The emergence of pristine states

In this article the emergence of the Pristine State will be considered. First, I will present an overview of the applied method. Then seven cases of – probable – Pristine States are described. This makes a comparative research possible. As the case studies have been described with the help of the Complex Interaction Model, the comparative part is also based upon this approach. From the comparisons it appeared that all cases developed in a situation of relative wealth. They were not a consequence of hunger or population pressure. Nor could the often mentioned role of war be established as crucial in the formation of these states. War, as far as it occurred, was rather a consequence than a condition of state formation. 1. PRELIMINARY REMARKS In 1967, Morton H. Fried introduced the concept of the pristine state in The Evolution of Political Society, stating that ‘all contemporary states, even those that seem to be lineally descended from the states of high antiquity, like China, are really secondary states; the pristine states perished long ago’ (Fried 1967: 231). The pristine states were those that ‘emerged from stratified societies and experienced the slow, autochthonous growth of specialized formal instruments of social control out of their own needs for these institutions’ (Ibid.). The institutions grew and a leader – a priest, a warrior, a manager, or a charismatic person – came to the fore, and started to use his power. Gradually the organization of such a polity developed into an incipient early state (term in Claessen 1978, 2014). Fried suggests that the ‘stratified-society-going-pristine-state’ was (probably) surrounded by other societies, developing in tandem, so that Social Evolution & History / March 2016 4 competition, trade, war, and communication played a role in its further development; as an early form of ‘peer polity interaction’ (Renfrew and Cherry 1986). Fried also suggests that such pristine states could overrun less well-organized neighbours and incorporate them within its own system as an inferior social stratum (Fried 1967: 232). Fried suggests Egypt, Mesopotamia, the Indus Valley, and the Yellow River Valley as possible sources of pristine states. He does not exclude the possibility that once, in an unknown past, pristine states developed also in Africa, but which completely disappeared since. Interestingly, he does not include an American case in his list. The concept of the pristine state – and implied with that the origin of the state – received considerable attention. To mention a few of the scholars involved: Robert L. Carneiro stated that the origin of the state was caused by circumscription and war. Julian H. Steward carefully analyzed the theocratic character of pristine states (Steward 1955: 182–185). In his analysis of the origins of civilizations Elman R. Service (1975) introduced Mesoamerica, Peru, and Polynesia as pristine states. Herbert S. Lewis and Sidney M. Greenfield (1983) emphasized decision making as a crucial aspect of state formation. Renée Hagesteijn (1985) analysed the development of the state in Southeast Asia (Ayudhya, Pagan, and Burma) and explained the instability of these states. Norman Yoffee (1993, 2005) fundamentally criticized the traditional evolutionary theories, and asserted that pristine states did not develop from chiefdoms, and finally Charles Spencer (2010), who assumed that pristine states were characterized by conquest. I will discuss below the proposed cases – Egypt, Mesopotamia, India, China, Mesoamerica, and Tonga – and add as an African case ancient Ghana. First, however, I will investigate what we can say about the evolution of these very first states with the help of the Complex Interaction Model (CIM). The CIM is a general model for the evolution of socio-political organization. It consists of three factors: 1. the format of the society, which refers to the number of people in relation to the means of production and the area of land available; 2. domination and control of the economy; and 3. the ideology. A mutual, reciprocal influencing of each other causes changes in the factors (or groups of factors), in this way creating the conditions under which socioClaessen / The Emergence of Pristine States 5 political organizations emerge, or trigger a more elaborate development. The emerging socio-political organization becomes the fourth factor in the model, which in its turn influences the other three and acts as co-determinant. When the structures which had thus been established alter structurally from those which had preceded them, evolution has occurred. One change evokes the other; a complex interaction has come into play (for literature see Note 2). The CIM does not include the popular factors of war or conquest. In my opinion these are not independent factors, but are caused by disturbances in one of the factors of the model (Claessen 2006; 2010: 24). The developments, explained with the help of the CIM are, generally speaking, peaceful and gradual. This is also more or less the line followed by Service (1975: 266 ff., 290 ff.), and later by Schaedel and Robinson (2004). To illustrate the working of the CIM, I will present a fictitious case. Imagine the situation in which population growth in a small community demands a larger production of food. This stimulates bringing more land under cultivation which changes the format of the society. Tensions between the number of people and the limited harvest might perhaps induce more fervour in the religious or ideological sphere, and the priest or priests will get more influence, demanding more offers, and occasionally a larger temple. Another solution might be found in the development of trade. Trade might also influence positively the affluence of the society, and certainly of some of its members and eventually leads to the introduction of new types of food. As a consequence the economy and its managers get more status and influence. The community, gradually increasing, becomes more complex, and thus needs a stronger and better educated leadership (cf. Johnson 1978, 1982; Hallpike 1986: 246). A corollary of the growth of the society is that an increasing number of people falls under the paramount leader. As it cannot be expected that everybody always agrees with his decisions, the leader has to cope with the problem of how to make his followers act according to the norms and values of the society – that is to say his norms and values. He has to combine adroitly consensus and coercion (cf. Claessen 1994: 41). Here the legitimacy of the leader comes into play. In many cases the leader of such a society is considered to be sacred, supposed to be a descendant of gods, spirits or forefathers; he is evidently blessed by the god(s), which appears from Social Evolution & History / March 2016 6 the fact that his harvests usually are larger than those of other farmers. This greatly enhances his position. He then starts to create an inner-circle of clients, priests, and servants. Stratification thus becomes more explicit in the society, and is considered as legitimate – the emergence of the state is near. Until now there has been no mention of the term ‘state’. When does one speak of a state? Numerous definitions of ‘state’ have been developed but they are hardly applicable in the research of the pristine state, for they have been developed either by anthropologists (Claessen and Skalník 1978a; Kurtz 2011, 2012; Grinin and Korotayev 2012), who base themselves on early states that had been observed in actual practice, or by archaeologists, basing themselves on remaining artefacts of earlier civilizations – and by lack of written sources are sometimes inspired by anthropologists (Van de Velde 1985; Champion et al. 1984). Recently Dmitri Bondarenko analysed thoroughly the characteristics of the (early) state, concluding that its essential characteristic was the existence of a group of non-kin functionaries (Bondarenko 2014). The problem with pristine states is that not much is known about them. In the often scanty archaeological record indications of state like characteristics are hard to find as are remaining traces of earlier forms of organization. This makes it difficult to establish if and when the pristine state emerged, and its predecessor ended. Already in The Early State (Claessen and Skalník 1978b: 621) we established that: ‘many tendencies that are characteristic of pre-state phases (such as for instance, communal ownership of land, allegiance to family or clan heads), did not disappear after state formation.’ Such situations – aptly called by Carneiro (1973): ‘differential evolution’ – make it difficult to ascertain the existence of a pristine state. Usually few of the characteristics of a state can be found; the best one can hope for is finding indications for the existence of a three-tier political organization, aspects of legitimacy, palaces, defence works, temples and priesthood, trade, prestige goods, etc. In the meantime one has to stay aware of the views of Radcliffe-Brown (1940), that the state is just ‘a collection of human beings connected by a complex system of relations’ (Radcliffe-Brown 1940: xiii, xxiii), and not something tangible. An analysis of the conditions under which early states emerge shows that a number of specific conditions have to be fulfilled first, Claessen / The Emergence of Pristine States 7 before this can occur, and it seems reasonable to suppose that these conditions also have to be fulfilled to allow a pristine state to develop. These conditions are of a general character, and it can be assumed that several of them are found already in some form or another in the preceding stratified societies. It thus can be safely stated that ‘Long before the state came into being people already lived in well-organized societies, and were accustomed to leadership, rules, tributes and military service’ (Claessen 1994: 47; Claessen and Oosten 1996: 5; cf. Carneiro 1981; Earle 1