Suchergebnisse

Thispaper is exclusively concerned with developing broader conceptions of state and state-formation in pre-colonial India, and thus with problems of synthesizing diverse elements separately discussed and researched in the literature. It seeks to argue that certain critical aspects of the development of state and society in the long term have been neglected with serious consequences for overall conceptions and expectations.

Draws on case examples throughout Southeast Asia (eg, Siam & Java) to explore the precolonial, colonial, & modern processes of state formation in regional agrarian states. The control of labor was found to be more important than control of territory, & the religious, ceremonial, & symbolic significance of kingship remained important even when the coercive power of the center was weak. Courts made absolutist claims, but their dominance depended on symbolic power & complex intrigues & networks of patronage. Norbert Elias's (eg, 1982 [see abstract 95c02196 for 1994 edition]) ideas are useful to analyze these endogenous state formation processes. Modern states of the region were forged by colonialism, nationalist movements, & the more recent technocratic developmentalist programs of authoritarian elites. Rapid economic transformation & industrialization have brought new classes & new tensions to test the adequacy of state structures, now far removed from the elite territorial competition of the past. 89 References. Adapted from the source document.

An attempt to trace the gradual change in early Indian society from a lineage to a state system. The area examined is the western & middle Ganges valley, during the mid-first millennium BC. Data are from archaeological excavations, Vedic texts, early Buddhist texts, & the grammar of Panini. Analyzed is why chiefships remain the normal pattern in the western Ganges valley, with a pastoral-cum-agrarian economy & a sacrificial ritual in which the surplus is consumed. The state emerges in the middle Ganges valley with the change to rice cultivation, professionalization of crafts, urbanization, trade, & the supportive ideology of Buddhism. Varna stratification is seen not as the beginnings of class but as an offshoot & partial continuation of the lineage system. The origin of class is seen in the emergence of the grihapati as landowners & the sudra as the artisanal & cultivating group. Such a pattern of state formation questions traditional theories such as those based on "oriental despotism" or Marx's "Asiatic mode of production." 1 Map. AA.

The processes of state formation in the agrarian states of Southeast Asia lend themselves to fruitful comparative analysis using Eliasian concepts. However, in the difficult physical environment of a region endowed with plentiful land relative to population, the control of labour was more important than control of territory, as demonstrated by the cases of Siam and Java. Moreover, the religious, ceremonial and symbolic significance of kingship remained very important even when the coercive power of the centre was weak. Courts made absolutist claims, but their dominance depended on symbolic power and on complex intrigues and networks of patronage. Elias is useful to analyse these endogenous processes of state formation. However, the modern states of the region were forged by colonialism, nationalist movements and the more recent technocratic developmentalist programmes of authoritarian elites. Rapid economic transformation and industrialization have brought new classes and new tensions to test the adequacy of state structures, now far removed from the elite territorial competition of the past.

Historical sociology has long been concerned with the study of organized state violence. Since the mid-1970s, a substantial body of work has come to focus on the importance of warfare to historical processes of state formation. The first generation of this literature proposed that the relentless existential struggle between the warring polities of medieval Europe had favored the survival of states that could adopt ever more efficient means to extract and mobilize resources from the local population to feed the war effort. Early states therefore evolved the institutions to collect taxes and administer territory largely as a functional byproduct of interstate military competition. From this perspective, the logic of war making was the driving force behind the rise of the modern state in Europe.

African states are characterized by their recent date of creation, and nation-building has lagged behind state formation. Ethnic and regional loyalties continue to be important and used, both by government and opposition forces. A convincing parallel can be drawn with the history of European states, and Spain is taken as an example. On the dimension of centralization and regional decentralization, the analysis of Africa has to focus on sub-national government at the local level rather than on regionalism. Larger regional units are too threatening to the survival of state or regime for them to be permitted. However, at the local level, there is a continent-wide swing first towards, then away from centralization, reflecting efforts to create relative efficiency and popular consent. In practice, little difference results from the various shades of ideology.

▪ Abstract  In this review, we examine the earliest states in Mesoamerica and how they developed. We present a definition of the state and explain why first-generation or primary states have special significance in anthropology and archaeology; we also discuss how anthropological archaeologists can detect the emergence of state organization in the archaeological record. We review the archaeological data bearing on early state formation in Oaxaca, the Southern Gulf Coast, the Southeastern Lowlands, and the Basin of Mexico. Although we acknowledge that more data are needed from all regions, we conclude that Oaxaca currently provides the most compelling evidence of primary state formation in Mesoamerica.

What is the 'state' and how can we best study it? This book investigates new ways of analysing the state. The contributors argue that the state is not a fixed and definite object. Our perceptions of it are constantly changing, and differ from person to person. What is your idea of the state if you are a refugee? Or if you are living in post-aparteid South Africa? Our perceptions are formed and sustained by evolving discourses and techniques -- these come from institutions such as government, but are also made by communities and individuals. The contributors examine how state structures are viewed from the inside, by official state bodies, composed of bureaucrats and politicians; and how these state manifestations are supported, reproduced or transformed at a local level. An outline of theoretical approaches is followed by nine case studies ranging from South Africa to Peru to Norway. With a good range of contributors including Cris Shore, Clifton Crais, Ana Alonso and Bruce Kapferer, this is a comprehensive critical analysis of anthropological approaches to the study of state formation