7 Social Evolution: Alternatives and Variations (Introduction)*
Скачать 332.42 Kb.
|
| the early state analogues or alternatives to the state (Bondarenko, Grinin, and Korotayev 2002, 2004; Bondarenko 1995b, 2000a, 2000b, 2005a, 2006, 2007a, 2007b, 2007c; Bondarenko and Korotayev 2000a, 2000c; Bondarenko and Nemirovskiy 2007; Grinin 1997–2001, 2001–2006, 2000c, 2002a, 2002b, 2002с, 2003, 2004a, 2004b, 2004c, 2006а, 2006b, 2006c, 2006d, 2007a, 2007b, 2007c, 2007d, 2007e, 2007f, 2007g, 2007h, 2008; Grinin and Korotayev 2007a, 2007b, 2009a, 2009b; Grinin et al. 2004, 2006; Кorotayev 2000c, 2003c; Korotayev, Kradin, and Lynsha 2000; Korotayev et al. 2000). We provide a classification of such societies below. But let us return to the Service – Sahlins's scheme. There is another evident problem with Service's scheme. It is evidently pre-‘Wallersteinian’, not touched by any world-system discussions, quite confident about the possibility of the use of a single polity as a unit of social evolution. It might be not so important if Service spoke about the typology of polities; yet, he speaks about the ‘levels of cultural integration’, and within such a context the world-system dimension should be evidently taken into consideration.7 The point is that the same overall level of complexity could be achieved both through the development of a single polity and through the development of a politically uncentralized interpolity network. This alternative was already noticed by Wallerstein (1974, 1979, 1987) who viewed it as a dichotomy: world-economy – world-empire. Note that according to Wallerstein these are considered precisely as alternatives, and not two stages of social evolution. In this respect the examples of the Ancient Greek and especially Maya and Yoruba ‘peer polities’ are instructive (see Bondarenko 2005b: 7–8). The system of Greek poleis never transformed to an empire and remained heterarchic even in the time of the Delian League (see Golubtsovа 1983). The case of the Maya and Yoruba interpolity networks is instructive even more so, as they, though consisted of societies organized along predominantly homoarchic lines, nevertheless did not transform to integrated empires too, notwithstanding domination of these or those polities within the networks in definite historical periods (see, e.g., Beliaev 2000a; Beliaev and Pakin 2009; Martin and Grube 2000; Кochakova 1968, 1986; Smith 1988). Thus, as one would expect, we agree with Wallerstein whole-heartedly at this point. However, we also find here a certain oversimplification. In general, we would like to stress that we are dealing here with a particular case of a much more general set of evolutionary alternatives. The development of a politically uncentralized interpolity network became an effective alternative to the development of a single polity long before the rise of the first empires. As an example, we could mention the interpolity communication network of the Mesopotamian civil-temple communities of the first half of the 3 millennium ВС which sustained a much higher level of technological development than that of the politically unified Egyptian state, contemporary to it. Note that the intercommunal communication networks already constitute an effective evolutionary alternative to the chiefdom. For example, the sociopolitical system of the Ара Tanis should be better described as an intercommunal network of a few communities (incidentally, in turn acting as a core for another wider network including the neighboring less developed polities [chiefdoms and sovereign communities] – see Führer-Haimendorf 1962). We also do not find it productive to describe this alternative type of cultural integration as a world-economy. The point is that such a designation tends to downplay the political and cultural dimension of such systems. Take for example, the Classical Greek inter-polis system. The level of complexity of many Greek poleis was rather low even in comparison with a complex chiefdom. However, they were parts of a much larger and much more com- plex entity constituted by numerous economic, political and cultural links and shared political and cultural norms. The economic links no doubt played some role within this system. But links of other types were not less important. Take, e.g., the norm according to which the inter-poleis wars stopped during the Olympic Games, which guaranteed the secure passage of people, and consequently the circulation of enormous quantities of energy, matter and information within the territory far exceeding the one of an average complex chiefdom. The existence of the inter-poleis communication network made it possible, say, for a person born in one polis to go to get his education in another polis and to establish his school in a third. The existence of this system reduced the de-structiveness of inter-poleis warfare for a long time. It was a basis on which it was possible to undertake important collective actions (which turned out to be essential at the age of the Greek-Persian wars). As a result, the polis with a level of complexity lower than the one of the complex chiefdom, turned out to be part of a system whose complexity was quite comparable with that of the state (and not only the early one). The same can be said about the intersocietal communication network of Medieval Europe (comparing its complexity in this case with an average world-empire). Note that in both cases some parts of the respective systems could be treated as elements of wider world-economies. On the other hand, not all the parts of such communication networks were quite integrated economically. This shows that the world-economies were not the only possible type of politically decentralized intersocietal networks. Actually, in both cases we are dealing with the politically decentralized civilization, which for most of human history over the last few millennia constituted the most effective alternative to the world-empire. Of course, many of such civilizations could be treated as parts of larger world-economies. Wallerstein suggests that in the age of complex societies only the world-economies and world-empires (‘historical systems’, i.e. the largest units of social evolution) could be treated as units of social evolution in general. Yet we believe that both politically centralized and decentralized civilizations should also be treated as such quite productively.8 One should stress again the importance of the cultural dimension of such systems. Of course, the exchange of bulk goods was important. But exchange of information was also important. Note that the successful development of science both in Classical Greece and Medieval Europe became only possible through an intensive intersocietal information exchange between the constituent societies of respective civilizations, whereas the development of science in Europe affected, to a significant extent, the evolution of the Modern World-System. It is important to stress that the intersocietal communication networks could appear among much less complex societies (Wallerstein has denoted them as ‘mini-systems’ without actually studying them, for a recent review of the research on the archaic intersocietal networks see Chase-Dunn and Grimes 1995; Chase-Dunn and Hall 1993, 1994, 1995, 1997; see also Grinin and Korotayev 2009b: Introduction). Already it seems possible to speak about a communication network covering most of aboriginal Australia.9 Again we come here across a similar phenomenon – a considerable degree of cultural complexity (complex forms of rituals, mythology, arts, and dance well comparable with the ones of early agriculturists) observed among populations with an apparently rather simple political organization. This could largely be explained by the fact that relatively simple Australian local groups were parts of a much more complex whole: a huge intersocietal communication network that apparently covered most of Australia (e.g., Bakhta and Senyuta 1972; Artemova 1987). Thus, it is possible to contrast societies that followed the pathway of political centralization and ‘authoritarianization’ with cultures that further elaborated and perfected democratic communal backgrounds and corresponding self-government institutions. However, such a culture as the Benin Kingdom of the 13th–19th centuries can make the picture of sociopolitical evolution even more versatile. In particular, it reveals that not only heterarchical but also homoarchical societies can reach a very high (incomparably higher than that of complex chiefdoms) level of sociocultural complexity and political centralization still never transforming to a state during the whole long period of existence. The Benin evidence also testifies that local community's autonomy is not a guarantee of complex society's advancement along the hierarchical pathway. We have suggested elsewhere to define this form of sociopolitical organization as ‘megacommunity’ (see, e.g., Bondarenko 1994; 1995a: 276–284; 1995b, 1996, 1998c; 2000a: 106–117; 2001: 230–263; 2004a, 2005a; 2006: 64–88, 96–107). Its structure may be depicted in the shape of four concentric circles forming an upset cone. These ‘circles’ are as follows: the extended family, extended-family community (in which familial ties were supplemented by those of neighbor ones), chiefdom, and finally, the broadest circle that included all the three narrower ones, that is the megacommunity as such (the Benin Kingdom as a whole). The specific characteristic of megacommunity is its ability to organize a complex, ‘many-tier’ society predominantly on the basis of transformed kinship principle within rather vast territories. Besides the 13th – 19th centuries Benin Kingdom, megacommunities in pre-colonial Africa can be recognized, for instance, in the Bamum Kingdom of the late 16th – 19th centuries in present-day Cameroon which as a whole represented an extension up to the supercomplex level of the lineage principles and organization forms, so the society acquired the shape of ‘maximal lineage’ (Tardits 1980). Analogously, in some other traditional kingdoms on the territory of that post-colonial state ‘the monarchical system... is... in no way a totally unique and singular form of organization but displays a virtually identical structure to that of the lineage groups’ (Koloss 1992: 42). Outside Africa megacommunities (although not obligatorily of the Benin, that is based on the kin-oriented local community, type) may be recognized, for example, in the Indian societies of the late 1st millennium BC – first centuries AD. Naturally, differing in many respects from the Benin pattern, they nevertheless fit the main distinctive feature of megacommunity as a non-state social type: Integration of a supercomplex (exceeding the complex chiefdom level) society on the community basis and the whole society's encompassment from the local level upwards. In particular, Samozvantsev (2001) describes those societies as permeated by communal orders notwithstanding the difference in socio-political organization forms. ‘The principle of communality’, he argues, was the most important factor of social organization in India during that period (see also Leljukhin 2001, 2004). In the south of India this situation lasted much longer, till the time of the Vijayanagara Empire – the mid-14th century when the region finally saw ‘...the greater centralization of political power and the resultant concentration of resources in the royal bureaucracy…’ (Palat 1987: 170). A number of other examples of supercomplex societies in which ‘the supracommunity political structure was shaped according to the community type’ is provided by the 1st millennium AD Southeast Asian societies, like Funan and possibly Dvaravati (Rebrikova 1987: 159–163; see, however, Mudar 1999). The specificity of the megacommunity becomes especially apparent in its comparison with the ‘galaxy-like’ states studied by Tambiah in Southeast Asia (Tambiah 1977, 1985). Like these states, a megacommunity has the political and ritual center – the capital which is the residence of the sacralized ruler – and the near, middle, and remote circles of periphery round it. However, notwithstanding its seeming centripetality, a megacommunity culture's true focus is the community, not the center, as in those Southeast Asian cases. As heterarchic non-kin-ties-based megacommunities, or civil megacommunities, one can consider societies of the polis type (Bondarenko 1997: 13–14, 48–49; 1998b, 2000b; 2001: 259–263; 2004b; 2006: 92–96; Shtyrbul 2006: 123–135). Still, another evident alternative to the state seems to be represented by the supercomplex chiefdoms created by some nomads of Eurasia – the number of the structural levels within such chiefdoms appear to be equal, or even to exceed those within the average state, but they have an entirely different type of political organization and political leadership; besides, this type of political entities do not appear to have been ever created by agriculturists (e.g., Kradin 1992: 146–152; 1996, 2000a, 2000b). This is also confirmed by the history of Scythia. Being similar to supercomplex chiefdoms and an analogue to the early state (see Grinin 2007g: 187–188), it was transforming to an early state more and more obviously in the course of the Scythians' sedentarization. The growth of trade in bread, particularly with Bosphorus, contributed significantly to the development of statehood and consolidation of royal power (see Grakov 1971: 38). Besides the megacommunity and nomadic supercomplex chiefdoms, the Indus, or Harappa civilization that exceeded considerably in size such pristine civilzations as Egyptian and Mesopotamian, can serve as an example at this point. According to Possehl, this civilization was an example of ancient sociocultural complexity without archaic state form of political organization, what testifies that ancient civilizations, vary in form and organization to a much greater degree than traditional unilinear evolutionary schemes can reflect (Possehl 1998: 291). Definitely, the variability of sociopolitical forms and alternativity of state formation process is demonstrated not only by ancient civilizations but also by different other complex societies of different historical periods. Societies with thoroughly elaborated rigid cast system can also be a homoarchic alternative to the homoarchic (by definition see Claessen and Skalník 1978: 533–596, 637–650; Claessen et al. 2008: 260; see also Claessen 2008: 13; Bondarenko 2008: 20–21, 32–33 [note 7]) early state (see, e.g., Quigley 1999: 114–169; Kobishchanov 2000: 64). So, alternativity characterizes not only two basic macrogroups of human associations, i.e. homoarchical and heterarchical societies. Alternativity does exist within each of them, too. In particular, within the upper range of complexity and integrativity of the sociopolitical organization the state (at least in the pre-industrial world) ‘competes’ with not only heterarchical systems of institutions (e.g., with polis) but also with some forms of sociopolitical organization not less homoarchical than the state. Among numerous factors capable to influence the nature of this or that society, the family and community type characteristic of it seems to deserve notice. The distinction in the correlation of kin and neighborhood (territorial) lines is in its turn connected with the dominant type of community (as a universal substratum social institution). A cross-cultural research conducted earlier (Bondarenko and Korotayev 1999, 2000b) has generally corroborated the initial hypothesis (Bondarenko 1997: 13–14; 1998b: 198–199) that the extended-family community in which vertical social ties and non-democratic value system are usually vividly expressed, given the shape of kinship relations (elder – younger), is more characteristic of homoarchical societies.10 Heterarchical societies appear to be more frequently associated with the territorial communities consisting of nuclear families in which social ties are horizontal and apprehended as neighborhood ties among those equal in rights (Korotayev and Tsereteli 2001; Korotayev 2003b).11 In the course of our cross-cultural research in the community forms, another factor important for determining societies' homoarchization vs. heterarchization was revealed. It appeared that probability of a democratic (heterarchical) sociopolitical organization development is higher in cultures where monogamous rather polygynous families dominate (Korotayev and Bondarenko 2000, 2001; Korotayev 2003a). However, besides social factors (including those mentioned above), a set of phenomena stemming from the fact that political culture is a reflection of a society's general culture type, is also important for determining its evolutionary pathway. The general culture type that varies from one civilization to another defines the trends and limits of sociocultural evolution. Though culture itself forms under the influence of different factors (sociohistorical, natural, etc.) the significance of the general culture type for the sociopolitical organization is not at all reduced to the so-called ‘ideological factor’ (Bondarenko and Korotayev 2000c; Claessen 2000). It influences crucially the essence of political culture characteristic for a given society, ‘most probably revealing itself as fully as economic, religious, artistic potential from the very beginning’ (Zubov 1991: 59). In its turn, political culture determines human vision of the ideal sociopolitical model which correspondingly, may be different in various cultures. This way political culture forms the background for the development of character, types and forms of complex political organization emergence, including the enrolling of this process along either the homoarchical or heterarchical evolutionary pathways. But real, ‘non-ideal’ social institutions are results of conscious activities (social creativity) of people to no small degree, though people are frequently not capable to realize completely global sociopolitical outcomes of their deeds aimed at realization of personal goals. People create in the social sphere (as well as in other spheres) in correspondence with the value systems they adopt within their cultures in the process of socialization. They apprehend these norms as the most natural, the only true ones. Hence, it is evident that the general culture type is intrinsically connected with its respective modal personality type. In their turn, the fundamental characteristics of modal personality types are transmitted by means of socialization practices which correspond to the value system generally accepted in a given society and can influence significantly its political evolution (see Irons 1979: 9–10, 33–35; Ionov 1992: 112–129; Bondarenko and Korotayev 2000a: 309–312; Korotayev and Bondarenko 2000, 2001; Korotayev 2003a; Grinin 2007g: 85) though scholars usually tend to stress the opposite influence, i.e. the influence of political systems on socialization processes and personality types. The ecological factor is also important for determination of the pathway which this or that society follows (Bondarenko 1998b, 2000b; Кorotayev 2003c; Korotayev, Klimenko, and Prusakov 2007; Grinin and Korotayev 2009b). Not only natural environment but the sociohistorical one as well should be included into the notion of ‘ecology’ in this case. The environment also contributes a lot to the defining of a society's evolutionary potential, creating limits to its advancement along the homoarchical or heterarchical axes. For example, there is no predestined inevitability of transition from the simple to complex society (Tainter 1990: 38; Lozny 2000) or from the early state to mature one (Claessen and van de Velde 1987: 20ff.; Grinin 2007f). Let us discuss now the implications of the approach discussed above for the study of the state formation processes and ‘politogenesis’ in general. The tendency to see historical rules always and everywhere the same results in gross perversion of historical reality. For example, concurrent political processes are declared consecutive stages of the formation of the state. Besides, the features of already mature state are illegitimately attributed to its early forms and in consequence of this it becomes impossible to find any ‘normal’ early state practically anywhere (for details see Grinin 2007f). The notion of ‘politogenesis’ was elaborated in the late 1970s and 80s by Kubbel' (e.g., 1988b). However, Kubbel', as well as many others using this notion today, equalized politogenesis to state formation exclusively (Ibid.: 3). This approach resulted from the dominant that time and still very wide-spread now, although out-of-date, unilinear ideas that: a) all non-state forms are pre-state by definition; b) the development of political institutions and forms led directly to state formation; c) any even the least developed state is naturally more complex than any non-state society; d) political relations appear with the rise of state only. However, it is impossible to reduce politogenesis to state formation at least because, as we have seen above, complex non-state societies, too developed to be called pre-state, existed alongside with states. Hence, it is necessary to ascertain substitution of a wider process of various complex political institutions and systems formation, that is of politogenesis, with a narrower (and later) one – of state formation. Meanwhile, as Lewis have fairly noted, there exist huge riches of organizational variety of non-state societies worldwide (Lewis 1981: 206). To avoid these stretches and errors, we have developed new approaches to the conception of politogenesis (see Bondarenko and Korotayev 2000a; Bondarenko et al. 2002; Korotayev et al. 2000; Korotayev and Bondarenko 2000; Korotayev, Kradin, and Lynsha 2000; Grinin 2003, 2004c, 2007e, 2007f, 2007g; Grinin and Korotayev 2006). We suggest defining the term ‘politogenesis’ as the process of singling out of the political sphere in a society and formation of the political system as partially independent; as the process of rising of specific forms of power organisation in a society connected with concentration of power and political activity (both internal and external) in the hands of definite (including functional) groups or layers. In other words, it is possible to define politogenesis as the process of formation of complex political organisation of any type, what looks more well-grounded in the etymological respect: in ancient Greece the word politeia meant a political order of any type, not just the state. In the English-language (and obviously Western in general) anthropology the notion of politogenesis is absent as political anthropologists regard that of state formation process12 as sufficient. However, it would be very much desirable to distinguish these notions: politogenesis should be recognized as a broader one that describes the genesis of a complex society's political subsystem while state formation process should be seen as a politogenesis' specific type that leads just to the rise of statehood. That is why it would be productive if ‘politogenesis’ were added to the Western political anthropology's thesaurus (on this point see Bondarenko and Korotayev 2000a; Bondarenko et al. 2002: 66–67; Grinin and Korotayev 2009a: 56–57). In the result of state formation administrative, violent, and legal methods applied by new types of military and civil professional administrators begin to play an ever-growing part. Clearly, state formation is ‘younger’ than politogenesis. Like politogenesis singles out of the general process of social (in the broader sense) development, state formation process separates from politogenesis at its definite stage. It is worth noting that as a rule, state formation demands larger territories, more population and resources for its start than other politogenetic processes that lead to the rise of the middle-range polities like simple chiefdoms and their analogues (see Grinin 2007g, 2009). Gradually state formation process becomes the leading and then dominant direction of politogenesis. Due to this one can get the impression that politogenesis is just the process of the rise of the state as a political institution. However, this impression is completely wrong. The state formation process is not just younger than politogenesis. Even after the first state's appearance the directions of politogenesis have never been reduced to the only – statehood – line. To the contrary, these lines were multiple, and at first that of statehood was an exception to the rule among them remaining a rare case long after its appearance. One more point is important for understanding of the correlation between politogenesis and state formation process. Cycles of states' centralization and decentralization that were among the most significant historical processes in Antiquity and the Middle Ages (see, e.g., Nefedov 2007; Turchin 2007; Korotayev, Komarova, and Khaltourina 2007; Grinin 2007j), can be interpreted in some cases as trends, opposite to state formation and as instances of non-state politogenesis (Grinin 2007g). Indeed, the collapse of vast states (especially immature) into small parts resulted not infrequently in the rise of polities of the type that cannot be regarded as state because of those polities' small size, their administrative apparatus' weakness and uncertainty of sovereignty. For example, in pre-Hispanic Mexico and the Andes the debris of the early states are classified by different scholars either as chiefdoms or as ‘small states’, ‘city-states’ (see Chabal et al. 2004: 50). If the differences between the politogenesis and state formation processes are taken into account, the solution to the problem can be seen in another point: politogenesis has given rise to different political forms but in the course of time evolution usually returned to the road of state formation. Therefore, the evolutionary pathway, within which the features of the state familiar to us are guessed retrospectively, is only one of the possible ‘branches’ of the politogenesis. But since later most alternative sociopolitical structures were destroyed by states, absorbed into states, or transformed to states,13 it might be reasonable to recognize retrospectively the ‘state’ branch of the politogenesis as ‘general’ and the alternative pathways as ‘lateral’. This, however, does not deny the fact that the alternative sociopolitical structures mentioned above cannot be adequately described as pre-state formations, that they are quite comparable with early states by range of their functions and level of their structural complexity. Therefore, it seems possible to designate them as state analogues (for details see Grinin 1997, 2000а, 2000b, 2002b, 2002с, 2003, 2004a, 2004b, 2004c, 2006a, 2006b, 2006c, 2006d, 2007a, 2007d, 2007e, 2007f, 2007g, 2007h, 2008, 2009). The term state analogue underlines both typological and functional resemblance of such forms to the state and differences in structure. The introduction of this term makes it possible to describe the process of politogenesis more adequately. In the present article the analogue to the early state is defined as the category that covers different forms of complex non-state societies comparable with the early state (but as a rule do not surpass the typical early state level) in size, socio-cultural and/or political complexity, the level of functional differentiation and the scale of the problems and tasks the societies face which, however, do not have at least one of the features enumerated in the early state definition. The following types of analogues have been singled out by us (for details see Grinin 2003, 2006c, 2007a, 2007d, 2007g, 2007h, 2007i, 2009; Grinin and Korotayev 2009b: Essay 5): 1. Some self-governed city and temple communities and territories (including settlement territories or colonies like Iceland of the 10th – 13th centuries) with population from several to tens of thousands. 2. Some large tribal unions with rather strong power of the supreme ruler (the ‘king’ and so forth) with population of tens of thousands (even hundred thousands or more in some cases). An example is given by some Germanic tribal unions of the Migration period. 3. Large tribal unions and confederations in which the ‘royal’ power was absent (had never been established or had been abolished) but the processes of social and functional differentiation were well noticeable and even surpassed the pace of political development. Examples of such tribal unions without royal power one can find among the Saxes and some Gallic peoples. The number of people they integrated usually amounted tens of thousand and even hundreds thousands in some cases. 4. Nomads' state-like polities, large and militarily strong, that look like large states (e.g., Scythia or the Xsiungnu empire). 5. Many complex chiefdoms (especially very large), as they are not inferior to small and even middle states in size and complexity (for instance, the Hawaiian chiefdoms population was from thirty to one hundred thousand people [Johnson and Earle 2000: 246]). Some of these analogues never became states. Others transformed to it but at an already rather high development level; so they transformed directly to large (not small or middle in size) states. We have described in detail elsewhere two basically different models of transition to the state (see e.g., Grinin 2007f, 2007h, 2007i, 2009; Grinin and Korotayev 2009a, 2009b). One of those models is represented just by cases, in which states formed ‘vertically’ i.e. direct transition from pre-state to state societies took place. Most often this transition resulted in small states appearance, as it happened, for example, with the Betsileo of Madagascar in the 17th century (Kottak 1980; Claessen 2000, 2004; see also Orlova 1984: 178–179). Many such instances can be found in Ancient Greece where compelled resettlement from several small settlements to one for the sake of defense from military actions or from pirates was spread very widely and got the name of synoecism (see Gluskina 1983: 36; Frolov 1986: 44; Andreev 1979: 20–21).14 However, there could be cases of large states' vertical formation.15 Thus, in order to find solutions to a certain range of political anthropology problems it is necessary to consider the genesis of early state in the general context of socioevolutionary processes coeval with it. This could make it possible to appreciate more exactly the correlation between general evolution and state formation processes. For example, it seems evident that the early state formation is finally connected with general changes caused by the transition from the foraging to food production. This generally resulted in the growth of sociocultural complexity. This led to the appearance of the objective needs in new methods of organization of societies and new forms of contacts between them. But in different societies it was expressed in different ways. So, over long periods of time, the growth of sociostructural complexity, the exploitation of neighbors, development of commerce, property inequality and private ownership, growth of the role of religious cults and corporations etc. could serve as alternatives to purely administrative and political decisions of above-mentioned problems. And in these terms, the early state is only one of forms of new organization of the society and intersociety relations, although later it became almost universal due to quite objective evolutionary reasons. References Adams R. N. 1975. Energy and Structure. Austin – London: University of Texas Press. Aglarov 1988 – Агларов М. А. 1988. Сельская община в Нагорном Дагестане в XVII – начале XIX в. М.: Наука. Alexeev I. L., Beliaеv D. D., and Bondarenko D. M. 2004. (Eds.) Hierarchy and Power in the History of Civilizations. Third International Conference. Abstracts of the 3rd International Conference (Moscow, 18–24 June, 2004). Moscow: Center for Civilizational and Regional Studies Press. Andreev 1979 – Андреев Ю. В. 1979. Античный полис и восточные города-государства. Античный полис / Ред. Э. Д. Фролов, с. 8–27. Л.: Изд-во ЛГУ. Artemova 1987 – Артемова О. Ю. 1987. Личность и социальные нормы в раннепервобытной общине (по австралийским этнографическим данным). М.: Наука. Artemova 1991 – Артемова О. Ю. 1991. Эгалитарные и неэгалитарные первобытные общества. Архаическое общество: узловые проблемы социологии развития / Ред. А. В., Коротаев, В. В. Чубаров, т. 1, с. 44–91. М.: Ин-т истории СССР АН СССР. Artemova 1993 – Артемова О. Ю. 1993. Первобытный эгалитаризм и ранние формы социальной дифференциации. Ранние формы социальной стратификации: генезис, историческая динамика, потестарно-политические функции / Ред. В. А. Попов, с. 40–70. М.: Наука. Artemova O. Yu. 2000a. Initial Phases of Politogenesis. In Bondarenko and Korotayev 2000a: 54–72. Artemova O. Yu. 2000b. Monopolization of Information and Social Inequality. In Kradin et al. 2000: 132–137. Aunger R. 2006. Culture Evolves Only if there is Cultural Inheritance. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 29: 347–348. Bakhta and Senyuta 1972 – Бахта В. М., Сенюта Т. В. 1972. Локальная группа, семья и узы родства в обществе аборигенов Австралии. Охотники, собиратели, рыболовы / Pед. А. М. Решетов, с. 68–90. Л.: Наука. Barkow J. H. 2006. Vertical/Compatible Integration versus Analogizing with Biology. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 29: 348–349. Barton R. F. 1922. Ifugao Economics. Berkeley: University of California Press. Beliaev D. D. 2000a. Classic Lowland Maya (AD 250–900). In Bondarenko and Korotayev 2000a: 87–127. Beliaev D. D. 2000b. ‘Joint Government’ in Mesoamerican History. In Bondarenko and Sledzevski 2000: 13–14. Beliaev D. D., Bondarenko D. M., and Frantsouzoff S. A. 2002. (Eds.) Hierarchy and Power in the History of Civilizations. Moscow: Institute for African Studies Press. Beliaev and Pakin 2009 – Беляев Д. Д., Пакин А. В. 2009. Правитель и его подданные в государствах древних майя. Правитель и его подданные: социокультурная норма и ограничения единоличной власти / Ред. Д. М. Бондаренко, А. А. Немировский, с. 123–151. М.: Институт Африки РАН. Berent M. 1994. Stateless Polis. Unpublished Ph. D. thesis manuscript. Cambridge: Cambridge University. Berent M. 1996. Hobbes and the ‘Greek Tongues’. History of Political Thought 17: 36–59. Berent M. 2000a. Greece (11th–4th Centuries ВС). In Bondarenko and Korotayev 2000a: 228–254. Berent M. 2000b. The Stateless Polis: Towards a New Anthropological Model of the Ancient Greek Community. In Kradin et al. 2000: 225–241. Berent 2000c – Берент М. 2000. Безгосударственный полис: раннее государство и древнегреческое общество. Альтернативные пути к цивилизации / Ред. Н. Н. Крадин, А. В. Коротаев, Д. М. Бондаренко, В. А. Лынша, с. 235–258. М.: Логос. Berent M. 2006. The Stateless Polis: A Reply to Critics. Social Evolution & History 5(1): 141–163. Berezkin Yu. E. 1995a. Alternative Models of Middle Range Society. ‘Individualistic’ Asia vs. ‘Collectivistic’ America? In Kradin and Lynsha 1995: 75–83. Berezkin 1995b – Березкин Ю. Е. 1995. Вождества и акефальные сложные общества: данные археологии и этнографические параллели. Ранние формы политической организации: от первобытности к государственности / Ред. В. А. Попов, с. 62–78. М.: Наука. Berezkin Yu. E. 2000. Once Again on Horizontal and Vertical Links in Structure of the Middle Range Societies. In Kradin et al. 2000: 220–224. Bereznitsky 2003 – Березницкий С. В. 2003. (Ред.) История и культура нанайцев: историко-этнографические очерки. СПб.: Наука. Bern J. 1979. Ideology and Domination: Toward a Reconstruction of Australian Aboriginal Social Formation. Oceania 50: 118–132. Blackmore S. 2006. Why We Need Memetics. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 29: 349–350. Bondarenko D. M. 1994. Precolonial Benin: Personality, Authority and the Structure of Society. State, City and Society / Ed. by J. A. Sabloff and M. Lai, pp. 1–10. New Delhi: WAC-3. Bondarenko 1995a – Бондаренко Д. М. 1995. Бенин накануне первых контактов с европейцами: Человек. Общество. Власть. М.: Ин-т Африки. Bondarenko D. M. 1995b. Megacommunity as a Variant of Structure and Type of Society: Precolonial Benin. In Kradin and Lynsha 1995: 100–108. Bondarenko 1996 – Бондаренко Д. М. 1996. Мегаобщина как вариант структуры и типа социума: предпосылки сложения и функционирования. Восток 3: 30–38. Bondarenko 1997 – Бондаренко Д. М. 1997. Теория цивилизаций и динамика исторического процесса в доколониальной тропической Африке. М.: Ин-т Африки. Bondarenko D. M. 1998a. ‘Homologous Series’ of Social Evolution. In Butovskaya, Korotayev, and Khristoforova 1998: 98–99. Bondarenko 1998b – Бондаренко Д. М. 1998. Многолинейность социальной эволюции и альтернативы государству. Восток 1: 195–202. Bondarenko D. M. 1998c. The Benin Kingdom (13th – 19th Centuries) as a Megacommunity. In Butovskaya, Korotayev, and Khristoforova 1998: 111–113. Bondarenko D. M. 2000a. Benin (1st millennium BC – 19th century AD). In Bondarenko and Korotayev 2000a: 87–127. Bondarenko D. M. 2000b. Homologous Series’ of Social Evolution and Alternatives to the State in World History (An Introduction). In Kradin et al. 2000: 213–219. Bondarenko 2001 – Бондаренко Д. М. 2001. Доимперский Бенин: формирование и эволюция системы социально-политических институтов. М.: Ин-т Африки РАН. |
Похожие:
 | Designing social and educational practices for children from dysfunctional... Кибирев Андрей Александрович – директор Центра социального воспитания Хабаровского краевого института развития образования (г. Хабаровск).... | | Abric J. Ci. Central system, peripheral system: their functions and... С. Consumers' environmental behavior. Generalized, Sector-Based, or Compensatory. Environment and behavior, Vol. 31. №1, January.... |
 | Программа дисциплины «Introduction to advertising» Программа предназначена для преподавателей, ведущих данную дисциплину и студентов специальности | | Программа дисциплины «Introduction to advertising» Программа предназначена для преподавателей, ведущих данную дисциплину и студентов специальности |
| The ministry of public health and social development of the russian federation «Articom plus» Ltd. Printed in the «Printing house ”Beresta”» Ltd., Saint-Petersburg, Kolya Tomchak str., 28 | | Программа по формированию навыков безопасного поведения на дорогах... «Управление корпоративным интернет контентом» с использованием системы modx Evolution. Данный курс также может быть полезен преподавателям... |
| Программа Introduction to Computer Science Учащимся она предоставляет возможность приобрести базовые навыки в области проектирования и программирования баз данных, а также... | | Комментарий 1 См также: C. B. Silver, Strange and Secret Peoples: Fairies and Victorian Consciousness. N. Y. 1999. p. 38; C. S. Lewis, The Discarded... |
| Практический курс ия методические рекомендации для 5 аод группа 1б 10 семестр. Составитель Цветкова: упр. 2, 3, 6, 9, 10 перевод в классе Иосифов: Урок 1 introduction, в классе, перевод на слух English for beginners (E4B),... | | Программа по формированию навыков безопасного поведения на дорогах... Цветкова: упр. 2, 3, 6, 9, 10 перевод в классе Иосифов: Урок 1 introduction, в классе, перевод на слух English for beginners (E4B),... |
| Беспроводной стандарт связи lte Шпд, будут использовать эту технологию в мобильной форме. Большая часть из этих пользователей получат услуги мобильного шпд, благодаря... | | Дэвид Майерс Социальная психология. Интенсивный курс. Exploring Social... Охватывает собой весь период существования человеческого общества от первобытной эпохи до современности |
| Clinical and social characteristics of outpatients suffering from... Голик, А. Н. Психопатологические особенности семейного статуса у больных шизофренией / А. Н. Голик // Журн невропатол и психиатр.... | | Измерение социальной эффективности принимаемых решений Measuring... Рабочая программа по курсу «Система государственного и муниципального управления» составлена на основе требований Государственных... |
| Признанные международные системы цитирования (библиографические базы)... Самая авторитетная в мире аналитическая и цитатная база данных журнальных статей, объединяющая 3 базы: Science/Social Sciences/Arts&Humanities... | | «Право социального обеспечения» «Social Security Law» ... |
