Secondary States in Perspective: An Integrated Approach to State Formation in the Prehistoric Aegean

Abstract

In this article, we explore the typological distinction between primary and secondary states. We outline a methodology for exploring variability in the formation and organization of secondary states that integrates aspects of traditional neoevolutionary approaches, Marcus's "dynamic model," Blanton et al.'s "dual-processual model," and world-systems theory. We discuss the development of the Minoan and Mycenaean states of the Bronze Age Aegean and argue that they arose via different mechanisms of secondary state formation, through direct and indirect contact with neighboring societies in the Eastern Mediterranean, Near East, and Egypt. We argue that a model that measures state formation along several different theoretical dimensions encourages archaeological exploration of secondary states along varied historical trajectories, in different (pre)historic contexts.

Fortifications and Enclosures in European Prehistory: A Cross-Cultural Perspective

“…Similarly, the theoretical frameworks that emphasized labor and political organization (e.g., Renfrew 1974) have yielded to those that emphasize the symbolic role of monuments and their implications for understanding things like cultural identity and group memory (e.g., Edmonds 1999). This follows a healthy trend in the discipline that encourages theoretical eclecticism (see Fowles 2002;Parkinson and Galaty 2007). Finally, the issue of warfare and the potential use of enclosures as fortifications mimics a general pattern in archaeology, anthropology, and military history that has led to a more reasonable and realistic understanding of violence and warfare in different cultural contexts.…”

Ámbitos sociales compartidos: convergencia evolutiva en la Prehistoria y la práctica contemporánea

“…Desde esta perspectiva, argumentaría que Sumer y los estados secundarios que emergieron al Este de Sumer durante las últimas centurias del III milenio AC y las primeras centurias del II milenio AC constituyeron alguna forma de "sistema" interconectado, aunque sus límites occidental y septentrional son más difíciles de definir. Los límites del sistema también cambiaron en el curso del tiempo de una manera que refleja no simplemente un crecimiento continuo, si no el desarrollo consciente de nuevas áreas de intensa interacción, tales como la cuenca mediterránea oriental, extendiéndose hasta Europa central, durante la primera mitad del II milenio AC, como han mostrado recientemente Parkinson y Galaty (2007). Simultáneamente, muchos de los estados secundarios al Este de Sumer colapsaron o decayeron y, al menos temporalmente, se retiraron de este "sistema".…”

“…De modo similar en el II milenio AC, sociedades en el Mediterráneo oriental, en Chipre, Creta, la Grecia continental y en otras partes florecieron, participando en una compleja red de intercambio con orientación marítima en la que los bienes preciosos exóticos, los bronces acabados o semiprocesados, y los bienes de subsistencia circularon libremente (Parkinson y Galaty 2007), mientras en otras partes los estados secundarios complejos y las unidades políticas regionales al Este de Sumer habían colapsado, descendiendo a una edad oscura arqueológica poblada cada vez más por pastores menos "civilizados" procedentes del norte. Un área está en cuarto creciente y otra en cuarto menguante.…”

Aegean Prehistory as World Archaeology: Recent Trends in the Archaeology of Bronze Age Greece

“…11-12;Feinman 2000;Feinman et al 2000;Parkinson and Galaty 2007). Within this dual-processual framework, such an authority maintains its position and promotes compliance through inclusive practices such as communal ritual and labor projects, unifying ideologies, and the suppression of economic differentiation and personal aggrandizement in arenas such as art and burial (evoking Renfrew's [1974Renfrew's [ , 2001 ''group-oriented chiefdom'').…”

“…By examining and reanalyzing decades of funerary, settlement, skeletal, and iconographic data, the investigators hope to identify the seeds of later developments in the Middle Helladic background and to sort out intra-and interregional dynamics. In the future, this kind of research design can be extended to less-studied regions, which may allow us to move beyond simplistic, totalizing formulations such as secondary state formation under Minoan influence toward frameworks that better accommodate variability across space and time, such as dual-processual analysis (see above) or dynamic models that track the different stages in the life cycles of states (Marcus 1998;Parkinson and Galaty 2007; but for critique see Haggis in press).…”