Origins of the State and Civilization: The Process of Cultural Evolution

194 Pages·1975·70.409 MB·English

by  Elman R. Service

Origins
of the State
and
Civilization
The Process of Cultural Evolution
Elman R. Service
BY THE SAME AUTHOR
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SANTA BARBARA
Spanish-Guarani Relations fn Early Colonial Paraguay
Tobati: Paraguayan Town
(By Elman R. Service and HelenS. Service)
Evolution and Culture
(Edl~d by MtJTshalJ D. Sahlim and Elman R. Service,
with contributions by tlu editors
and by Thomas G. Harding and David Kq~n)
The Hunters
Cultural Evolutionism: Theory in Practice
Primitive Social Organization, Second Edition
Profiles fn Ethnology, Revised Edition
W · W · NORTON & COMPANY· INC· NEW YORK
Copyright© 1975 by W. W. Norton 8c Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
Published simultaneously in Canada by George J. McLeod Limited, Toronto.
Printed in the United States of America.
FIRST EDITION
THIS BOOK WAS TYPESET in Linotype Fairfield Medium and composed by
New England T1J1ographk SerYice. It was printed by tM Murray Printing
f1 Company.
i.
,.
1
I •
I• To Morton H. Fried
!,
I •
' and the Fellows of the M.U.S.
l•
'
'
~I
,
•
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Service, Elman Rogers, 1915-
0rigins of the state and civilization.
Bibliography: p.
Includes index.
1. Government, Primitive. 2. Social evolution. 3· Civilization-History.
I. Title.
GN490.S44 1975 321. 1'2 75-1494
IUN 978-Q-)9)-09224-0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0
J
...
.a
(-l
"t:
j
Contents
]
~
q
g
PROLOGUE xi
·>
li
PART I-THE ORIGINS OF GOVERNMENT
1/lntroduction 3
The Great Divide. Maintenance of Society. The Uses
of Political Power. The State. Chiefdoms. On Perspec
tive and Method. Our Cc!ntemporary Ancestors.
2/Theories of the Origin and Nature of
Government 21
The Enlightenment in Great Britain and Europe.
Revolutionists Look at the State: 1789-1848. The
Modem Social Sciences.
3/Man in a State of Nature: The Egalitarian Society 47
Equality and Influence. Reinforcement. Leadership.
Mediation. External Relations. The Limits of the
Political Organization.
viii Contents
Contents
ix
4!The Institutionalization of Power 71
12!The Origins of Civilization in Mesopotamia 203
Hierarchy and Authority. Primitive Chiefdoms and
Feudalism. Law. Nonlegal Reinforcement. Leadership. The Formative Era. The Florescent and Protoliterate
Mediation. External Relations. The Umits of the Polit~ Eras. The Dynastic Era. The Imperial Era. The
First Urban Civillzation.
leal Organization.
13!The Origins of Civilization in Egypt 225
PART 11-THE MODERN PRIMITIVE STATES The Formative Era: "Badarian" and Predynastic Pe
riods. The Old Kingdom. The Middle Kingdom and
5!The Rise of the Zulu State 1 04 After. The Evolution of a Super-Bureaucracy.
Nguni Chiefdoms. The Epoch of Military Expansion.
14/The Origins of Civilization in the Indus
Mpande's Zulu State. The Great Man versus the Evolu
tionary Process. River Valley 238
The Formative Era. The Twin Cities. The Demise.
6!The Origin of the Ankole State, Uganda 117
City, State, and Civilization in the Indus River Valley.
History and Legend. CUentship. Theocracy. The
East African Lake Region. The Uganda Region in 1S!The Origins of Civilization in China 247
Perspective.
The Formative Era. The Shang Dynasty. The Chou
Dynasty. The First Chinese Empire. City, State, and
7 /West African Kingdoms 127
Civilization iD China.
The Nupe. The Ashanti. The Kongo and Neighbors.
Trade and Conquest in West Africa.
PART IV-CONCLUSIONS
8!The Cherokee Indians 140
The Cherokee as Chiefdom. The Cherokee State. From 16/Conclusions I (Negative) 266
Priests to Warriors. Authority versus Force. A Brief Review. Warfare and Conquest. Irrigation and
Intensification. Growth and Development. Urbanism.
9!The Origin of States in Polynesia 149
Class Stratification and Repression. Radicals and Con
The Hawaiian Islands. Tahiti. Tonga. The "In servatives.
visible Hand."
17/ Conclusions II (Positive) 290
The Origins of Inequality. Environment and Benefits.
PART Ill-THE ARCHAIC CIVILIZATIONS The Road to Civilization.
10!The Origins of Civilization in Mesoamerica 166
Teotihuad.n. The Oaxaca Valley. Kaminaljuyu. EPILOGUE: THE FALL OF CIVILIZATIONS 311
The Lowlands. City, State, and Civilization Jn Meso
Adaptation and Evolutionary Potential Caveat Lector.
america.
11!The Origins of Civilization in Peru 186
Appendix 1 /Literature on Egalitarian Societies 326
The FoJD~ative Era. The State. The North Coast
Classic. Relation of Highland and Lowland Devel Appendix 2/Literature on Chiefdoms 330
opments. The Post~lassic Era. The Determinants References 332
of Civilization in Peru.
Index
353
Prologue
IT xs something of a contradiction that in writing
a book the opening bit of text (the "front matter") is usually the
last to be written. But this fact gives me the opportunity to make
a final statement for the sake of emphasis. And here I can also
acknowledge prominently the help of those who in various ways
ministered to the manuscript and to me along the way.
In its successive drafts, this book changed in important
ways-as though it somehow evolved. The method of research
was designed to foster such a possibility, but nevertheless one of
the major emphases developed so unexpectedly that it was as
though the manuscript took control. When I began work, I
\
accepted the usual formula that equates the rise of civilization
with the origin of the state, which in turn is defined by the pres~
\
ence of repressive controls based on physical force. I continue to
believe that this definition of "state" can be usefully applied to
some modern primitive societies. But I have found that these
characteristics, while they may be found sporadically in some
archaic civilizations, do not typify most of them. The repressiv~
force concept of the state, I have come to see, is not useful in
li
I
xii Prologue
Prologue xiii
defining archaic civilization; it does not describe the origin of
out of segmental ("egalitarian") societies. (Since it was the evolu
civilization, nor is it an identifying criterion of civiUzation.
tion of leadership which created in its wake the hereditary hierar
Furthennore, my researches do not confinn the widely ac
chy, the label "chiefdom" seems more evocative of the actualities
cepted epitomization of civilization as urbanism. Cities were not,
of the process than "hierarchical." Symmetrically, "segmental"
I find, either essential to the development of the archaic civiliza
[= no "central nervous system"] therefore is preferable to "egali
tions or even closely correlated with that development.
tarian," although both accurately characterize aspects of that eJlr
Another long-standing notion about the statelike repressive
lier stage of sociopolitical evolution.)
institutiGns is that their origin has something to do with preserv
Of the three characteristic uses of political power-providing
ing or regulating private wealth. From Plato and Aristotle, the
leadership, reinforcements, and mediation in the maintenance of
Stoics and the Epicureans, through social contract theorists as
a society-leadership clearly seems to have had a causal priority,
varied as Rousseau and Hobbes, to the prevalent modern theory,
with economic and sacred reinforcements developing in turn as
the Marxist, the prominent political thinkers buttressed their
the nascent bureaucracy increased its services and autonomy (and
~e~ri~ about the nature of human beings and of governing
of course its size). Its mediative legal functions in private law
InStitutions on some notions about primitive society and the primal
seem to have come about only as a consequence of its successful
origin of government, and nearly always the arguments had to
development of the other two kinds of activities. ("Public law,"
do with the relation of property to politics and which one was,
law involving the relations between the individual and the gov
or should be, dominant. For example, Lenin's famous State and
ernment, was probably prior as a fonn of law.) Thus primal
Revolution was written to remind liberal sociaUsts, those thinking
government worked to protect, not another class or stratum of
of reforms of the extant government, of the "true historical role
the society, but itself-legitimizing itself in its role of maintain
and meaning of the state." The state arose in the beginning
Lenin argued (as had Morgan, Marx, and Engels), as an orga~ ing the whole society. The two basic strata were the gavernors
and the governed; and the governors created themselves, so to
of forceful repression of the majority of the people in order to
protect the interests of the minority propertied class, and it should speak, rather than having been the creation of others, such as a
be opposed in all its forms by socialists, for its original purpose "propertied," or economically favored, class.
reveals its true nature. In studying both the modern primitive states and the archaic
civilizations, we are considering essentially the evolution of a
The present research provides no evidence for the class-conflict
bureaucracy of theocratic authority, a bureaucracy that was also
theory of the origin of either the state or civilization, nor does it
the creator and administrator of the important parts of the eco
support any other of the many versions of conflict and conquest
nomic system. Even in the earliest, simplest systems this political
theory. But so prevalent have these been in our intellectual his
power organized the economy, rather than vice versa; and it was
tory that a complete chapter . of "negative conclusions" seems
a redistributive, an allocative, system, not an acquisitive system
necessary in order to adequately rebut them. The final chapter,
that required personal wealth in order to acquire personal power.
however, states my findings in positive tenns: The origins of
Such seem to have been the widespread bases for the origins
government lay essentially in the institutionalization of centralized
of modern primitive states, as well as of the primary civilizations,
leadership, which in developing its further administrative func
the splendid Howerings of those potentialities. But these original
tions grew into a hereditary aristocracy as well. Both the his
civilizations were at best only six in number in all of human
~~c.all~ known "primitive states" and the six primary archaic
history, which must mean that very rare concatenations of specific
Clvilizations were developments, however dissimilar in result out
of chiefdom ("hierarchical") societies that had themselves g;own events and special environmental characteristics had conspired to
enable their achievement. It is the exploration of these events and
xiv Prologue Prologue
XV
environments that constituted the great hulk of the research re The chapter on the Zulu is the first of the chapters in part II,
ported in the pages that follow. "The Modern Primitive States," because this is such a famous
Part I, "The Origins of Government," hegins with a chapter case of state formation and because the events were described by
outlining the means by which societies maintain themselves, and European eyewitnesses. The transition from chiefdoms through
discussing how these means differ in primitive and civilized so periods of most violent terrorism to an instituted state government
cieties. Chapter 1 also lays the basis for an examination of the is a particularly striking example of the political problems that
meaning of "state" and "civilization." Here too is introduced the attend attempts to make a conquest state.
concept of the chiefdom as an intermediate stage between primi The next two chapters deal with other African conquest states.
tive societies and civilizations. Finally, the difficulties and advan Our data on the actual origins of these states are not so complete
tages of comparing archaic civilizations with modern primitive
as in the case of the Zulu, but theories about the origin and
states are discussed.
nature of the state are presented as discussed by specialists in
A number of classical theories of the origin of the state, or these areas. For the same reasons, the chapter on the Cherokee
law, or civil society, are discussed in chapter 2. It is not a main is presented as a vehicle for Fred Gearing's theory of state forma
purpose of this book to judge Aristotle and Plato, Hobbes and tion as well as for its historical interest.
Rousseau, Vico and Engels, for example, hut since they are inter
The three salient instances of historically known state ior
esting for their own sake, the concluding chapters will seek to mations in Polynesia are Hawaii, Tahiti, and Tonga. They are
evaluate briefty their formulations in terms of the findings of this
treated together in a single chapter because our conclusions are
investigation.
similar for each case, although the three cases involve different
Chapters 3 and 4• to repeat, are important for background. degrees of external inftuence from European sources. It is par
Long before this investigation began, I came to feel that proba
ticularly important for any study of primitive political processes
bly-perhaps necessarily-a stage composed of chiefdoms lay to have some.grasp of the significance of ttzbu and mana in the
between egalitarian segmental primitive society and the actual
theocratic chiefdoms of Polynesia.
formation of primitive states. I suspected the likelihood of this
The chapters in part III, 'The Archaic Civilizations," are
for some time because I kept running into it in actual ethnological
considerably more difficult to present, particularly because of the
and historical descriptive writings. Chapter 4, therefore, contains
difliculty of specifying exact stages of the societies' development
important theoretical assumptions that have inftuenced the out
in terms of archaeological data. It is hoped that some of the ideas
come of this book. Appendices at the end of the book direct the
elicited from the previous historical and ethnological chapters
reader to further sources for material on chiefdoms and on seg
will be useful in pondering these problems of origins, stages, types,
mental societies.
and above all, of cause-and-effect in the evolution of civilization.
The chapters on the origins of particular states and civiliza
Of all the primary civilizations, Mesoamerica has been best
tions can stand alone, each with its own set of meanings; each
researched by modern archaeologists whose interpretative aims
has its own tentative conclusion and impijcations for further
and hence investigative methods-accord well with the aims of
research. In addition to the descriptive and historical materials,
this book. For that reason it leads off the next section of the book.
in a few of the chapters we will encounter another author's Mesopotamia would logically be next for similar reasons, but
theories about the general origin of the state based on the data
because we have to consider the possibility of cultural connections
from the particular one he is reporting on. One should not
between Mesoamerica and Peru, it seemed better to treat these
attribute an unwarranted degree of empiricism to these discus
latter two in adjacent chapters.
sions, but it will be interesting as well as appropriate to view the
The discussion of Mesopotamia is followed by a chapter on
theories on the ground of their authors' own choice.
Egypt, again because of the need to discuss the possibility of
xvi Prologue Prologue xvii
cultural transmission. The Indus River Valley civilization lies After World War II, as a graduate student at Columbia Uni~
between the above two and China, chronologically as well as versity, I took some courses with the late Professor J. H. Steward.
geographically, so it is placed before the discussion of China.
Among his interests at that time was a form of the comparative
China, the subject of the last chapter in part III, is not only an
method (he called it "multilinear evolution") that he employed
apparently independent development of a primary civilization, but
in analyzing the development of the archaic civilizations. Here
provides the setting for the creation of one of the most interes~ng again my interest was sharpened in this major evolutionary prob
sets of ideas about the origin of civilization, the pathfindmg
lem. The reader should be warned, however, that although I owe
ecological theory of Owen Lattimore. Steward many thanks, I cannot agree now with his causal theory.1
A student friend of those days, Morton H. Fried, shared these
The problem of the origins of civilization and primitive states
interests with me then and later when we were colleagues during
has been a preoccupation of mine since I simultaneously dis~ my four years of teaching at Columbia. His Evolution of Political
covered anthropology and Marxism in the late 1930s. I quickly
Society (1967) uses a conception of stages of sociocultural integra~
became converted to both and carefully read Morgan's Ancient
tion rather similar to the present work, with emphasis on the
Society, Engels's The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and
origins of inequality. The present effort diverges from Fried's
tlu State, Lenin's State and Revolution, and finally the nineteenth~ book in concentrating more on the actual origins of the state,
century anthropological-sociological evolutionists, supplemented
whereas he has only one chapter on this subject. My findings are
later, of course, by the modern evolutionary works of L. A. White .
distinct from his in other respects as well, but the history of our
and V. G. Childe as soon as they appeared. I eventually became
shared interests and friendship since 1946 has been an important
dissatisfied with Marxism and, I hope, with all forms of "system~
intellectual prop for me.
atic" thought. But, although I learned enough to see what was
Some modern archaeologists have done excellent work in
wrong with the ideas of Morgan, Marx, Engels, et al., I never
particular geographical areas, and have made theoretical contribu
gave up my strong approval of the significant questions they asked.
tions, as well. They will be discussed in the relevant chapters.
The present work, therefore, is in no sense intended to be an
It is rather daunting, in an age of increased specialization, to try
anti~Marxist tract, however non-Marxist the intention.
to put them all together: One is not only vulnerable to their
Inasmuch as these interests have been fermenting for such
detailed criticism, but to the suspicion of arrogance. But when
a long time, it will be impossible to sort out the various personal
I sent various chapters to be criticized by specialists, I was tre
aids and influences except for a few salient early instances and
mendously pleased by their helpful, sometimes even enthusiastic,
the recent readers of this manuscript.
responses.
At the University of Michigan, Professor L. A. White taught
Several people have read the entire rough draft and made
some anthropology courses that brought Morgan, Marx, and
helpful comments. I am pleased to thank Professors Donald Bro~n,
cultural evolutionism into an interesting kind of juxtaposition,
Charles Erasmus, Thomas Harding, Elvin Hatch, M. Kay Martin,
and it was one of these courses that combined so well with my
and Barbarfl Voorhies, all of the University of California at
leftward political leaning of the time as to determine many of
Santa Barbara. It is a lot to ask of anyone, but to read such a
my subsequent interests. I do not know that he will be pleased
rough draft and still follow the main route and be so encouraging
to see such prominent mention of his place in my early history,
takes much time and attention and lies well beyond the call of
since the present book (as well as previous ones) has departed
so far from the Morganism that be taught. But so be it, and I 1. The paper of Steward's most inftuential on my own ,thinking about
am grateful. evolution-and I would guess on Fried's and several others as well-was
"Levels of Sociocultural Integration: An Operational Concept."
xviii Prologue Prologue
a colleague's duty. They have passed my most dire test of friend·
It is also a pleasure to acknowledge the patience, skill, and
ship.
encouragement of Joseph B. Janson, II, and Katherine L. Hyde
Some of the theoretical chapters were read by colleagues
ofW. W. Norton & Company.
Mattison Mines, Manuel Carlos, and Albert Spaulding, for which
I am grateful. Professors Robert Manners of Brandeis University
E.R.S.
and Robert F. Stevenson (SUNY) read the manuscript as publish·
ers' readers, and then as an act of friendship and interest provided Santa Barbara, California
me with very helpful detailed comments and impressions. Drs. September, 1974
Robert Carneiro and Gertrude Dole helpfully read part I.
I am very pleased to thank the specialists who reviewed the
chapters on particular ethnological and archaeological areas :
Chapters 5, 6, and 7, all dealing with Africa, were read by
Professors David Brokensha and Brian Fagan of the University
of California at Santa Barbara.
Chapter g, on Polynesia, was read by Professor Thomas Hard·
ing of the University of California at Santa Barbara.
Chapter 10, on Mesoamerica, was a crucial chapter because
it has been the important arena (along with Mesopotamia) for
the major contending theories of the origin of civilization. 1 owe
a great debt to Professor William T. Sanders of the Pennsylvania
State University for his critique of chapter 10. Professor Jeffrey
Parsons of the University of Michigan helpfully reviewed the
chapter and also gave me unpublished versions of his recent
researches, as did Professor Richard Blanton of Hunter College.
Professor Richard Schaedel of the University of Texas was
helpful with comments and by supplying unpublished materials
on Peru.
Professor Robert McC. Adams carefully reviewed chapter lZ,
on Mesopotamia. He also gave me numerous unpublished papers
that were very helpful.
Chapters 14 and 15 were helpfully reviewed by Professors
Mattison Mines and Donald Brown of the University of California
at Santa Barbara. Both men are Orientalists.
A book of this kind is necessarily controversial, and the
people whose aid I have acknowledged above have not necessarily
endorsed the whole book. One of the greatest pleasures of this
long.drawn~ut production was the responsiveness of readers of
the manuscript.
.. ·.·.
,
•·.
o··
'-"• Tau,
<(>
The •ill prim.uy cMIIullonl
() Hlllorlully k,_.n prlmlllve lilies
I
Jl