No abstract

A recent archaeological survey was conducted of a highland Peruvian valley in order to evaluate the effect on a local culture of the expansion of empires. The strategy employed in the consolidation of a region under an imperial administrative structure is the result of two general factors: the needs of the empire, and the level of extant local political organization. Evidence of Wari and Inka imperial facilities in the Carahuarazo Valley is interpreted in light of changes in the local culture during each occupation to provide a more complete picture of this process. A relatively greater Wari presence and lesser Inka presence are interpreted as the result of differing administrative needs on the part of the respective empires, as well as differing local systems at the time of each conquest. Similarities in goods and services extracted by each empire serve to indicate that although imperial strategies differed, the end result of consolidation of the area into each empire was roughly similar.

No abstract

Pristine state government evolved among the indigenous cultures of the central Andes, but archaeologists have not demonstrated when and where. Conceptualization of the state as an integrative mechanism for gathering and processing information and for deliberating decisions provides explicit archaeological criteria for statehood. Examination of the archaeological record reveals that Middle Horizon Huari fulfills almost all of these criteria for statehood, although many data remain to be collected before the processes of prehistoric Andean state formation will be fully understood.

For more than a century, archaeologists have frequently been drawn to understand the human past in broadly evolutionary terms, applying Darwinian thinking to the development of human societies. The unilinear models of human development that often result typically regard the state as the culmination of human progress, the end-point of a journey through intervening stages of bands, tribes and chiefdoms. Neo-evolutionary thinking was especially prevalent from the 1940s onwards, in the work of Julian Steward and others writing on the origins of the state. In the volume reviewed, Norman Yoffee challenges the former dominance of the neo-evolutionary approach, arguing that over the past half century it has stifled rather than stimulated our understanding of early state development.Yoffee contests the idea that states develop through a series of programmatic stages from less complex kinds of society. Instead, he stresses the diversity of the archaic state, drawing heavily on his specialist knowledge (drawn from texts as well as archaeology) of early Mesopotamia. Here we see city-state societies in which heterarchies play a role alongside hierarchies, and in which the varieties of lived experience varied considerably from place to place, even though all may at some level be considered to have been part of a shared Mesopotamian civilization.Yoffee's book is not, however, concerned solely with Mesopotamia; far from it, he draws comparative evidence from Egypt, South and East Asia and Central and South America to demonstrate the diversity and fluidity of the entities he is describing. Few of them conform to models that might be drawn from ethnography, and each state may in many ways be considered unique. Yet in a broader perspective, all states arise through a widespread pattern of change that has taken place in human society since the end of the Pleistocene in which individuals and groups have competed for control of resources.Yoffee concludes that ‘The central myth about the study of the earliest states ... is that there was something that could be called the archaic state, and that all of the earliest states were simply variations on this model’. The methodological alternative is to consider each society (of whatever type) as individual and unique, and constantly in a state of flux. In this review feature we invite a series of archaeologists specializing in the study of early states to address this and other issues raised by this important book. We begin, however, with an opening statement from the author himself.