Myths of the Archaic State: Evolution of the Earliest Cities, States, and Civilizations

by Norman Yoffee

Classical archaeology promotes the view that a state's evolution reflects general, universal forces. Norman Yoffee challenges the model in this book by presenting more complex and multi-linear models for the evolution of civilizations. Yoffee questions the definition of the prehistoric state, particularly that which heralds "the chiefdom" as the forerunner of the ancient state and explores case studies on the role of women in ancient societies.

Genres: History, Anthropology, Archaeology, Ancient History, Nonfiction

277 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2005

Reviews

[Marc Lamot · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is in line with Bruce Trigger's Understanding Early Civilizations: A Comparative Study, it is a good addition to it and it is more digestible (well, a bit more digestible). Yoffee and Trigger both distance themselves from the neo-evolutionary model of state formation. This was developed more than half a century ago and classifies the many forms of human societies generally into four types: band, tribe, chiefdom and state. Yoffee pulls this view to pieces, perhaps a little too radically. His study is very theoretical, and it takes a while before Yoffee becomes more concrete (he himself is a specialist in Mesopotamia, and that is very clear from this book). Very interesting, but at the same time very specialist. Nevertheless a worthy read! More in my History account on Goodreads: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show....

[Sense of History]

Remarkably often scientific evolution is characterized by pendulum swings. Someone posits a theory (substantiated, of course), is followed by others, creating a kind of 'school', and then a counter-reaction arises in which the original view is criticized and an alternative theory is formulated, that becomes a school itself, which in turn provokes a response, and so on. It is a very normal, dialectical course of events, and that is fine as long as it is done in a correct and transparent way.

Something similar is going on in the discussion about the origins of the earliest states, in the 3rd and 2nd millennium BCE. In the second half of the 20th Century anthropologists in particular developed various theories about this process. The most famous is that of neo-evolutionism (NEM), especially in its version by Marshall Sahlins and Ellman Service. This states that most societies more or less follow the same trajectory, namely from band, to tribe, to chiefdom and ultimately state. That scheme was subsequently adopted by numerous archaeologists. Totally unjustified, says Norman Yoffee (° 1944, professor Michigan and New York University) in this book. Neo-evolutionism pretends that all human societies follow such a unilinear scenario, quod non, and Yoffee illustrates this with the evolution of American cultures in the Mississippi region between AD 1000-1400, that didn’t become states. According to him neo-evolutionism has prompted many archaeologists to force their found material into the straitjacket of the neo-evolutionary scheme (Yoffee has a particularly difficult time with chiefdoms). This urge to classify left out the most important thing, namely the complex domain of social change and the cultural-ideological aspects that go with it. This line of thought puts Yoffee completely in line with Bruce Trigger in his phenomenal empirical study Understanding Early Civilizations: A Comparative Study, that I read a few months ago, see my review here .

A large part of Yoffee’s book is very theoretical, but he also makes an effort to explain and illustrate his alternative vision. He does this mainly on the basis of his specialism, the history of Mesopotamia. In some chapters he illustrates exactly how social change took place there, and especially how cultural identity formation and ideological legitimation of leadership played an essential role in it. Yoffee distances himself from the NEM at every opportunity, but I don't know whether that is 100% justified; perhaps he does dishonor to many archaeologists and anthropologists, I can’t judge. Although I do understand his point: theory development must conform to empirical findings and stay away from reductionism, monocausality and unilinearity. Of course, that’s true, but at the same time theoretical views are always unavoidable when interpreting empirical material. So it may be a matter of finding the right balance. And to tie in with the beginning of my review: in this process pendulum movements are almost inevitable ànd healthy for scientific progress.

[Kevin · Rating 5 out of 5]

Absolutely shattering. Negates entire concepts of classical models. Assumptions are destroyed, and they lead everywhere, they lead directly to the present and recast the settings of civilization. Its kind of like the discovery of the collapse of the measurement in Quantum, but in history. The narrative is removed. Where are we REALLY?

[Salvatore · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good read. Certain chapters are hard to read and are dense and technical. However, this is a good example of new ideas concerning complex societies and how to interpret them, how they function, and how they come into being.