Paterson2005 Craft Especialization

Journal of Social Archaeology
http://jsa.sagepub.com Craft specialization, the reorganization of production relations and state formation
Thomas C. Patterson Journal of Social Archaeology 2005; 5; 307 DOI: 10.1177/1469605305057570 The online version of this article can be found at: http://jsa.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/5/3/307
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
Additional services and information for Journal of Social Archaeology can be found at: Email Alerts: http://jsa.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://jsa.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
Downloaded from http://jsa.sagepub.com by Malena Vazquez on October 8, 2008
Journal of Social Archaeology
ARTICLE
Copyright 2005 SAGE Publications (www.sagepublications.com) ISSN 1469-6053 Vol 5(3): 307337 DOI: 10.1177/1469605305057570
Craft specialization, the reorganization of production relations and state formation

THOMAS C. PATTERSON
Department of Anthropology, University of California
ABSTRACT Since the late 1970s, archaeologists have been concerned with the origins and development of craft specialization in early civilizations. More recently, some have examined the organization of production, the identities of artisans, the use and consumption of the goods they produced, and the cultural and social meanings of those objects. Much of this literature is rooted in the conceptual framework of societal evolutionism, which was formulated by eighteenth-century theorists, who were attempting to account for the rise of capitalist agriculture rather than the development of precapitalist forms of craft production. This article examines the premises of the conceptual framework as well as the political-economic and ideological context in which societal evolutionism was formulated. It suggests that a theoretical framework derived from Marxs writings after 1857 provides insights into the organization of craft production and an alternative explanation of the role specialization played in the rise of civilization. KEY WORDS classical political economy craft specialization liberal social theory Marxism production relations proto-industrialization societal evolution state formation
307
308
Journal of Social Archaeology 5(3)
INTRODUCTION
What roles did craft production and specialization play in the origins of civilization? How were they related to the concomitant processes of social differentiation, the increasing division of labor, the formation of village communities and expanded exchange relations typically associated with this transformation? These questions have long vexed archaeologists. Between the mid-1930s and the mid-1950s, V. Gordon Childe (1936/1983, 1958: 16273) theorist of socioeconomic development and life-long socialist was the rst archaeologist to attempt a sustained, socioeconomic analysis of the rise of civilization (Wailes, 1996). Childes thesis of uneven and combined development was historically contingent and composed of three elements: (1) agriculture facilitated surplus production over subsistence needs and underwrote both technical and social divisions of labor; (2) the ruling classes in the Mesopotamian lowlands used part of this surplus to support full-time craft specialists, notably metalsmiths who relied on ores obtained from the periphery; and (3) since the initial costs on the periphery were underwritten by the lowland elites, development occurred on the margins of civilization without signicant local investment, where supply was met by independent smiths-cum-traders hawking their wares from petty chief to petty chief, and innovation was unfettered by bureaucratic control (Wailes, 1996: 9). It is also noteworthy that Childe (1950/2004) discussed the development of craft specialization in the context of the Urban Revolution (the formation of precapitalist states) and posited a succession of artisans from those attached to the ruling classes to independent, itinerant smiths. In developing his thesis about the emergence of craft specialization, Childe, the Marxist, engaged the societal evolutionism of liberal theorists from Adam Smith through Herbert Spencer to mile Durkheim and incorporated their arguments into his own (Patterson, 2003: 3362). From this perspective, Childe viewed the rise of full-time craft specialists as part of increasing social structural differentiation, the emerging interdependency of food-producers and artisans and the growth of market exchange. The differentiation of production tasks marked the simultaneous withering away of the self-sufciency characteristic of neolithic (agro-pastoral) communities that produced a surplus and the formation of a new kind of society characterized by a division of labor and the production of goods for exchange. The division of labor in the emerging society had three dimensions: (1) the distinctions that prevailed among those individuals who produced different goods for exchange; (2) the separation of direct producers from those who appropriated their goods and labor power arguably the distinction between manual and mental labor; and (3) the simultaneous separation of itinerant artisans from their natal communities
Patterson
Craft specialization
309
and formation of a domestic or household mode of production that reected their mode of subsistence. Thus, craft specialization was linked with production for exchange and with the activities of individuals and potentially, by extension, their families or households who were removed at least spatially from the communities to which they belonged. The motor driving this emerging division of labor and ultimately the rise of urban society was a technical one, the development of the productive forces (i.e. the Neolithic Revolution). From the late 1970s onward as Cathy Costin (1991, 1998, 2001) and John Clark (1995) have shown a number of archaeologists following Childes lead have claried the issues, debated, and rened the notion of craft specialization. These are some of the more informative and insightful conversations that have occurred in archaeology in the last 30 years constructively critical yet polite and respectful in tone. Some highlights include the distinction that Robert Evans (1978) drew between part-time and full-time craft production; the distinction that Tim Earle (1981) and Elizabeth Brumel and Earle (1987) made between independent artisans and those attached to patrons; Joan Gero and Cristina Scattolins (2002: 169) observation that the opposition posited between domestic and specialized production not only makes it impossible to compare the two but also relegates household divisions of labor to ongoing background work that varies only in uninteresting ways; and Edward Harriss (2002: 86) question of whether specialized production was intended for local consumption or export. In the last decade or so, attention has shifted away from the origins and historical development of craft specialization toward a series of closely related issues: the organization of production in particular socioeconomic, political and cultural settings; the social and cultural identities of artisans; the use or consumption of the goods they produced; and even the cultural meanings attached to those goods. These have added signicantly to our understanding of craft production and its place in ancient political economies (e.g. Costin, 2004; Schortman and Urban, 2004; Stein, 1998, Stein and Blackman, 1993). What has made the conversations so productive is that the participants have not limited their discussions solely to archaeological data nor claimed, for the most part, that archaeological evidence is superior to that derived from historical or comparative ethnographic accounts. Instead, they have examined the interconnections of data and the practice of archaeology. The participants have related both data and methods to their conceptual categories, and they have examined the conceptual categories themselves. Nonetheless, nagging questions about the historical development of craft specialization still remain, especially with regard to the dynamics that occurred during the transitional phase separating pre-state, neolithic villages from the various forms of early state-based societies. For example, where and in what contexts did Childes wandering smiths acquire their knowledge of metallurgy and practical skills in the rst place?
310
There are several reasons for the persistence of questions about the rise of craft specialization. The absence of evidence that would conrm or invalidate claims is certainly one reason; however, it is useful to keep in mind that Childe formulated his thesis nearly six decades ago when fewer data were available. A more important reason, in my view, is that the language of societal or cultural evolutionism makes it difcult to examine problems of historical development that are of interest to archaeologists. This results from a set of built-in assumptions about exchange, community, the ruralurban divide, distinctions between manual and mental labor, and even specialization itself. The assumptions are a product of the foundational social theories we use and of the sociopolitical and ideological contexts in which they were developed. In the pages that follow, I want to examine this web of often implicit assumptions that underpin the conceptual categories we use to explain craft specialization and what theorists, both eighteenth-century and modern, have said about the organization of production during the early stages of capitalism, when social life and production were still largely rural in Western Europe (a region where sociohistorical and economic development is probably better documented than any of the places or periods typically discussed by archaeologists). I would then like to consider how and in what ways Karl Marx broke with the foundational theories of the mid-nineteenth century. Finally, I would to offer one possible construction, based on what Marx wrote after 1857, regarding the interconnections of craft specialization, changing property relations, and the rise of states, including the precapitalist tributary states of interest to archaeologists.
SOCIETAL EVOLUTIONISM: ITS POLITICAL-ECONOMIC AND IDEOLOGICAL CONTEXTS

Societal evolutionism arose in the same contexts that facilitated the development of liberalism and classical political economy. The ideas and sentiments of liberalism and mercantilism have been intimately linked since the seventeenth century. These include laissez-faire (the danger of state intervention), individualism (the needs of the individual constitute the basic unit of economic policy), utilitarianism (Jeremy Benthams the greatest happiness of the greatest number), the centrality of commerce or exchange (as the primary building block of community and as a means of obtaining wealth and power), and notions about greedy individuals competing for scarce resources as well as economic rationality (Heckscher, 1955: 469). The ideas and sentiments have in turn had a profound shaping effect on both the conceptual frameworks and languages of economic analysis that Adam Smith, the French Physiocrats and others developed in the eighteenth century (e.g. Magnusson, 1994; Meek, 1962). Smith (1776/1976, vol. 1:
Patterson
311
1718), for example, argued that modern society began with the advent of production for exchange in the market and provided three reasons why people engage in market exchange: interdependence increases productivity; exchange is a natural human propensity; and greed has become a central feature of human nature in commercial society (Gudeman, 2001: 82). This web of assumptions also inuenced the naturalistic, evolutionary perspective on human history that various French and Scottish Enlightenment writers, including Smith, formulated from the middle to the end of the eighteenth century (Meek, 1976; Patterson, 1997; Trigger, 1998: 3041).1 This discourse was not limited to participants from a single national state or continent. In slightly different words, the conceptual elements as well as the rhetorical styles of liberalism, political economy and evolutionism have been intertwined for more than two centuries. Today, these interconnections are too often unacknowledged or summarily dismissed as trivial, unimportant, or of antiquarian interest. However, they are important precisely because they affect the way we think about evidence, draw inferences and present arguments. The political-economic context in which liberalism, classical political economy, and societal evolutionism were formulated occurred several centuries after the dissolution of feudalism in Western Europe.2 In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, as the Americas3 were increasingly enmeshed in commercial relations, the merchant associations from the sovereign states of Western Europe argued with increasing vigor that they should not be encumbered with the taxes and tariffs imposed by feudal lords. In their view, commerce and the expansion of the market should be unencumbered since it was the source of wealth and power. Here, the sentiments of the trading companies often coincided with those of would-be absolutist monarchs who wished to appropriate the revenues obtained by the nobility in order to use them for their own purposes, most notably to strengthen their own positions internally and with respect to the monarchs of other national states. The policies advocated and supported by both the merchants and monarchs promoted manufactured exports, low wages, cheap raw material imports and favorable balances of trade (surpluses) that would yield a net inow of gold or silver. This was the ideological and conceptual language of mercantilism. It is important to note that commodity production and wage labor, two dening elements of the capitalist mode of production, were already realities in the largely rural societies of Western Europe. Other worldviews, besides that of the merchants, were voiced from the 1690s onward.4 The most notable, for our purpose here, was that of an emerging class of agrarian capitalists farmers and husbandmen who produced foodstuffs and raw materials, such as wool or hides, for local, regional and national markets. They emphasized the importance of agriculture for restructuring and developing the national economy. Their
312
perspectives were championed by John Locke, the French Physiocrats and Adam Smith, among others who argued with different emphases that agriculture and husbandry were a source of wealth. The circumstances in which their perspectives were voiced varied according to place and time. For example, when John Locke wrote in the 1690s, landlords controlled 7075 percent of all cultivable land in England, and the landlord/tenant/laborer structure that facilitated investment in and the development of rural capitalism was already in place (Brenner, 1976/1985: 489; Tribe, 1981: 35100; Wood, 1984: 3171). By contrast, throughout the eighteenth century, 75 percent of the French population was composed of peasants who held 4550 percent of [the] cultivable land, often in the form of scattered open elds (McNally, 1993: 11; Brenner, 1976/1985: 61). Neverthless, many of the French peasants were impoverished tenants burdened with high rents, low productivity, low prices on foodstuffs and restrictions on the export of agricultural products; they struggled to be self-sufcient in this still largely rural society (Jones, 1988: 130; Nikin, 1975: 84). In the 1760s, the French Physiocrats argued that the development of large-scale capitalist agriculture, which was quite limited at the time, was both part of the natural economic order (a process guided by natural law) and a means for catching up with England;5 they also believed that mercantilist policies, which favored commerce and manufacturing, distorted or corrupted the unfolding of the natural economic order (Meek, 1962). Adam Smith, the Scottish moral philosopher whose Wealth of Nations (1776) would later become a foundational text of classical political economy, wrote at a time (the thirdquarter of the eighteenth century) when a majority of the inhabitants of Scotland, especially in the highlands and the islands, still preferred hunting, shing, littoral harvesting and subsistence agriculture to wage labor (Whatley, 1997: 917). Like Locke and the Physiocrats, Smith considered agriculture to be the most productive economic sector, whose development was essential to balanced economic growth (McNally, 1988: 210). He was also critical of the merchants and manufacturers whose interests he saw as frequently opposed to those of the public; he argued that, because of their connection with agriculture, the agrarian capitalists, unlike the merchants and manufacturers, had a real interest in their country of residence and no particular reason to obstruct the natural course of economic development (McNally, 1988: 20910, 2205, 263). For our purposes, four points are noteworthy. First, the Physiocrats, Smith, and other advocates for agrarian capitalism were among the earliest and most inuential social theorists to deploy societal evolutionist arguments; they maintained that human society had progressed through a steadily unfolding sequence of stages, each of which was based on a different mode of subsistence: food-gathering and hunting; pastoralism, agriculture and commerce (Meek, 1976). As Neal Wood (1984: 51) observed, the motors driving this natural progression variously involved [a] small primitive
Patterson
313
population, movable property, landed property, use production, population increase and concentration, barter and money, property differentials, dependent labor, exchange production, social conict, and the eventual emergence of the state. Second, both the evolutionist scaffolding of human history proposed by the early theorists of agrarian capitalism and the language of their rhetorical arguments about development inuenced contemporary writers, like Jean-Jacques Rousseau and James Steuart, who did not necessarily share either their worldview or their political allegiances. Third, the theorists of agrarian capitalism already assumed that merchants were a force of progress who extended commerce, and that the market:
. . . intensied competition between the hitherto protected crafts of the different towns [and] . . . ultimately forced the break-up of the complex, unied crafts into the component parts. The rise of manufacture on the ruins of the crafts thus brought about a new form of specialization, constituted by separated units carrying out simplied detail production and a new mode of co-operation based on the manufactory in which merchants controlled the semi-skilled labour processes. (Brenner, 1989: 278)
Fourth, the evolutionist/developmentalist discourse came into being at a time when national societies of Western Europe were still largely rural but when the rural communities that constituted them and the precapitalist property relations that maintained those communities had largely been dissolved. Communities of producers and exploiters whose members formerly had direct access to the means of production and produced for subsistence were replaced by economically autonomous landlords, tenants and wage workers who produced commodities for exchange and secured portions if not all of their subsistence needs in the market; in a phrase, community-level property relations and production were replaced by ones that operated at the level of households or domestic units. Evolutionist arguments about the interconnections of surplus food production, specialization and exchange have had profound effects in archaeology and anthropology. One legacy is that they were the centerpiece of Childes (1936/1983: 116) thesis that agriculture facilitated the production of surpluses which were used to underwrite the activities of craft specialists who did not engage in food production. They were accepted implicitly by writers who are usually portrayed as avowedly anti-evolutionists, e.g. Franz Boas (1920/1940: 285) who wrote that a surplus of food supply is liable to bring about an increase of population and an increase of leisure, which gives opportunity for occupations that are not absolutely necessary for the needs of everyday life (quoted by Clark, 1995: 289). A second legacy of the evolutionist arguments has been the creation and reication of a set of beliefs concerning the signicance of the dichotomy between city dwellers and their neighbors in the surrounding countryside. However, as we have seen, the chasm separating town and countryside,
314
which has played so prominently in archaeological theories, was less clear or pronounced for eighteenth-century writers, like Smith, than it is for those of us writing in the twenty-rst century. Intense processes of urbanization occurred after the end of the Second World War, and half to two-thirds or more of the total populations of countries, like the USA or Peru that were predominantly rural not so long ago, now reside in towns or cities. These processes have not only obscured or obliterated conditions that prevailed as recently as 20 or 30 years ago, but also diminished our understanding and even our ability to appreciate them and their signicance. A third legacy of the linkages between mercantilism, liberalism and evolutionism (both in and beyond the academy) is the positive valuation placed on the urban way of life. Esteem is typically granted to commerce, industry and city life, while agriculture, animal husbandry and the culture of rural laborers is denigrated or held in disdain. Another aspect of this legacy is that rural industry was simultaneously more highly regarded than agriculture and held in less esteem than urban industry. This resonates with positive valuation placed on mental rather than physical or manual labor. Phrased differently, towns and cities have been seen as centers of innovation whose new ideas and goods are subsequently adopted by their rural neighbors (Redeld, 1942/1962). Empirically, much of the manufacturing that occurred in seventeenth- and eighteenth-century Europe seems to have taken place in the countryside. This requires us to consider, at least for a moment, the organization of rural production and industries and their relations to the town-country divide that was forming at the time.
PRODUCTION RELATIONS AND THE TOWN-COUNTRY DIVIDE

It is worth reiterating that the theorists of agrarian capitalism wrote at a time (1) when land constituted the principal base of economic productivity (Fox-Genovese, 1976: 219) and (2) when the operation of the market was widening from more or less separate and isolated corners of the economy, or in individual spheres of activity like international trade . . . [to] the whole area of the economy and the whole range of economic activities (Meek, 1962: 371). Their explanations typically involved the production of commodities, i.e. items that were produced for exchange in the market rather than for use or consumption by the individuals who produced them. The commodities derived from agriculture and husbandry were foodstuffs and secondary products, like hides or wool, that could be either consumed by the individuals who purchased them or further transformed into other commodities, like shoes or fabrics. Two issues are important. First, was the purpose of exchange to make a prot (i.e. merchant capital)? Second, who
Patterson
315
controlled production? In medieval Europe, merchants were mainly concerned with controlling access to markets and to the items that were produced rather than inuencing how production units (households, workshops, or even whole communities) were organized or how workers actually produced the goods (Hilton, 1992: 18). In a discussion of the historical development of the division of labor in agriculture, Smith (1776/1976, vol. 1: 79) noted the existence of a paradox. On the one hand, he suggested that the separation of the different branches of labor in subsistence agriculture and stock-raising was much less developed or clear cut than it was in industry; in his words, the nature of [subsistence] agriculture, indeed, does not admit of so many subdivisions of labour, nor so complete a separation of one business from another, as manufactures (Smith, 1776/1976, vol. 1: 9). He concluded that the lack of specialization prevented agriculture and stock-raising from developing as rapidly as industry. On the other hand, he remarked that in every improved society, the farmer is generally nothing but a farmer; the manufacturer, nothing but a manufacturer (Smith, 1776/1976, vol. 1: 9, emphasis added). In this improved (developed) society, the division of labor is sharply dened. In this developmental stage, the activities of the farmer and the manufacturer were clearly demarcated, and the two types of specialists were inextricably linked to one another by exchange. In historical-developmental terms, Smith was arguing that farming became a more specialized activity than it had been previously after or in conjunction with the emergence of a division of labor and exchange (i.e. commodity production). The picture of subsistence farming that emerges from Smiths discussion of the division of labor is one marked by seasonality. The high demand for agricultural labor at harvest times alternated with periods when the demand for labor was lower and when other material needs could be produced by members of the household and be used or shared with kinfolk and neighbors. Thus, the households engaged in subsistence agriculture did not limit themselves exclusively to agricultural production, because their members also produced handicrafts and the other necessities of everyday life (Duby, 1968: 1535).6 Each individual engage[d] in a variety of tasks, and [there was] no signicant disparity between mental and physical labor (Diamond, 2004: 23). In the late 1970s, Peter Kriedte, Hans Medick, and Jrgen Schlumbohm (1977/1981) took a related but slightly different tack in Industrialization before Industrialization. They attempted to theorize the rural roots of industrial production during the transformation from feudalism to capitalism in Western and Central Europe. Earlier, Smith (1776/1976, vol. 1: 42931) had remarked that European export industries developed in two distinct ways: as the offspring of foreign commerce, when merchants imitated foreign crafts using imported raw materials, like mulberry trees and silkworms, and as the offspring of agriculture, when household manufactures based on locally available raw materials were rened. The implication of Smiths
316
remarks, from the perspective of Kriedte and his associates, was that at least some of the early industry in Europe, besides mining and iron work, took place in the countryside rather than in urban areas as well as contexts where feudal social relations were in decline and capitalist ones had not yet crystallized. They referred to this phase as proto-industrialization. In their view, rural industries developed in those parts of the countryside where there was already a socially differentiated peasantry; where at least some peasant families could not support themselves on the amount and quality of land available to them even if they could intensify production; where there was an elastic labor supply (seasonal unemployment); and where the powers of local lords or village communities had weakened to the point where earlier forms of socioeconomic cohesion and homogeneity could not be maintained. The new social relations driving socioeconomic development in these rural regions were capitalist ones based on commodity production, market exchange and wage labor; they were not based on the laws of the family economy [which had] functioned as the engine of protoindustrial growth (Kriedte et al., 1977/1981: 136).7 Kriedte and his associates pointed out that proto-industrialization in rural areas had a number of consequences. It promoted the development of skilled artisans. In those industries where the putting-out system prevailed, notably textiles, merchants came to be more closely connected with production than their predecessors had been.8 It underwrote the formation of symbiotic relations between agriculture and industry and the creation of networks of local, regional and national markets. It also witnessed the emergence of a group of individuals: merchants, middlemen and artisans, who, with an infusion of capital, would become agents of industrialization. At the same time, proto-industrialization, which they saw as geared to quantitative changes in production rather than qualitative changes in the mode of production, generated a series of contradictions that became particularly evident during harvest seasons when high demands for labor outside the factory conicted with production schedules and priorities of the factory. There were other difculties as well, particularly with a putting-out system, in which merchants or middlemen provided raw materials, like cotton, to households for spinning or weaving. It was difcult to supervise the work, to control the quality of the thread, to prevent pilferage of the raw materials, or to coordinate the activities of the spinners with the needs of the weavers. These and other contradictions, notably the one between the growth dynamics of the family economy and the overall system forged by proto-industrialization, were resolved, at least temporarily, through mechanization and the centralization of production in factories located increasingly in towns and cities (Kriedte et al., 1977/1981: 13642). This unleashed a new set of contradictions. In the course of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, protoindustrialization and early industrialization witnessed growing concerns
Patterson
317
about work and factory discipline that involved increased supervision, regularization of work schedules and standardization of the workday (Thompson, 1967/1991). From the owners perspective, it was important to increase his control over his employees schedules, activities, intelligence and skills in ways that increased the efciency of production.9 From the workers perspective, it was essential to maintain their own schedules in order to deal with subsistence and the production of use values outside the factory. Time and work discipline increasingly became arenas of conict between factory owners and workers. The struggles that ensued involved both arson and the increasing use of brick and stone in factory construction (Russell Handsman, 1990, personal communication). In New England, it also involved new forms of discourse. In the early nineteenth century, factory owners used the rhetoric of republicanism to emphasize their shared community of interests with their employees. A few decades later, the same owners dropped this pretense and began to employ arguments and rhetorical forms based on liberalism, which emphasized supply and demand, contracts and obligations to stockholders (Siskind, 1991; Wilentz, 1984).
MARXS ALTERNATIVES
Karl Marx launched his critique of classical political economy in the early 1840s (Oakley, 19845). He drew inspiration from a number of writers, notably Adam Smith and the Physiocrats; however, he also acknowledged important intellectual debts to Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Georg W.F. Hegel and the French socialists. He simultaneously built on their writings, critiqued them and ultimately elaborated an original synthesis that incorporated and combined elements of their views with his own (Patterson, 2003: 732). While there were important continuities in Marxs writings, there were also points where he did not choose between alternative explanations as well as where he simply changed his mind. During the process, as historian Robert Brenner (1989: 272) observed, Marx developed two ultimately incompatible theories of the transition from feudalism to capitalism. His observation claries a lot. For our purposes, it is noteworthy, because the role of craft specialization and production is conceptualized differently in the two theories. More broadly, the existence of the two theories accounts has fueled a debate about whether or not Marx was a societal evolutionist, the answer to which depends, of course, on which theory contemporary authors prefer to emphasize and on which one they choose to downplay or ignore altogether. Marxs earlier, societal evolutionary account of the transition from feudalism to capitalism appeared in works that were written in the 1840s, notably The Poverty of Philosophy, The German Ideology and The Communist
318
Manifesto, the latter two written with Frederick Engels (Marx, 1847/1963; Marx and Engels, 18445/1974, 1848/1998). In this theory of transition, Marx saw the structural differentiation of roles within the labor process cooperation within the production unit and the increasing distinction between mental and manual labor as the motor driving the evolution of class and property relations. This motor was set in motion by the growth of trade and competition. As Brenner (1989: 282) noted, this theory depends heavily on Adam Smiths theory of history. He writes that
The central explanatory notion at the core of this theory is the self-developing division of labour. The division of labour directly expresses the level of development of the productive forces; it evolves in response to the expanding market; and it determines, in turn, the social relations of class and property. The theorys basic image of transition from feudal to capitalism encompasses the maturation of the development of bourgeois society, nourished by constantly-growing world trade, within the womb of the old feudal society. (Brenner, 1989: 272)
Marxs later theory of the transition from feudalism to capitalism appeared in works written after 1857, especially the Grundrisse, Capital, The Ethnological Notebooks and the drafts of correspondence with Vera Zasulich (Marx, 18578/1973, 18637/1977, 18802/1974, 1881/1983). Here, he provided an alternative to the societal evolutionism of the Enlightenment theorists of agrarian capitalism as well as of his own earlier work. He focused on the historicity of the individual and of social relations rather than the unfolding of some potential inherent in groups or in a human nature that could reduce largely or exclusively to its biological or psychological dimensions. This involved a shift away from a natural law to a dialectical and historical conception of human nature. Thus, the distinctive features of humankind creative intelligence realized through and manifested in labor, sociality, language, culture, the production of use-values (items that satisfy human needs) and the creation of new needs were neither timeless nor persistent but rather were constituted, reproduced and transformed in particular sociohistorical contexts. In his view, human individuals were social beings and human sociality was simultaneously communal in character as well as socially and historically determined. Moreover, the division of labor and the production of use-values were enduring features of human society from its inception rather than ones that emerged at a particular stage in its development as Smith and others had suggested. Marx (18578/1973: 83100) began his analysis of how societies produced the material conditions for their own reproduction not with exchange, supply and demand, or the allocation of scarce resources (the starting points for classical political economists), but rather with production itself. He was quite emphatic about this point and wrote that:
Patterson
319
. . . production, distribution, exchange, and consumption are [not] identical, but that they all form the members of a totality, distinctions within a unity. Production . . . predominates not only over itself . . . but over the other moments as well. The process always returns production to begin anew. That exchange and consumption cannot be predominant is self-evident. Likewise, distribution as distribution of products [cannot predominate]; while as distribution of the agents of production[,] it is itself a moment of production. A denite production thus determines a denite consumption, distribution and exchange as well as denite relations between these different moments. Admittedly, in its one-sided form, production is itself determined by the other moments. (Marx, 18578/1973: 99, original italics)
The centerpiece of his later formulation of the transition was the concept of the mode of production, which Marx conceived
. . . as a system of social-property relations which make possible, and thereby structure, societal reproduction in particular, the maintenance of societys individual families and constituent social classes. The model of the transition from feudalism to capitalism arising on the basis of this mode of production idea starts from conictual reproduction, on the one hand, of a class of peasant producers who possess (have direct, non-market access to) their means of subsistence, and, on the other hand, of a class of lordly rulers and exploiters, who reproduce themselves by means of extracting surplus from the peasant producers through extra-economic compulsion. (Brenner, 1989: 272, original italics)
In the late 1850s, Marx (18578/1973: 471514, 1859/1970: 21) mentioned or briey discussed seven modes of production: primitive communism, ancient, Asiatic, Germanic, Slavonic, feudal and capitalist. While he never discussed the transition from feudalism to capitalism in detail, let alone the transitions from one non- or precapitalist mode of production to another, it is clear, as historian Eric Hobsbawm (1964: 36) noted, that the succession of modes of production listed in Marxs preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy was neither a chronological succession nor a statement about the evolution of one mode of production into another but rather a commentary on steps away from the original kinship-based community that is, steps in the historical development of private property.10 These historical developments proceeded along three or four pathways that led in different directions, and each mode of production presumably had its own characteristic laws of motion. Thus, Marx argued that not all historically specic societies formed in the same way or passed through the same succession of modes of production. Furthermore, he viewed the different modes of production described in the Grundrisse as differentially or variably resistant to change. In sum, there was no underlying teleological principle that necessarily drove sociohistorical development in a particular direction, as Smith and others implied. In the rst chapter of Capital, Marx (18637/1977: 12577) argued that
320
the development of the capitalist mode of production could be grasped by understanding the signicance of commodities, i.e. items produced by labor for sale (exchange) in the market. Every commodity, in this view, has usevalue and exchange-value. The fact that a commodity has use-value means that it satises the needs of those who purchase it. The fact that a commodity has exchange-value is a statement about its equivalence with other commodities, e.g. a woven shirt is equal to two pairs of sandals, ve pounds of potatoes, or $10. For Marx, what created the exchange relations were not the physical properties of the commodities themselves but rather the historically specic social relations that underwrote this particular form of circulation. In his view, the distinctive features of capitalist societies were (1) that commodities were produced primarily to make prots through market exchange rather than for immediate use, (2) that human labor power the capacity to work was a commodity exchanged in the same manner as other commodities, (3) that the means of production were privately owned by capitalists who employed workers to produce commodities which would then be sold and (4) that increasingly all of the use-values consumed by the members of the society were becoming commodities, e.g. air is now sold for a prot. Marx was aware that there were state-based societies in which commodity production was not well developed and market exchange had not penetrated into all corners of everyday life. What distinguished them from capitalist societies and from one another were the forms of social property relations and production as well as the specic forms in which goods or labor power were appropriated from the direct producers by the members of non-producing class(es), e.g. through extra-economic means such as coercion, taxes, laws, or rent or the exploitation of various categories of unfree labor and wageworkers (Marx, 18637/1977: 927). When the nonproducing classes and the state institutions that sustained them were able to intervene directly in the organization of the subsistence economy and reproduction of the community, they were often able to extract surplus i.e. tribute regularly and to specify what goods will be produced and services provided. In those instances where the local communities retained greater control over their means of production and the labor power of their members, the non-producing classes and state institutions were frequently unable to specify consistently when or what products or services would be extracted from the subject populations (Gailey and Patterson, 1988: 79). Marx was also aware of the debates engendered by ethnographic descriptions, if not the accounts themselves, regarding the existence of communal societies that lacked social-class structures. He wrote briey about primitive communism at various points in his career (e.g. Marx, 18578/1973: 471514, 18802/1974, 1881/1983; Marx and Engels, 18445/1974: 4268). The most distinctive features of these societies were typically (1) the collective ownership of the primary means of production;
Patterson
321
(2) everyone engaged in a variety of tasks, some involving physical labor and others mental activity; and (3) the absence of exploitation where the members of one group permanently appropriated the labor power or goods produced by the members of other groups that occupied different places in the total system of production. Eleanor Leacock (1982: 159) has argued that the absence of exploitation, in the sense just described, results from the unity of the production process and the direct participation of all adults in the production, distribution, circulation, and consumption of the goods that are produced. This meant that each individual was dependent on the group as a whole rather than on its constituent households or domestic units. It also meant that there were no structural differences between producers and non-producers; such a distinction would exist only from the perspective of a single labor process and would disappear when that process is viewed in the context of other activities where the direct producer in one cycle becomes a consumer in another.11 Historical and ethnographic accounts show that the interconnections of production, distribution, exchange and consumption vary in signicant ways from one communal society to another (Testart, 1986, 1987). For instance, among the San of the Kalahari, the right to distribute game belongs to the individual who made the arrow that rst struck the animal; among the Pintubi and Tiwi of Australia, the elders of the community traditionally hold that right; among the Eskimos of the Arctic, it belongs to the hunter who rst sighted the animal. Moreover, historical and ethnographic accounts written from the eighteenth century to the present report that these kinorganized communities often had quite elaborate divisions of labor based on age, gender, status, or life experience. Different individuals working episodically or seasonally produced diverse arrays of goods, or use values, for the members of the community and beyond. The activities performed range from healing to woodcarving. In a phrase, these accounts indicate that craft specialization and production do exist, to some extent, in primitive communal societies, regardless of whether their subsistence economies are rooted in agriculture, stock-raising, or some combination of foraging, hunting and shing. Let us briey consider some of the contrasts between Marxs later alternative and the perspective formulated by the advocates of agrarian capitalism. First, some degree of craft production and specialization based on age, gender and experience already existed in primitive communal societies where everyone had access to the means of production. Second, the social property relations that existed in the precapitalist tributary states (civilizations) studied by archaeologists allowed both the producers and the exploiting classes direct access to the means of production; this freed both from the need to produce for exchange. Third, there were societies in which market exchange was not well developed. Fourth, while Marx worked out the laws of motion that drove capitalist development, he only hinted at
322
the laws of motion which underpinned the formation of societies manifesting the feudal, ancient, or Asiatic modes of production. The hints he provided, however, suggest that the underlying dynamics differed from one mode of production to another (e.g. Brenner, 1986). Fifth, it is clear from the archaeological and historical record that production for exchange coexisted with subsistence production, which included non-food items, in many but not all precapitalist states. This raises a number of questions. For example, under what sociohistorically constituted and contingent circumstances did social property relations develop which facilitated the expansion of commodity production, the market and specialization? What were those social property relations? How are they related to the development of the divide between town and countryside, urban and rural? How and under what circumstances were artisans removed from community-based production? How and under what circumstances did households become signicant production units? Such questions focus attention not only on the relations of production but also on the ways in which these relations were reproduced or transformed.
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR ARCHAEOLOGISTS?

In some instances, archaeological and historical evidence rules out certain theory-laden interpretations. For example, it is doubtful that aliens constructed the Nazca Lines of coastal Peru as landing strips for their spaceships, or that the site of Tiwanaku on the shores of Lake Titicaca in Bolivia was built 10,000 years ago. In other instances, the evidence can sustain two or more theoretically-informed interpretations. For example, while Smith and Marx relied on much of the same evidence to construct alternative theories of the development of capitalism, they placed different emphases on the data they used and connected them in different ways. While some may view this as an interpretive dilemma, I am not arguing, as a radical relativist might, that one theory is as good as another, for I happen to believe that some theories provide better answers or signposts for action than others. I also believe that knowledge is created in dialogues that ultimately involve close examinations and interrogations of the interconnections of theory, practice and evidence. For the theorists of capitalism discussed above, the transition from the production and circulation of use-values to commodity production and market exchange was still taking place; however, the social relations of commodity production were already dominant and driving socioeconomic development when they wrote. They were, in a sense, describing what the economy would become in the future. Fortunately, we have archaeological evidence as well as historical and ethnographic accounts from other parts of the world that document processes of development. These data afford
Patterson
323
an opportunity to consider other circumstances in which transformation and transition did or did not occur and new social property relations were or were not forged. They allow us to go beyond statements that community production was replaced initially by domestic production which was subsequently superseded sequentially by workshops and factories, that production shifted from rural to urban settings because of the unfolding of some natural process, or that socioeconomic development has always been a consequence of unequal exchange. These accounts also indicate that a diversity of societal types and historical circumstances were involved in the transformative or transitional phases of interest to archaeologists and historians. Let us consider briey two cases.
Case 1: Aztec Mexico

What follows derives from Frederic Hickss (1987) analysis of the early steps toward a market-integrated economy in central Mexico during the early fteenth century. These steps took place when the Aztec state subordinated neighboring city-states in the region and appropriated both labor and large landholdings from its new domains. In the process, they altered existing social property relations, thereby creating new conditions for change. As Hicks (1987: 912) points out, an economy integrated by market exchange requires:
(1) a series of full-time specialists of many kinds, who do not produce food staples; (2) a steady, reliable clientele for those specialists; (3) a steady, reliable supply of basic food staples and other necessities fuel, clothing, household utensils which will always be available on the market; and (4) a market network to bring these elements together effectively and continuously.
Before the conquest, the Valley of Mexico was dotted with city-states, each with its own city, dependent hinterland, and market. Hicks (1987: 94) writes that the markets were frequented by everyone from the polity; they were places where commoners could acquire household items and exchange surpluses [and] . . . places to which specialized long-distance merchants brought luxury and other exotic goods. Aztec state practices usually allowed local rulers to retain their positions and to continue receiving tribute from their subjects. However, after each conquest, the Aztec rulers also seized agricultural lands, most of which they kept for themselves and some of which they distributed to favored nobles.
In all cases, the commoners were organized into communities (calpulli) to work these lands and give service in the royal or noble households . . . To facilitate the collection of tribute [including the harvests from these elds], tribute collections centers were set up [but they] . . . were not necessarily located in the head-towns that were the seats of the local rulers. (Hicks 1987: 95)
324
These practices had three immediate effects. First, the nobility had no local power bases, since their landholdings were scattered and worked by the members of communities with diverse local origins and loyalties; as a result, their well-being was dependent on that of the Aztec state. Second, the local markets were broken up. Third, this underwrote the growing importance of the market in the Aztec capital, which the ruler divided among his nobles in the late fteenth century; this provided the nobles with a tribute in kind from the sellers on the market (Hicks 1987: 94, 96). Skilled artisans smiths, woodcarvers, feather workers, painters, and lapidaries to name only a few were commoners who were brought by the Aztec state from their natal communities to the capital in order to ply their crafts full-time in the city. They were installed along with other practitioners of their craft in wards (calpulli), which were also corporate landholding groups. The state not only brought them by coercion to the city but also determined whether they would produce items for the palace, the treasury, or the market. Many (most) of the artisans were attached to the palace, while others worked through the market. Their clientele consisted of petty bureaucrats, ritual specialists, military professionals and merchants who trafcked in raw materials and luxury goods, as well as other artisans. While the artisan wards undoubtedly grew some of their food in garden plots, their members likely acquired many subsistence items as well as raw materials for their work through the market. Most of the food items found in the market of the Aztec capital were probably grown on the large estates seized earlier and made their way to the market as tribute to one or another noble household. The estates were the economic base of a market system that effectively by-passed the local rulers subordinated by the Aztecs and their allies (Hicks, 1986: 53, 1987: 97101, 1999: 41316).
Case 2: The intersection of state and communal economies in the Inca state
Market exchange was not well developed in the Inca state. Thus, Inca Peru provides, for our purposes, a marked and signicant contrast with Aztec Mexico. Many Andean scholars were aware of the contrast by the 1960s, if not earlier. The Andean case provides a counter example to often repeated claims that the rise of craft specialization and the development of markets are interconnected. In this instance, the rise of merchant capital along the northern frontier of the empire was an aspect of Inca state formation. Commerce in the frontier area was the prerogative of certain client states in the empire, where merchants from those polities, notably Chincha, bartered with a socially differentiated group of merchant Indians from frontier societies during the early stages of their encapsulation and incorporation into the imperial state. The Chincha merchants acquired objects for conspicuous consumption, e.g. emeralds, rather than subsistence. That these
Patterson
325
merchants sold emeralds to the local leaders of the local rulers of Inca suggests that at least some of their transactions were not controlled directly by either the Incas or the local rulers of Chincha (Patterson, 1987). In this instance, merchant capital (buying cheap and selling dear) was instigated or sustained by the imperial state. The merchants did not alter existing social property relations (relations of production); the changes that occurred were affected by the Inca state which would appropriate both land and labor from communities that became enmeshed in its tributary relations. The broad outlines of the social property relations the Inca state and its rulers attempted to set in place are well known. The Inca state, its cult, and the royal families appropriated lands and labor from local communities to work them; the workers came from the local communities and were provisioned by the Incas while they fullled their labor obligations. The state also removed some young girls (acllas) and men (yanas) from their communities of origin; both remained physically and structurally separated from those communities for the remainder of their lives. A second category of men (camayos) were full-time craft specialists, e.g. weavers of ne cloth and silversmiths to name two, who produced goods for the state; some of them resided and worked in their natal communities, while others did not. Both their status and speciality seem to have been hereditary (e.g. Costin, 2004; Ebert and Patterson, forthcoming; Murra, 1980). The question is: How did the Inca policies and practices impinge on the local communities they enveloped? In the Huarochir region of central Peru, for example, everyday life continued as usual, even though some men may have consumed more maize beer and meat outside their households as they did in nearby Jauja (Hastorf, 1991: 1501). Agricultural lands that were not appropriated by the Incas were owned by corporate bilateral kindreds (ayllus), even though they were held by individual households, which constituted an important unit of consumption but not the only one. Pastures for llamas and alpacas were also shared by the members of the ayllu and contested occasionally with the members of other ayllus. Laborintensive tasks, like the repair of irrigation systems or housebuilding, were carried out by the community as a whole with the immediate beneciaries providing food and entertainment. Surplus foodstuffs and goods produced by the various households constituting an ayllu were also pooled and shared. The members of certain ayllus and households, which presumably also belonged to an ayllu, were renowned as silversmiths, potters, or dancers, who
. . . seem to have practiced their particular skills on a part-time or seasonal basis after planting or harvesting, before the rainy season in the case of potters, or when dancers were required for ceremonies or other occasions. Their artisan activities were grafted onto food production; the goods they produced or the services they performed beneted the entire community. (Patterson, 1992: 99)
326
It appears that local Andean communities retained signicant control over subsistence production and the production of use-values even during the period of Inca rule. The state economy, which appropriated land and labor power, was grafted onto those of the subject communities. The imperial state did not alter social property relations within the communities; its tribute demands were placed on the community rather than individual households. The communities were not dissolved into a number of independent, autonomous households. In a phrase, the practices and policies of the Incas did not lead to the formation of a peasantry; efforts to do so during the Colonial Period were resisted strenuously, often with force. Moreover, the fact that the local communities retained control of the production, circulation, distribution and consumption of its goods meant that merchants were unable to detach exchange from their production and to create an autonomous circulation sphere, which is a necessary condition for the emergence and continued viability of merchant capitalists. The selfsufcient economies of the local communities inhibited the development of local mass markets for inexpensive goods.
DISCUSSION
State formation, which involves the simultaneous dissolution of kincommunal societies and the crystallization of class structures and state institutions, creates conditions in which social property relations and craft production are typically reorganized. In these new circumstances, part of the traditional work that underwrote the consumption and reproduction of kin communities is now subsumed by the state. It is transformed into labor, the products of which are drained off to support dominant classes and the state. This reorganization involves labor processes, technical divisions of labor, the spatial organization and even consumption. For instance, in Aztec Mexico, the domestic production in communities that pursued intensive agriculture was reorganized and a portion of the surplus foodstuffs was appropriated as tribute by the state. The women in these tributary communities who had previously cooked stews now prepared tortillas, which could be carried easily to workplaces in the elds, and they also spent less time spinning and weaving, even though the demand for clothing remained constant. Clothing and other necessities they no longer produced were acquired in one of the local or regional markets (Brumel, 1991). In the Andes, the Inca state appropriated land and labor service which had differential effects on production and social reproduction in the various local communities under its rule; it also restricted the use of certain goods and reorganized the consumption of certain foodstuffs at the local level. In sum, the organization of work is distorted and transformed in the process of state formation. This forces us
Patterson
327
to consider how state-based societies organized the production, distribution, circulation and consumption of goods. It compels us to examine how the organization of tributary communities in which the production of goods, knowledge, and human beings took place was itself distorted and transformed and reproduced under new circumstances. A related issue involves the origins of the kinds of goods or services demanded by the state and its associated ruling classes and where structurally they intervene in the production relations to extract them. In the case of Inca Peru, the state intervened in the distribution of land, labor power, and the goods produced by subject communities; it required an administrative organization of census takers and tax collectors to ensure that tribute was received from communities spread over a vast landscape. In Aztec Mexico, the state and its ruling class appropriated land, labor power and established markets that were ultimately controlled by the nobility. In this case, part of the tribute was acquired from commerce, which required a slightly different kind of administration one that was concerned with controlling trade routes and the markets where goods were bartered or sold; as a result, the Aztec state which intervened at the moment of production itself was also more concerned with the circulation of goods than were the Incas (Thapar, 1981: 41011). Both cases stand in marked contrast to early modern England and France, where merchants were attempting to rest control of the markets from local lords. The exchange activities of tributary states based on commerce and merchant capital must be distinguished from the exchange relations that exist among kin-organized communities, where surplus raw materials and goods are transferred from one to another. These intercommunity exchange relations are unintegrated and unintegrating, since they do not produce the goods, conditions, or social relations that communally organized societies need to sustain and reproduce themselves. They allow the members of different communities to engage their opposites without abandoning their places in their own societies. Those states whose revenues were derived from controlling trade or taxing merchants often ourished on the margins of states that extracted tribute in the form of labor and goods from their subjects; the Maghreb and Egypt provide an example of this relationship (Amin, 1978: 1223). These mercantile states resembled islands based on merchant capital, money and petty commodity production for the market in a vast sea of subsistence production i.e. the production of use-values for consumption by the community members. Since only a small portion of social production was geared to the market, merchant capital could develop only to the extent that there was an active commodity sector. Traditions of continual technological and scientic innovation are not characteristic of precapitalist state-based societies. Their internal logics and laws of motion are based on the appropriation of labor power and goods from direct producers and on the reproduction of the conditions, social
328
relations and practices that facilitate continued exploitation. Thus, in tributary states, the means of production tools, processes, technical knowledge and labor power reside with the members of the subject communities. Since artisans and producers are members of communities that exert varying degrees of control over the means of production and their conditions of work, the states and their associated classes strive to protect and reproduce those institutions that provide them with the labor power and knowledge of the direct producers (Brenner, 1986: 489). In these circumstances, artisans are typically engaged in the production of use-values rather than commodities for the market. Consequently, there is no economic imperative to increase the efciency of artisan production through increased specialization or technical innovation. This does not mean that the technologies of early civilizations were simple or that new objects or processes were never invented. Those Andean weavers who wove double-cloths that resembled much more easily produced tapestries seemingly took great delight in displaying their skills, and the metalworkers and jewelers of the area had discovered processes of alloying and producing pure metals that were known nowhere else. However, it does suggest that artisans were not compelled to use observations made under one set of conditions to establish scientic and technological principles which could be generalized and applied in other circumstances or technical processes. For example, Andean peoples under Inca rule used tweezers to remove facial hair; however, they did not generalize the principle of the lever and apply it to mechanically identical operations such as using tongs to move crucibles of molten metal. At the juridical level, patent law is poorly developed in early tributary states, even though commercial law, involving contracts and usury, was well developed in regions, like Assyria. Since the state provided little protection to the rights of communities claiming ownership of technical processes and knowledge, these were the trade secrets and lore of the community that were passed from one generation of artisans to the next. The absence of patent law suggests that possession of such esoteric knowledge still resided in the kin-organized communities encapsulated by these precapitalist states. Patent law, protecting rights of ownership to scientic and technological knowledge, is well-developed in societies based on the production of commodities, like the city-states of northern Italy during the Renaissance. Patronage of intellectual creation in the arts and sciences by the state and/or by members of the ruling class is also common in societies where artisans have been separated from the subsistence production of their natal communities (Antal, 1947; Berger, 1972; Davis, 1983; Wallace-Hadrill, 1990). Traditions of continuous scientic and technological innovation are an essential feature of societies manifesting the industrial capitalist mode of production. Continuous innovation reects a tradition in which scientic principles derived from observations made in one set of conditions or
Patterson
329
practices are generalized and extended to new applications and circumstances; it is also a tradition in which knowledge is cumulative and technological progress can be discerned (Zilsel, 1942, 1945/1957). These traditions underwrite the production of commodities for competitive markets, the increased productivity of artisans and machines, changes in the organic composition of labor, the creation of new commodities and markets and the accumulation of capital. The tendency toward greater efciency and per capita output also involves cost-cutting through specialization, innovation, and the accumulation of the capital necessary for investment in new ways of producing commodities. It too is a motor of economic growth and development in industrial capitalist societies but not in precapitalist tributary states (Brenner, 1986: 24). Such scientic and technological traditions are found in state-based societies, where artisans are increasingly removed from their natal communities and forced to sell their skills, knowledge and products in a labor market. Robert Brenner (1986: 51) maintains that modern economic growth requires the break-up of pre-capitalist property relations characterized by the producers possession and the exploiters surplus extraction by extraeconomic coercion. He sees this break-up as the unintended consequence of the relations of reproduction of individual actors and the conicts that exist between classes. He argues that such transformations are most likely to occur in those precapitalist societies in which the direct producers possess the means of production individually and that state and its associated classes extract goods and labor power directly from the individual production units rather than from the community as a whole. He concludes that capitalist economic development of this sort has not occurred very often in human history.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
In sum, the theory of societal evolutionism has a shared heritage with mercantilism and liberalism; it was developed in France, Scotland and England at a time when those societies were still largely rural. It was elaborated initially by theorists of agrarian capitalism who advocated the development of commercial agriculture and stock-raising as well as expansion of the domestic markets for those goods. In their view, this would both create wealth and increase the division of labor. While keen observers of how production relations were being reorganized, they were less concerned with the particulars involved in the development of capitalist manufactures and industry. Contemporary proponents of societal evolutionism share a vocabulary, a set of assumptions, and a form of argumentation that derive from a
330
particular socioeconomic and ideological context, one that was specically concerned with the rise of agrarian capitalism. Here, I have argued that the framework of analytical categories, assumptions and rhetorical forms inherited from this discourse makes it difcult to examine the development of craft and industrial production in the kinds of precapitalist societies typically studied by archaeologists. I suggest rethinking analytical categories, which are so broadly conceived that they miss fundamental differences and obscure essential features of the precapitalist societies we study. As Anne Pyburn (2004: xi) recently remarked in a quite different context, the reasoning of cultural [societal] evolutionary explanations predetermines and drastically limits what we can know about the past. I agree with her sentiments. I have tried to show that historians, social theorists and other scholars besides archaeologists are concerned with questions about the processes involved in the rise of civilization, the origins of states and the appearance of specialization. The problems are the same, only the kinds of data and the methods they use to interrogate them differ. It is benecial, I believe, to begin to look at their arguments more closely, to incorporate them into our discussions and to insert ourselves into theirs. I have also argued that it is important to look at the social theoretical frameworks we use to explain the past in order to see more clearly the relative advantages and limitations. In this article, I attempted to develop in a preliminary manner a framework rooted in Marxist social thought that would allow us to look at questions about craft specialization, the reorganization of production relations and state formation from a different vantage point.
Acknowledgements
An earlier version of this article was prepared and presented at a pre-congress meeting of the International Congress of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences on Artisanal Production throughout the Ages in Africa, Asia, Europe, and the Americas, organized by June Nash, Jane Schneider and John Clark, 2023 July, 1993 in San Cristbal de las Casas, Chiapas, Mexico. This much revised version has proted over the years from the work, constructive criticism and thoughtful comments of Wendy Ashmore, Elizabeth Brumel, Edward Calnek, Cathy Costin, Tim Earle, John Gledhill, Christina Halperin, Russell Handsman, Frederic Hicks, Lynn Meskell, Robert Paynter, Karen Spalding and, more recently, the observations of three anonymous reviewers.
Notes
1 In the eighteenth century, sociocultural evolutionism was based on a notion of development, i.e. change was normal and resulted in general betterment (Trigger, 1998: 30). As William Outhwaite (1994: 59) noted, this unfolding model of evolution differed from some subsequent versions that
Patterson
331
emphasize[d] the Darwinian theme of the adaptations of systems to their environments. 2 During the transition from feudalism to capitalism, feudal lords who, in practice if not in theory, supported the ideal of a self-sufcient natural economy were pitted against serfs, peasants and artisans, on the one hand, and merchant capitalists who sought increasing control of local and regional markets, on the other. Marx (18637/1977: 87795) outlined the dialectics of class struggle in England during the transition. The serfs succeeded in breaking the bonds of servitude by the end of the fourteenth century, becoming a class of free peasant proprietors. The lesser feudal lords no longer able to appropriate goods and services from their former serfs dissolved by the end of the fteenth century, and their former retainers, who never had direct access to the means of production and who lacked the ability to appropriate surplus from the direct producers, were recast as a proletariat. In the sixteenth century, the great feudal lords used coercion, laws and taxes to expropriate the resources they held in common and to force the peasants, formerly in possession of their means of subsistence and production, into growing dependence on the market and on production for exchange. This was accompanied by social differentiation in the rural communities, the simultaneous appearance of capitalist farmers who produced for the market and a rural proletariat whose members lacked the means of subsistence and were forced to hire themselves out as agricultural laborers. 3 The discovery of the Americas, its peoples, and the wealth of its resources played a fundamental role in the development of the discourse that yielded liberalism, political economy and evolutionism. In what is viewed as one of the foundational documents of liberal social thought, Second Treatise on Government, John Locke (1690/1980: 29, 58) moved quickly from a biblical account of human history rooted in Genesis to a developmental account rooted in human nature and the world, when he interpreted the available ethnographic literature to indicate that in the beginning all the world was America (49) and that the kings of the Indians in America . . . [are] still a pattern of the rst ages in Asia and Europe (108). The individuals who wrote and used this literature typically had axes to grind and, as many scholars have noted, their writings had important intellectual and political consequences (e.g. Meek, 1976). 4 Other worldviews were clearly articulated by the latter half of the eighteenth century. For example, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, a critic of the commercial culture crystallizing in France, gave voice both to the sentiments of the urban, middling classes composed of artisans, small shopkeepers, and the like whose standards of living had been declining steadily for several generations and to the political ideal of popular sovereignty (Lwy and Sayre, 2001; Wood, 1988). Thomas Malthuss views on the interrelations of food supply, population, child-bearing and poverty and support for the Corn Laws gave solace to the landed gentry who were the primary beneciaries of this protective tariff on imported grains (Rubin, 1929/1979: 291300). The Encyclopedia of Denis Diderot and Jean dAlembert with its emphasis on scientic and technological progress, on the one hand, and on rationality and progressive social thought, on the other, gave hope to the largely urban, educated middle classes of the
332
Journal of Social Archaeology 5(3) day. Spokesmen or apologists for industrial capitalism like Jeremy Bentham, Jean-Baptiste Say, or David Ricardo, for example began to articulate their views in the rst-quarter of the nineteenth century (McNally, 1988: 266; Tribe, 1978: 11061, 1981: 10120). Critics of industrialization and the impoverishment of wage workers such as Henri Saint-Simon, Robert Owen, or Charles Fourier began to offer alternative perspectives in the 1820s and 1830s. The Physiocrats, as Ronald Meek (1962: 24) notes, recognized that the prevalence of small-scale, capital-starved, subsistence farming hindered the further development of agriculture. Whether these family farm production units were capitalist or precapitalist depends not on the form of the work their members performed or whether or not they were involved with wider socioeconomic structures but rather on the nature of their involvement with those structures. By contrast, Alexander Chayanov (1924/1986), who focused on the organization and nature of peasant production processes, viewed peasant family farms as autonomous, transhistorical economic units that were independent of those wider structures. He placed a great deal of emphasis on the relations between family size and productivity and, hence, on the demographic aspects of domestic production. Numerous writers have pointed out that Chayanov did not adequately theorize the transformation from precapitalist to capitalist forms of production and involvements in wider structures (e.g. Kriedte et al., 1977/1981: 423, 235). The weaknesses of the proto-industrialization thesis, according to critics, were (1) that its concentration on an organizational form of production obscured both the diversity and complexity of the form itself as well as the social property relations that underwrote domestic and workshop industries in the countryside and (2) that its emphasis on an essentially linear and stageist model of economic development concealed the dynamics underlying the formation of pre-factory industry in rural areas (Berg et al., 1983). Putting-out systems are forms of sub-contracting in which owners or middlemen distributed raw materials to workers for manufacture in their homes or even in factories. The workers typically employed family members and friends in the production process. An example of the former involved the distribution of raw cotton to spinners who produced thread; the thread was then collected and given to weavers to produce woven fabrics. An example of the latter occurred in early cotton mills, where skilled spinners were put in charge of machinery and engaged their own help, usually child assistants from among their families and acquaintances. Foremen sometimes added to their direct supervisory function the practice of taking a few machines on their own account and hiring labor to operate them (Braverman, 1974: 61). Charles Babbage (1835/1963), an early theorist of capitalist manufacture, observed that it was men rather than machines that produced prots. Thus, unlike many of his contemporaries who were concerned with machines, he focused on the organization of the workplace. He advocated technical divisions of labor (specialization) and segmenting the labor process, so that no single individual had to possess all of the skills required to complete the production of a particular commodity. The fact that Marx never fully developed a theory of transition or fully described the modes of production he mentioned, except for the capitalism,
10
Patterson
333
generated an enormous literature, especially from the 1970s onward, partly in response to of Eric Hobsbawms (1964) introduction to Marxs comments on precapitalist forms and partly as an elaboration of what both wrote about them. 11 This contrasts with some advocates of the domestic economy, who build on Chayanov or Marshall Sahlinss (1972) discussion of the domestic mode of production and who tend to view the household rather than the community as the primary economic unit.
References
Amin, S. (1978) The Arab Nation: Nationalism and Class Struggles. London: Zed Press. Antal, F. (1947) Florentine Painting and Its Social Background: The Bourgeois Republic before Cosimo de Medicis Advent to Power: XIV and Early XV Centuries. London: Kegan Paul. Babbage, C. (1835/1963) On the Economy of Machinery and Manufacturers, 4th edn. New York: A.M. Kelley. Berg, M., P. Hudson and M. Sonenscher, eds (1983) Manufacture in Town and Country before the Factory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Berger, J. (1972) Ways of Seeing. London: Penguin Books. Boas, F. (1920/1940) The Method of Ethnology, in F. Boas (ed.) Race, Language, and Culture, pp. 2819. New York: Macmillan. Braverman, H. (1974) Labor and Monopoly Capital: The Degradation of Work in the Twentieth Century. New York: Monthly Review Press. Brenner, R. (1976/1985) Agrarian Class Structure and Economic Development in Pre-Industrial Europe, in T.H. Aston and C.H.E. Philpin (eds) The Brenner Debate: Agrarian Class Structure and Economic Development in Pre-Industrial Europe, pp. 1063. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brenner, R. (1986) The Social Basis of Economic Development, in J. Roemer (ed.) Analytical Marxism, pp. 2353. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brenner, R. (1989) Bourgeois Revolution and Transition to Capitalism, in A.L. Beier, D. Cannadine and J.M. Rosenheim (eds) The First Modern Society: Essays in English History in Honour of Lawrence Stone, pp. 271304. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brumel, E.M. (1991) Weaving and Cooking: Womens Production in Aztec Mexico, in J.M. Gero and M.W. Conkey (eds) Engendering Archaeology: Women and Prehistory, pp. 22451. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Brumel, E.M. and T.K. Earle (1987) Specialization, Exchange, and Complex Societies: An Introduction, in E.M. Brumel and T.K. Earle (eds) Specialization, Exchange, and Complex Societies, pp. 19. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chayanov, A. (1924/1986) On the Theory of Non-Capitalist Economic Systems, in D. Thorner, B. Kerblay, and R.E.F. Smith (eds) The Theory of Peasant Economy, pp. 128. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Childe, V.G. (1936/1983) Man Makes Himself. New York: The New American Library.
334
Journal of Social Archaeology 5(3) Childe, V.G. (1950/2004) The Urban Revolution, in T.C. Patterson and C.E. Orser, Jr (eds) Foundations of Social Archaeology: Selected Writings of V. Gordon Childe, pp. 10716. Walnut Creek: Altamira Press. Childe, V.G. (1958) The Prehistory of European Society. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. Clark, J.E. (1995) Craft Specialization as an Archaeological Category, Research in Economic Anthropology 16: 26794. Costin, C.L. (1991) Craft Specialization: Issues in Dening, Documenting, and Explaining the Organization of Production, in M.B. Schiffer (ed.) Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 3, pp. 156. Tucson: The University of Arizona Press. Costin, C.L. (1998) Introduction: Craft and Social Identity, in C.L. Costin and R.P. Wright (eds) Craft and Social Identity, pp. 316. Arlington: American Anthropological Association. Costin, C.L. (2001) Craft Production Systems, in G.M. Feinman and T.D. Price (eds) Archaeology at the Millennium: A Sourcebook, pp. 273327. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. Costin, C.L. (2004) Craft Economies in Ancient Andean States, in G.M. Feinman and L.M. Nicholas (eds) Archaeological Perspectives on Political Economies, pp. 189221. Salt Lake City: The University of Utah Press. Davis, W. (1983) Artists and Patrons in Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt, Studien zur altergyptischen Kultur 10: 11939. Diamond, S. (2004) Anthropology in Question, Dialectical Anthropology 28(1): 1132. Duby, G. (1968) Rural Economy and Country Life in the Medieval West. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press. Earle, T.K. (1981) Comment on Evolution of Specialized Pottery Production: A Trial Model by Prudence M. Rice, Current Anthropology 22(2): 2301. Ebert, V. and T.C. Patterson (forthcoming) Gender in South American Archaeology, in S.M. Nelson (ed.) The Handbook of Gender in Archaeology. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press. Evans, R.K. (1978) Early Craft Specialization: An Example from the Balkan Neolithic, in C.L. Redman, M.J. Berman, E.V. Curtin, W.T. Langhorne, Jr, N.M. Versaggi and J.C. Wanser (eds) Social Archeology: Beyond Subsistence and Dating, pp. 11329. New York: Academic Press. Fox-Genovese, E. (1976) The Origins of Physiocracy: Economic Revolution and Social Order in Eighteenth-Century France. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Gailey, C.W. and T.C. Patterson (1988) State Formation and Uneven Development, in J. Gledhill, B. Bender and M.T. Larsen (eds) State and Society: The Emergence and Development of Social Hierarchy and Political Centralization, pp. 7790. London: Unwin Hyman. Gero, J.M. and M.C. Scattolin (2002) Beyond Complementarity and Hierarchy: New Denitions for Archaeological Gender Relations, in S.M. Nelson and M. Rosen-Ayalon (eds) In Pursuit of Gender: Worldwide Archaeological Approaches, pp. 15572. Walnut Creek: Altamira Press. Gudeman, S. (2001) The Anthropology of Economy. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Harris, E.M. (2002) Workshop, Marketplace, and Household: The Nature of Technical Specialization in Classical Athens and its Inuence on Economy and
Patterson
335
Society, in P. Cartledge, E.E. Cohen and L. Foxhall (eds) Money, Labour, and Land: Approaches to the Economies of Ancient Greece, pp. 6799. London: Routledge. Hastorf, C. (1991) Gender, Space, and Food in Prehistory, in J.M. Gero and M.W. Conkey (eds) Engendering Archaeology: Women and Prehistory, pp. 13262. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Heckscher, E.F. (1955) Mercantilism, Vol. 1. London: George Allen and Unwin. Hicks, F. (1986) Prehispanic Background of Colonial Political and Economic Organization in Central Mexico, in Victoria Bricker (ed.) Supplement to the Handbook of Middle American Indians, Vol. 4, pp. 3554. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Hicks, F. (1987) First Steps Toward a Market-Integrated Economy in Aztec Mexico, in H.J.M. Claessen and P. van de Velde (eds) Early State Dynamics, pp. 91107. Leiden: E.J. Brill. Hicks, F. (1999) The Middle Class in Ancient Central Mexico, Journal of Anthropological Research 55(3): 40928. Hilton, R. (1992) English and French Towns in Feudal Society: A Comparative Study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hobsbawm, E.J., ed. (1964) Introduction, in K. Marx: Pre-Capitalist Economic Formations, pp. 965. London: Lawrence and Wishart. Jones, P.M. (1988) The Peasantry in the French Revolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kriedte, P., H. Medick and J. Schlumbohm (1977/1981) Industrialization before Industrialization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Leacock, E.B. (1982) Relations of Production in Band Societies, in E. Leacock and R. Lee (eds) Politics and History in Band Societies, pp. 15970. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Locke, J. (1690/1980) Second Treatise on Government. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing. Lwy, M. and R. Sayre (2001) Romanticism Against the Tide of Modernity. Durham: Duke University Press. McNally, D. (1988) Political Economy and the Rise of Capitalism: A Reinterpretation. Berkeley: University of California Press. McNally, D. (1993) Against the Market: Political Economy, Market Socialism and the Marxist Critique. London: Verso. Magnusson, L. (1994) Mercantilism: The Shaping of an Economic Language. London: Routledge. Marx, K. (1847/1963) The Poverty of Philosophy: Answer to the Philosophy of Poverty, Written by M. Proudhon. New York: International Publishers. Marx, K. (18578/1973) Grundrisse: Introduction to the Critique of Political Economy. New York: Vintage Books. Marx, K. (1859/1970) A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy. New York: International Publishers. Marx, K. (18637/1977) Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Vol. 1. New York: Vintage Books. Marx, K. (18802/1974) The Ethnological Notebooks of Karl Marx. Assen: Van Gorcum and Company. Marx, K. (1881/1983) Marx-Zasulich Correspondence: Letters and Drafts, in
336
Journal of Social Archaeology 5(3) T. Shanin (ed.) Late Marx and the Russian Road: Marx and The Peripheries of Capitalism, pp. 97126. New York: Monthly Review Press. Marx, K. and F. Engels (18445/1974) The German Ideology. New York: International Publishers. Marx, K. and F. Engels (1848/1998) The Manifesto of the Communist Party, in E.J. Hobsbawm (ed.) The Communist Manifesto: A Modern Edition, pp. 3177. London: Verso. Meek, R.L. (1962) The Economics of Physiocracy: Essays and Translations. London: George Allen and Unwin. Meek, R.L. (1976) Social Science and the Ignoble Savage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Murra, J.V. (1980) The Economic Organization of the Inka State. Greenwich: JAI Press. Nikin, A.A. (1975) A Science in its Youth (Pre-Marxian Political Economy). Moscow: Progress Publishers. Oakley, A. (19845) Marxs Critique of Political Economy: Intellectual Sources and Evolution, 2 vols. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Outhwaite, W. (1994) Habermas: A Critical Introduction. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Patterson, T.C. (1987) Merchant Capital and the Formation of the Inca State, Dialectical Anthropology 12(2): 21728. Patterson, T.C. (1992) The Inca Empire: The Formation and Disintegration of a PreCapitalist State. Oxford: Berg Publishers. Patterson, T.C. (1997) Inventing Western Civilization. New York: Monthly Review Press. Patterson, T.C. (2003) Marxs Ghost: Conversations with Archaeologists. Oxford: Berg Publishers. Pyburn, K.A. (2004) Preface, in K.A. Pyburn (ed.) Ungendering Civilization, pp. xixiii. London: Routledge. Redeld, R. (1942/1962) The Folk Society, in M.P. Redeld (ed.) Papers of Robert Redeld, Vol. 1, pp. 23153. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Rubin, I.I. (1929/1979) A History of Economic Thought. London: Ink Links. Sahlins, M.D. (1972) Stone Age Economics. Chicago: Aldine Publishers. Schortman, E.M. and P.A. Urban (2004) Modeling the Roles of Craft Production in Ancient Political Economies, Journal of Archaeological Research 12(2): 185226. Siskind, J. (1991) Class Discourse in an Early 19th-Century New England Factory, Dialectical Anthropology 16(1): 3550. Smith, A. (1776/1976) An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, 2 vols. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Stein, G.J. (1998) Heterogeneity, Power, and Political Economy: Some Current Research Issues in the Archaeology of Old World Complex Societies, Journal of Archaeological Research 6(1): 144. Stein, G.J. and M.J. Blackman (1993) The Organizational Context of Specialized Craft Production in Early Mesopotamian States, Research in Economic Anthropology 14: 2959. Testart, A. (1986) Le communisme primitif, tome 1, Economie et idologie. Paris: Editions de la Maison des Sciences de lHomme.
Patterson
337
Testart, A. (1987) Appropriation of the Social Product and Production Relations in Hunter-gatherer Societies, Dialectical Anthropology 12(2): 14764. Thapar, R. (1981) The State as Empire, in H.J.M. Claessen and P. Skalnk (eds) The Study of the State, pp. 40626. The Hague: Mouton Publishers. Thompson, E.P. (1967/1991) Time, Work-Discipline and Industrial Capitalism, in E.P. Thompson (ed.) Customs in Common: Studies in Traditional Popular Culture, pp. 352403. New York: The New Press. Tribe, K. (1978) Land, Labour and Economic Discourse. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Tribe, K. (1981) Genealogies of Capitalism. Atlantic Highlands: Humanities Press. Trigger, B.G. (1998) Sociocultural Evolution. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Wailes, B. (1996) V. Gordon Childe and the Relations of Production, in B. Wailes (ed.) Craft Specialization and Social Evolution: In Memory of V. Gordon Childe, University Museum Monograph 93, pp. 314. Philadelphia: The University of Pennsylvania Museum. Wallace-Hadrill, A., ed. (1990) Patronage in Ancient Society. London: Routledge. Whatley, C.A. (1997) The Industrial Revolution in Scotland. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wilentz, S. (1984) Chants Democratic: New York City and the Rise of the American Working Class. New York: Oxford University Press. Wood, E.M. (1988) The State and Popular Sovereignty in French Political Thought: A Genealogy of Rousseaus General Will, in F. Krantz (ed.) History from Below, pp. 83112. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Wood, N. (1984) John Locke and Agrarian Capitalism. Berkeley: University of California Press. Zilsel, E. (1942) The Sociological Roots of Science, American Journal of Sociology 47: 54462. Zilsel, E. (1945/1957) The Genesis of the Concept of Scientic Progress, in P.J. Wiener and A. Noland (eds) Roots of Scientic Thought: A Cultural Perspective, pp. 25175. New York: Basic Books.
THOMAS C. PAT TERSON is Distinguished Professor and Chair of Anthropology, University of California, Riverside. Besides his works on the history of anthropology and archaeology, his books include Marxs Ghost: Conversations with Archaeologists and Foundations of Social Archaeology: Selected Writings of V. Gordon Childe (edited with Charles E. Orser, Jr.). [email: thomas.patterson@ucr.edu]

Paterson2005 Craft Especialization

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Paterson2005 Craft Especialization

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Journal of Social Archaeology

Downloaded from http://jsa.sagepub.com by Malena Vazquez on October 8, 2008

Journal of Social Archaeology

Craft specialization, the reorganization of production relations and state formation

Journal of Social Archaeology 5(3)

Downloaded from http://jsa.sagepub.com by Malena Vazquez on October 8, 2008

Downloaded from http://jsa.sagepub.com by Malena Vazquez on October 8, 2008

Journal of Social Archaeology 5(3)

SOCIETAL EVOLUTIONISM: ITS POLITICAL-ECONOMIC AND IDEOLOGICAL CONTEXTS

Downloaded from http://jsa.sagepub.com by Malena Vazquez on October 8, 2008

Downloaded from http://jsa.sagepub.com by Malena Vazquez on October 8, 2008

Journal of Social Archaeology 5(3)

Downloaded from http://jsa.sagepub.com by Malena Vazquez on October 8, 2008

Downloaded from http://jsa.sagepub.com by Malena Vazquez on October 8, 2008

Journal of Social Archaeology 5(3)

PRODUCTION RELATIONS AND THE TOWN-COUNTRY DIVIDE

Downloaded from http://jsa.sagepub.com by Malena Vazquez on October 8, 2008

Downloaded from http://jsa.sagepub.com by Malena Vazquez on October 8, 2008

Journal of Social Archaeology 5(3)

Downloaded from http://jsa.sagepub.com by Malena Vazquez on October 8, 2008

Downloaded from http://jsa.sagepub.com by Malena Vazquez on October 8, 2008

Journal of Social Archaeology 5(3)

Downloaded from http://jsa.sagepub.com by Malena Vazquez on October 8, 2008

Downloaded from http://jsa.sagepub.com by Malena Vazquez on October 8, 2008

Journal of Social Archaeology 5(3)

Downloaded from http://jsa.sagepub.com by Malena Vazquez on October 8, 2008

Downloaded from http://jsa.sagepub.com by Malena Vazquez on October 8, 2008

Journal of Social Archaeology 5(3)

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR ARCHAEOLOGISTS?

Downloaded from http://jsa.sagepub.com by Malena Vazquez on October 8, 2008

Case 1: Aztec Mexico

Downloaded from http://jsa.sagepub.com by Malena Vazquez on October 8, 2008

Journal of Social Archaeology 5(3)

Downloaded from http://jsa.sagepub.com by Malena Vazquez on October 8, 2008

Downloaded from http://jsa.sagepub.com by Malena Vazquez on October 8, 2008

Journal of Social Archaeology 5(3)

Downloaded from http://jsa.sagepub.com by Malena Vazquez on October 8, 2008

Downloaded from http://jsa.sagepub.com by Malena Vazquez on October 8, 2008

Journal of Social Archaeology 5(3)

Downloaded from http://jsa.sagepub.com by Malena Vazquez on October 8, 2008

Downloaded from http://jsa.sagepub.com by Malena Vazquez on October 8, 2008

Journal of Social Archaeology 5(3)

Downloaded from http://jsa.sagepub.com by Malena Vazquez on October 8, 2008

Downloaded from http://jsa.sagepub.com by Malena Vazquez on October 8, 2008

Downloaded from http://jsa.sagepub.com by Malena Vazquez on October 8, 2008

Downloaded from http://jsa.sagepub.com by Malena Vazquez on October 8, 2008

Downloaded from http://jsa.sagepub.com by Malena Vazquez on October 8, 2008

Downloaded from http://jsa.sagepub.com by Malena Vazquez on October 8, 2008

Downloaded from http://jsa.sagepub.com by Malena Vazquez on October 8, 2008

Downloaded from http://jsa.sagepub.com by Malena Vazquez on October 8, 2008

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi