Power from Below in Premodern Societies The Dynamics of Political Complexity in the Archaeological Record
Book contents
- Power from Below in Premodern Societies
- Power from Below in Premodern Societies
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Contributors
- Preface
- One Power from Below in the Archaeological Record
- Two Fragmenting Trypillian Megasites
- Three Structure and Agency
- Four Power Requires Others
- Five “And Make Some Other Man Our King”
- Six Societies against the Chief? Re-Examining the Value of “Heterarchy” as a Concept for Studying European Iron Age Societies
- Seven Peasants, Agricultural Intensification, and Collective Action in Premodern States
- Eight The Spread of Scribal Literacy in Han China
- Nine Confronting Leviathan
- Ten The Emergence of Monte Albán
- Eleven Dispersing Power
- Twelve The Perplexing Heterarchical Complexity of New Guinea Fisher-Forager Polities at Contact
- Thirteen Restoring Disorder
- Index
- References
Three - Structure and Agency
On Bronze Age Tell Settlement in the Carpathian Basin1
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 08 October 2021
Book contents
- Power from Below in Premodern Societies
- Power from Below in Premodern Societies
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Contributors
- Preface
- One Power from Below in the Archaeological Record
- Two Fragmenting Trypillian Megasites
- Three Structure and Agency
- Four Power Requires Others
- Five “And Make Some Other Man Our King”
- Six Societies against the Chief? Re-Examining the Value of “Heterarchy” as a Concept for Studying European Iron Age Societies
- Seven Peasants, Agricultural Intensification, and Collective Action in Premodern States
- Eight The Spread of Scribal Literacy in Han China
- Nine Confronting Leviathan
- Ten The Emergence of Monte Albán
- Eleven Dispersing Power
- Twelve The Perplexing Heterarchical Complexity of New Guinea Fisher-Forager Polities at Contact
- Thirteen Restoring Disorder
- Index
- References
Summary
Much Bronze Age research is dominated by a top-down approach – a specific interest taken in the evolution of stratified society and the socio-political impact of metalworking. In this context, Bronze Age tell sites of the Carpathian Basin are interpreted as (proto-) urban settlements that with varying degrees of success drew upon agricultural and other resources from their surroundings and controlled the exchange in valuable objects and raw materials from abroad. They were home, supposedly, to some kind of functionally and politically differentiated population with peasants, craft specialists – and some in charge of all this (e.g. Earle & Kristiansen, 2010; Gogâltan, 2010; Hänsel, 1996).
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Power from Below in Premodern SocietiesThe Dynamics of Political Complexity in the Archaeological Record, pp. 61 - 89Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2021
References
Amborn, H. (2016) Recht als Hort der Anarchie. Gesellschaften ohne Herrschaft und Staat. Berlin, Matthes & Seitz.Google Scholar
Bader, T. (1990) Bemerkungen über die ägäischen Einflüsse auf die alt- und mittelbronzezeitliche Entwicklung im Donau-Karpatenraum. In Bader, T. (ed.), Orientalisch-ägäische Einflüsse in der europäischen Bronzezeit. Ergebnisse eines Kolloquiums, 181–205. Bonn, Habelt.Google Scholar
Barrett, J. C. (1994) Fragments from Antiquity. An Archaeology of Social Life in Britain, 2900–1200 bc. Oxford, Blackwell.Google Scholar
Barrett, J. C. (2012) Are models of prestige goods economies and conspicuous consumption applicable to the archaeology of the Bronze to Iron Age transition in Britain? In Jones, A. M., Pollard, J., Allen, M. J., Gardiner, J. (eds.) Image, Memory and Monumentality: Archaeological Engagements with the Material World, 6–17. Oxford, Oxbow Books.Google Scholar
Bátora, J., Behrens, A., Gresky, J., et al. (2012) The rise and decline of the early Bronze Age settlement Fidvár near Vráble, Slovakia. In Kneisel, J., Kirleis, W., Dal Corso, M., Taylor, N., Tiedtke, V. (eds.) Collapse or Continuity? Environment and Development of Bronze Age Human Landscapes, 111–130. Bonn, Habelt.Google Scholar
Blanton, R. E., Feinman, G. M., Kowalewski, S. A., & Peregrine, P. N. (1996) A dual-processual theory for the evolution of Mesoamerican civilization. Current Anthropology 37, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourdieu, P. (1976) Entwurf einer Theorie der Praxis auf der ethnologischen Grundlage der kabylischen Gesellschaft. Frankfurt a. M, Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Brück, J. & Fontijn, D. (2013) The myth of the chief: Prestige goods, power, and personhood in the European Bronze Age. In Fokkens, H. & Harding, A. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of the European Bronze Age, 197–215. Oxford, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Carballo, D. M., Roscoe, P., & Feinman, G. M. (2014) Cooperation and collective action in the cultural evolution of complex societies. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 21, 98–133.Google Scholar
Chapman, R. (2007) Evolution, complexity and the state. In Kohring, S. & Wynne-Jones, S. (eds.) Socialising Complexity. Structure, Interaction and Power in Archaeological Discourse, 13–28. Oxford, Oxbow Books.Google Scholar
Clastres, P. (1989) Society Against the State. Essays in Political Anthropology. New York, Zone Books.Google Scholar
Dietler, M. (2010) Archaeologies of Colonialism. Consumption, Entanglement, and Violence in Ancient Mediterranean France. Berkeley, University of California Press.Google Scholar
Duffy, P. R. (2014) Complexity and Autonomy in Bronze Age Europe. Assessing Cultural Developments in Eastern Hungary. Budapest, Archaeolingua.Google Scholar
Earle, T. & Kristiansen, K. (eds.) (2010) Organizing Bronze Age Societies. The Mediterranean, Central Europe and Scandinavia Compared. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ebersbach, R. (2010) Seeufersiedlungen und Architektursoziologie – ein Anwendungsversuch. In Trebsche, P., Müller-Scheeßel, N., Reinhold, S. (eds.) Der gebaute Raum. Bausteine einer Architektursoziologie vormoderner Gesellschaften, 193–212. Münster, Waxmann.Google Scholar
Feinman, G. M. (1995) The emergence of inequality. A focus on strategies and processes. In Price, T. D. & Feinman, G. M. (eds.) Foundations of Social Inequality, 255–279. New York, Plenum Press.Google Scholar
Fischl, K. P. (2004) Ároktő-Dongóhalom bronzkori tell települése. The Bronze Age tell settlement at Ároktő-Dongóhalom. Herman Ottó Múzeum Évkönyve 43, 59–81.Google Scholar
Fischl, K. P., Kienlin, T. L., Pusztai, T., et al. (2014) Tard-Tatárdomb: An update on the intensive survey work on the multi-layer Hatvan and Füzesabony period settlement. In Kienlin, T. L., Valde-Nowak, P., Korczyńska, M., Cappenberg, K., Ociepka, J. (eds.) Settlement, Communication and Exchange around the Western Carpathians, 341–379. Oxford, Archaeopress.Google Scholar
Fischl, K. P., Kienlin, T. L., & Tugya, B. (2015) Bronze Age settlement research in north-eastern Hungary. Archeometriai Mühely 12, 117–134.Google Scholar
Fowles, S. M. (2002) From social type to social process: Placing “tribe” in a historical framework. In Parkinson, W. A. (ed.) The Archaeology of Tribal Societies, 13–33. Ann Arbor, International Monographs in Prehistory.Google Scholar
Furmánek, V., Veliačik, L., & Vladár, J. (1999) Die Bronzezeit im slowakischen Raum. Rahden/Westf, VML.Google Scholar
Giddens, A. (1979) Central Problems in Social Theory. Action, Structure and Contradiction in Social Analysis. Houndmills/London, Macmillan.Google Scholar
Giddens, A. (1984) The Constitution of Society. Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Berkeley, University of California Press.Google Scholar
Gogâltan, F. (2003) Die neolithischen Tellsiedlungen im Karpatenbecken. Ein Überblick. In Jerem, E. & Raczky, P. (eds.) Morgenrot der Kulturen. Frühe Etappen der Menschheitsgeschichte in Mittel- und Südosteuropa, 223–262. Budapest, Archaeolingua.Google Scholar
Gogâltan, F. (2010) Die Tells und der Urbanisierungsprozess. In Horejs, B. & Kienlin, T. L. (eds.) Siedlung und Handwerk – Studien zu sozialen Kontexten in der Bronzezeit, 13–46. Bonn, Habelt.Google Scholar
Hänsel, B. (1996) Bronzezeitliche Siedlungssysteme und Gesellschaftsformen in Südosteuropa: Vorstädtische Entwicklungen und Ansätze zur Stadtwerdung. In Belardelli, C. & Peroni, R. (eds.), The Bronze Age in Europe and the Mediterranean, 241–251. Forlì, Abaco.Google Scholar
Jaeger, M. (2014) The stone fortifications of the settlement at Spišský Štvrtok. A contribution to the discussion on the long-distance contacts of the Otomani-Füzesabony culture. Prähistorische Zeitschrift 89, 291–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalicz, N. & Raczky, P. (1987) The Late Neolithic of the Tisza region. A survey of recent archaeological research. In Raczky, P. (ed.), The Late Neolithic of the Tisza Region, 11–30. Budapest/Szolnok, Szolnok County Museums.Google Scholar
Kienlin, T. L. (2012a) Beyond elites: An introduction. In Kienlin, T. L. & Zimmermann, A. (eds.) Beyond Elites. Alternatives to Hierarchical Systems in Modelling Social Formations, 15–32. Bonn, Habelt.Google Scholar
Kienlin, T. L. (2012b) Patterns of change, or: Perceptions deceived? Comments on the interpretation of Late Neolithic and Bronze Age tell settlement in the Carpathian Basin. In Kienlin, T. L. & Zimmermann, A. (eds.) Beyond Elites. Alternatives to Hierarchical Systems in Modelling Social Formations, 251–310. Bonn, Habelt.Google Scholar
Kienlin, T. L. (2015a) Bronze Age Tell Communities in Context – An Exploration into Culture, Society, and the Study of European Prehistory. Part 1: Critique. Europe and the Mediterranean. Oxford, Archaeopress.Google Scholar
Kienlin, T. L. (2015b) All heroes in their armour bright and shinning? Comments on the Bronze Age “other.” In Kienlin, T. L. (ed.) Fremdheit – Perspektiven auf das Andere, 153–193. Bonn, Habelt.Google Scholar
Kienlin, T. L. (2017) World systems and the structuring potential of foreign-derived (prestige) goods. On modelling Bronze Age economy and society. In Scholz, A. K., Bartelheim, M., Hardenberg, R., & Staecker, J. (eds.) ResourceCultures. Sociocultural Dynamics and the Use of Resources – Theories, Methods, Perspectives, 143–157. Tübingen, Universität Tübingen.Google Scholar
Kienlin, T. L., Fischl, K. P., & Pusztai, T. (2018) Borsod Region Bronze Age Settlement (BORBAS). Catalogue of Early to Middle Bronze Age Tell Sites Covered by Magnetometry. Habelt, Bonn.Google Scholar
Kienlin, T. L. & Marta, L. (2014) New geophysical data on the internal structure of the Gáva sites of Andrid-Corlat and Căuaş-Sighetiu in north-western Romania. In Kienlin, T. L., Valde-Nowak, P., Korczyńska, M., Cappenberg, K., & Ociepka, J. (eds.) Settlement, Communication and Exchange around the Western Carpathians, 381–403. Oxford, Archaeopress.Google Scholar
Kristiansen, K. & Earle, T. (2015) Neolithic versus Bronze Age social formations: a political economy approach. In Kristiansen, K., Šmejda, L., & Turek, J. (eds.) Paradigm Found. Archaeological Theory Present, Past and Future, 234–247. Oxford, Oxbow Books.Google Scholar
Kristiansen, K. & Larsson, T. B. (2005) The Rise of Bronze Age Society. Travels, Transmissions and Transformations. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Parkinson, W. A. (2002) Integration, interaction, and tribal “cycling”: The transition to the Copper Age on the Great Hungarian Plain. In Parkinson, W. A. (ed.), The Archaeology of Tribal Societies, 391–438. Ann Arbor, International Monographs in Prehistory.Google Scholar
Roscoe, P. (2009) Social signaling and the organization of small-scale society: The case of Contact-Era New Guinea. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 16, 69–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rowlands, M. (1995) A question of complexity. In Miller, D., Rowlands, M. J., & Tilley, C. (eds.) Domination and Resistance, 29–40. London, Routledge.Google Scholar
Shanks, M. & Tilley, C. (1987) Social Theory and Archaeology. Cambridge, Polity Press.Google Scholar
Shanks, M. & Tilley, C. (1992) Re-Constructing Archaeology: Theory and Practice. London, Routledge.Google Scholar
Sørensen, M. L. S. (2010) Households. In Earle, T. & Kristiansen, K. (eds.), Organizing Bronze Age Societies. The Mediterranean, Central Europe and Scandinavia Compared, 122–154. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Souvatzi, S. (2007) Social complexity is not the same as hierarchy. In Kohring, S. & Wynne-Jones, S. (eds.), Socialising Complexity. Structure, Interaction and Power in Archaeological Discourse, 37–59. Oxford, Oxbow Books.Google Scholar
Souvatzi, S. G. (2008) A Social Archaeology of Households in Neolithic Greece. An Anthropological Approach. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Szathmári, I. (1992) Füzesabony-Öregdomb. In Meier-Arendt, W. (ed.), Bronzezeit in Ungarn. Forschungen in Tell-Siedlungen an Donau und Theiss, 134–140. Frankfurt a. M., Museum für Vor- und Frühgeschichte.Google Scholar
Szeverényi, V., Priskin, A., & Czukor, P. (2014) Csanádpalota-Juhász T. tanya (M43 55. lh.) késő bronzkori erődített település feltárása: előzetes jelentés a 2011–2013. évi ásatások eredményeiről. A Móra Ferenc Múzeum Évkönyve 2014, 35–60.Google Scholar
Točik, A. (1994) Poznámky k problematike opevneného sídliska otomanskej kultúry v Barci pri Košiciach. Študijne Zvesti Archeologického Ústavu SAV 30, 59–65.Google Scholar
Tringham, R. & Krstić, D. (1990) Conclusion: Selevac in the wider context of European prehistory. In Tringham, R. & Krstić, D. (eds.) Selevac. A Neolithic Village in Yugoslavia, 567–616. Los Angeles, Institute of Archaeology.Google Scholar
Vladár, J. (1973) Osteuropäische und mediterrane Einflüsse im Gebiet der Slowakei während der Bronzezeit. Slovenská Archeológia 21, 253–357.Google Scholar
Vladár, J. (1981) Zur Problematik osteuropäischer und südöstlicher Einflüsse in der Kulturentwicklung der älteren Bronzezeit im Gebiet der Slowakei. Slovenská Archeológia 29, 217–233.Google Scholar
Wynne-Jones, S. & Kohring, S. (2007) Socialising complexity. In Kohring, S. & Wynne-Jones, S. (eds.) Socialising Complexity. Structure, Interaction and Power in Archaeological Discourse, 2–12. Oxford, Oxbow BooksGoogle Scholar