radiocarbon Revolution and Prehistoric Europe. London: Jonathan Cape.Google Scholar
  71. Renfrew, C. (1975). Trade as action at a distance: questions of integration and communication. In J. A. Sabloff & C. C. Lamberg-Karlovsky (Eds.), Ancient Civilization and Trade (pp. 3–59). Albuquerque: School of American Research Press.Google Scholar
  72. Risch, R. (1998). Análisis paleoeconómico y medios de producción líticos: el caso de Fuente Álamo. In G. Delibes de Castro (Ed.), Minerales y Metales en la Prehistoria Reciente: Algunos Testimonios de su Explotación y Laboreo en la Península Ibérica (pp. 105–154). Valladolid: Universidad de Valladolid.Google Scholar
  73. Risch, R. (2002). Recursos naturales, medios de producción y explotación social: Un análisis económico de la industria lítica de Fuente Álamo (Almería), 2250–1400 antes de nuestra era. Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern.Google Scholar
  74. Rowlands, M. J. (1989). A question of complexity. In D. Miller, M. Rowlands, & C. Tilley (Eds.), Domination and Resistance (pp. 29–40). London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  75. Sanz, J. L., & Morales, A. (2000). Los restos faunísticos. In F. Contreras (Ed.), Análisis Histórico de las Comunidades de la Edad del Bronce del piedemonte meridional de Sierra Morena y Depresión Linares-Bailen: Proyecto Peñalosa (pp. 223–235). Seville: Junta de Andalucía.Google Scholar
  76. Schoep, I. (2002). Social and political organisation on Crete in the Proto-Palatial period: the case of Middle Minoan II Malia. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology, 15(1), 101–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Schubart, H., & Arteaga, O. (1986). Fundamentos arqueológicos para el estudio socio-económico y cultural del area de El Argar. In Homenaje a Luis Siret 1934–84 (pp. 298–307). Seville: Junta de Andalucía.Google Scholar
  78. Service, E. R. (1962). Primitive Social Organization: An Evolutionary Perspective. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  79. Shelmerdine, C. (2001). The palatial Bronze Age of the southern and central Greek mainland. In T. Cullen (Ed.), Aegean Prehistory: A Review (pp. 329–381). Boston: Archaeological Institute of America.Google Scholar
  80. Smith, A. T. (2003). The Political Landscape: Constellations of Authority in Early Complex Polities. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  81. Stein, G. J. (1994). The organizational dynamics of complexity in Greater Mesopotamia. In G. Stein & M. S. Rothman (Eds.), Chiefdoms and Early States in the Near East. The Organizational Dynamics of Complexity (pp. 11–22). Madison, Wisconsin: Prehistory Press.Google Scholar
  82. Stein, G. J. (1998). Heterogeneity, power and political economy: some current research issues in the archaeology of Old World complex societies. Journal of Archaeological Research, 6, 1–44.Google Scholar
  83. Stos-Gale, S. (2000). Trade in metals in the Bronze Age Mediterranean: an overview of lead isotope data for provenance studies. In C. F. E. Pare (Ed.), Metals Make the World Go Round. The Supply and Circulation of Metals in Bronze Age Europe (pp. 56–69). Oxford: Oxbow Books.Google Scholar
  84. Trigger, B. G. (1993). Marxism in contemporary western archaeology. Archaeological Method and Theory, 5, 159–200.Google Scholar
  85. Trigger, B. G., & Glover, I. (1981). Editorial. World Archaeology, 13(2), 133–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Ucko, P. J. (Ed.) (1995). Theory in Archaeology: A World Perspective. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  87. Vázquez Varela, J. M., & Risch, R. 1991. Theory in Spanish archaeology since 1960. In I. Hodder (Ed.), Archaeological Theory in Europe (pp. 25–51). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  88. Wailes, B. (1995). A case study of heterarchy in complex societies: early medieval Ireland and its archaeological implications. In R. M. Ehrenreich, C. L. Crumley, & J. E. Levy (Eds.), Heterarchy and the Analysis of Complex Societies (pp. 55–69). Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, No. 6.Google Scholar
  89. Wenke, R. J. (1981). Explaining the evolution of cultural complexity: a review. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, 4, 79–127.Google Scholar
  90. White, J. C. (1995). Incorporating heterarchy into theory on socio-political development: the case for Southeast Asia. In R. M. Ehrenreich, C. L. Crumley, & J. E. Levy (Eds.), Heterarchy and the Analysis of Complex Societies (pp. 101–123). Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, No. 6.Google Scholar
  91. Wright, H. T. (1977). Recent research on the origins of the state. Annual Review of Anthropology, 6, 379–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Wright, H. T. (1984). Prestate political formations. In T. Earle (Ed.), On the Evolution of Complex Societies: Essays in Honor of Harry Hoijer 1982 (pp. 41–77). Malibu: Undena Publications.Google Scholar
  93. Wright, H. T. (1986). The evolution of civilizations. In D. J. Meltzer, D. D. Fowler, & J. A. Sabloff (Eds.), American Archaeology Past and Future: A Celebration of the Society for American Archaeology 1935–85 (pp. 323–365). Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press.Google Scholar
  94. Wright, H. T., & Johnson, G. A. (1975). Population, exchange and early state formation in southwestern Iran. American Anthropologist, 77, 267–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Yoffee, N. (2005). Myths of the Archaic State: Evolution of the Earliest Cities, States and Civilizations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert Chapman
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of ArchaeologyUniversity of ReadingUK

Personalised recommendations