Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Introducing Modes of Production and Archaeology

2017, Modes of Production and Archaeology

Modes of Production and Archaeology proof Edited by Robert M. Rosenswig and Jerimy J. Cunningham University Press of Florida Gainesville · Tallahassee · Tampa · Boca Raton Pensacola · Orlando · Miami · Jacksonville · Ft. Myers · Sarasota Copyright 2017 by Robert M. Rosenswig and Jerimy J. Cunningham All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper his book may be available in an electronic edition. 22 21 20 19 18 17 6 5 4 3 2 1 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data proof he University Press of Florida is the scholarly publishing agency for the State University System of Florida, comprising Florida A&M University, Florida Atlantic University, Florida Gulf Coast University, Florida International University, Florida State University, New College of Florida, University of Central Florida, University of Florida, University of North Florida, University of South Florida, and University of West Florida. University Press of Florida 15 Northwest 15th Street Gainesville, FL 32611-2079 http://upress.ul.edu Contents List of Figures vii List of Tables ix 1. Introducing Modes of Production in Archaeology 1 Robert M. Rosenswig and Jerimy J. Cunningham 1. Hunter-Gatherer Studies 2. Modes of Production in Southern California at the End of the Eighteenth Century 31 proof homas C. Patterson 3. Applying Modes of Production Analysis to Non-State, or Anarchic, Societies: Shiting from Historical Epochs to Seasonal Microscale 52 Bill Angelbeck 4. Early Agricultural Modes of Production in Mesoamerica: New Insights from Southern and Central Mexico 73 Guillermo Acosta Ochoa 5. Production and Consumption: heory, Methodology, and Lithic Analysis 97 Myrian Álvarez and Ivan Briz Godino 6. Kin-Mode Contradictions, Crises, and Transformations in the Archaic Lower Mississippi Valley 121 Bradley E. Ensor 2. Pre-State Agriculturalists 7. he Tributary Mode of Production and Justifying Ideologies: Evaluating the Wolf-Trigger Hypothesis 145 Robert M. Rosenswig 8. he Ritual Mode of Production in the Casas Grandes Social Field 172 Jerimy J. Cunningham 9. Bronze Economy and Mode of Production: he Role of Comparative Advantages in Temperate Europe during the Bronze Age 205 Johan Ling, Per Cornell, and Kristian Kristiansen 3. Ancient States 10. Social Formations Analysis: Modes, Class, Gender, and the Multiple Contexts for Agency 231 Bradley E. Ensor 11. Re-envisioning Prehispanic Mesoamerican Economies: Modes of Production, Fiscal Foundations of Collective Action, and Conceptual Legacies 251 Gary M. Feinman and Linda M. Nicholas 4. Modern States 12. Colonialism, Articulation, and Modes of Production at an Early Seventeenth-Century English Colony in the Western Caribbean 283 Charles E. Orser Jr. proof 13. he Plantation Mode of Production 311 James A. Delle List of Contributors 335 Index 339 1 Introducing Modes of Production in Archaeology Robert M. Rosenswig and Jerimy J. Cunningham It is an understatement to observe that historical materialism has had a profound inluence on the social sciences. In fact, the proposals of Marx and Engels are so fundamental to how social scientists, including archaeologists, analyze societies that the insights have moved to the realm of disciplinary common sense (Gilman 1989; Kohl 1981; Patterson 2003, 2009). Processual archaeologists adopted evolutionary concepts from historical materialism through the writings of White, Wittfogel, Service, and Polanyi—who were all Marxists—that were depoliticized in the writings of Steward and Binford (McGuire 1993:114; Trigger 2003:13–16). Some of the early post-processualists (e.g., Shanks and Tilley 1987a, 1987b; Spriggs 1984) advocated an idealist reformulation of Marxism, inspired by the French structural Marxists.1 And everyone has internalized the Marxistinspired analytic program of Childe (1936, 1950) to some degree, especially his Neolithic and Urban revolutions. he basis of some theoretical debate is therefore not a matter of whether to employ Marxist insights, but a product of the diferent ways that they have been fragmented and incorporated into archaeology, oten without these ties being explicit. Our proposal, emphasized in this book, is that historical materialism, as originally described by Marx and Engels, remains relevant to archaeologists. here are many diferent forms of materialism, but the one deined by Marx and Engels is particularly relevant to explain long-term patterns in human history. he analytic system laid out by Marx and Engels assumes that economic organization is rooted in a web of social relations (Wolf 1999:288). Homo sapiens is a social species whose history is not a passive response to natural processes. More than social animals, our ancestors were also political animals and became more so as population density increased. Even among the biological sciences, there is increasing realization that human evolution was embedded within a political economy (e.g., proof 2 · Robert M. Rosenswig and Jerimy J. Cunningham Hicks and Leonard 2014). In fact, proposals for a niche construction theory (Odling-Smee et al. 2003), when brought to their logical conclusion for Homo sapiens, are to deine the cultural niche that humans have created and subsequently adapted to for thousands of years.2 Such a nonreductive materialism reairms the long-standing Marxist belief that technology, social organization, and political realms form a cohesive holism. Our assumption in writing this introduction is that many readers (and especially those English-speakers under ~50 years of age) primarily employ secondhand knowledge of the writing of Marx and Engels. Basic Marxist concepts that structure analysis (such as mode of production) have been iltered through the writings of anthropologists and understood under different names and are now attributed to scholars of the second half of the twentieth century. McGuire et al. (2005:356) observe “that many contemporary archaeologists, positivists, postmodernists, and feminists alike simply do not know that many of their key concepts and perspectives derive from Marxism.” We therefore begin by reviewing key concepts from Marx and Engels’ original writings and deine basic Marxist terms. Fundamental to a historical materialist analysis is the mode of production that describes how sociopolitical organization and economic relations are integrated and how surplus is deployed. As Saitta (1994:226) notes: “hat all societies produce surplus labor was one of Marx’s key insights, and this basic idea has been developed by anthropologists.” How this surplus labor is organized and “spent” provides the engine for social developments (but see Clark [2007] for a contrary opinion).3 In the collection of essays that follows, modes of production are employed to understand a wide range of societies. We adhere to a basic tenet in mode of production analysis, which is that diferent production systems have their own economic and political “logics.” his does not mean that economic decisions are irrational; rather, that rationality is expressed diferently according to particular social and political organization as well as ideological traditions that structures decision making. We accept that “rational” decisions underlie all economic organization and decisions of individual actors. However, the structure of sociopolitical relations (especially diferences between those that are egalitarian and hierarchical) afects how economic rationality is expressed (Hirth 1996:205; Patterson 2003:25–27; Saitta 1994:207). As discussed at greater length below, we describe Eric Wolf ’s (1982) three distinct “logics” that can be discerned based on diferent modes of production (i.e., kinordered, tributary and capitalist). hese are not necessarily the only modes of productions (and authors in this volume describe a range of modes) but proof Introducing Modes of Production in Archaeology · 3 they are inclusive and simple so as to focus attention on historical process rather than classiication. Modes of production are used in a variety of ways by authors in this book but all employ the framework as an analytical tool to explore the reproduction of society. Each author provides examples of how one or multiple modes of production (in succession or simultaneously) promotes distinctive questions and new insights about the past. he aim of the volume is not to (re)airm the value of mode of production analysis to those already convinced of its utility, but instead to suggest to a broader audience that such analyses can provide insights that are not available through conventional archaeological approaches. As a group, we follow Marx’s analysis of capitalism in making our cases for the utility of mode of production analysis by working through concrete examples. Changing modes of production—and combinations of modes (Cunningham, chapter 8; Ensor 2000:20–21, Ensor, chapter 10; Gailey 1987:34–38; Gailey and Patterson 1988; Patterson 1986:56–57; Patterson, chapter 2)—should resonate with all archaeologists who collect diachronic data and try to infer changing economic organization, social relations, political structure and associated forms of social consciousness (also known as culture). It is worth emphasizing that modes of production, by their very deinition, do not refer to a stable form of organization (either through time or over space). Marx and Engels deined various modes of production as abstractions played out in the historical contingencies of actual societies. Ancient societies were described as having Germanic, Slavic, Asiatic, and Teutonic Roman modes of production, deined in the ethnic terms of social science at the time. Such early modes were further contrasted with a capitalist mode of production that was spreading during the 19th century and a feudal mode that was waning in Western Europe at the time. Precapitalist modes were oten vaguely modeled and/or inconsistently deined (Gilman 1984:115, 1995; Roseberry 1989:155; Wolf 1982:75). Marx’s deinitions of noncapitalist modes are thus not always directly transferable for archaeologists to adopt (Rolland 2005; but see Anderson 2010:198). However, it does not matter whether Marx “should have postulated two or eight or iteen modes of production, or whether other modes should be substituted for those suggested by him. he utility of the concept lies not in classiication but in its capacity to underline the strategic relationships involved in the deployment of social labor by organized human pluralities” (Wolf 1982:76, emphasis added). It is these strategic social relations that transform labor into political capital that concern us in this volume. proof 4 · Robert M. Rosenswig and Jerimy J. Cunningham here is a risk of reifying a series of modes of production into a set of types and the classiication of society as providing a goal in itself. A classiication-focused research agenda for pigeonholing modes of production would parallel the limited utility of processualist evolutionary typologies, epitomized in identifying chiefdoms as a research end in itself (Yofee 1993; Pauketat 2007). Soviet scholars and the so-called vulgar materialists4 were criticized for this very thing. We accept this critique as valid and endorse a more nuanced historical materialism such as that proposed by Wolf (1982), Roseberry (1989), Haldon (1993), Trigger (1993, 1998, 2006), and Patterson (2003, 2009), among others. We agree that ideal evolutionary types (devoid of historical speciicity) provide limited interpretive insight. However, nonreiied modes of production can instead be used to comparatively explore historical (or prehistorical) processes. Studying mode(s) of production is to ask questions about how social labor is organized, how surplus is deployed, and how this can either maintain or change an existing political system. Surplus labor is work undertaken beyond that required to maintain the life of those working and their dependents. Archaeologists generally identify the material residue of surplus labor in exotic or labor-intensive objects as well as monumental architecture. Surplus can be produced by egalitarian foragers and ranked horticulturalists as well as socially stratiied ancient empires and modern nationstates (or any other social plurality). A key question in mode of production analysis is how surplus is directed to maintain or transform a social and political status quo that can be egalitarian, hierarchical, or both. Put simply, the mode of production concept provides a set of heuristic concepts that can focus attention onto speciic processes and actions in a social and historical context and develop a framework to compare the structural logics and organizations of a wide range of societies. It thus provides the potential for archaeologists to comparatively investigate changing human organization (Chapman 2003:29–31; Trigger 1993:167–169, 1998:89–91). Modes of production focus attention on how social labor is deployed to facilitate the reproduction of society, and how political motivations result in the appropriation of surpluses by those in power. McGuire (1986:253) notes, “It does not seek to specify universal causes but rather to identify the key structural relations we should examine in any given instance of change.” Archaeologists have long acknowledged that understanding a society’s political economy provides a powerful framework through which to explore the economic foundations of political evolution (Cobb 1993; Feinman and Nicholas 2004; Hirth 1996). he mode of production does one better by proof Introducing Modes of Production in Archaeology · 5 emphasizing speciic linkages between the economy and the realms of politics and ideology. In the nineteenth-century context in which they were writing, Marx and Engels agreed with the political economy framework (advocated by Adam Smith, etc.) as a description but one that failed to “see” who beneited from the value-laden, taken-for-granted concepts embedded in industrial society. he mode of production framework helps us to explore a “politicized political economy”—both today and in the past. In the remainder of this introductory chapter, we irst review the mode of production framework as it was originally deined by Marx and Engels. We then examine two inluential uses of the term mode of production, speciically, the Asiatic mode of production (Polanyi 1957; Wittfogel 1957) and the household mode of production (e.g., Sahlins 1972). We observe that Wittfogel and Polanyi’s work caused much disagreement (and spurred much new research) by their particular view of how ancient non-Western societies were organized. Sahlins’ deinition of a “domestic” mode of production is a neo-Marxist redeinition of the term based on ontologically idealist assumptions that are fundamentally antithetical to what Marx and Engels actually wrote (Trigger 1993:177). A domestic mode of production would more accurately have been called a domestic “type” or “form” of organization.5 We end our introduction by describing Eric Wolf ’s (1982) formula of kin-ordered, tributary, and capitalist modes of production. Our intention throughout this chapter is not to squabble about the historiography of Marxist theory, or with those who draw inspiration from it. Instead, we provide a simple deinition of modes of production that is amenable to making cross-cultural comparisons. proof Marx and Engels’ Modes of Production As noted, our goal is to begin with what Marx and Engels wrote about modes of production to provide a historical context for the terms. Rather than being synonymous with a “type” or “form” of production, modes of production are the social relations that permit the existing technology, environmental conditions, etc. to generate surplus that is then employed to perpetuate, reproduce, or alter existing social and political relations (and associated forms of social consciousness). he social/political system can be egalitarian or hierarchical (or both), but those in decision-making positions generally strive to maintain the culture norms that have placed them in decision-making roles. 6 · Robert M. Rosenswig and Jerimy J. Cunningham he German Ideology In the 1846 coauthored volume he German Ideology, Marx and Engels critique the idealist Hegelian tradition in which they were themselves educated. If at times the vehemence of their materialist position seems overstated, it is because they were reacting to what was, in their minds, the intellectual norm of their day. Like all theoretical propositions, Marx’s historical materialism is anchored in a particular intellectual history, in this case, in a rejection of Kant’s and Hegel’s idealist understanding of humanity and its history (see Kolakowski 1978:132–138). Hegel thought that humanity’s essence was spiritual consciousness and that history was the result of processes that objectiied that consciousness in the world and reabsorbed that externalized consciousness through sublation. History was thus a series of steps toward self-awareness. Marx wanted to set Hegel “right side up” by suggesting that humanity’s nature was not a metaphysical spiritual essence but lay in human interactions with the natural world through the process of labor. hey begin, in a section titled “Feuerbach: Opposition of the Materialistic and Idealist Outlook,” by stating: “As we hear from the German ideologists, Germany has in the last few years gone through an unparalleled revolution. he decomposition of the Hegelian philosophy . . .” (Marx and Engels 1978:147). hey critique the Young Hegelians (see Breckman 1999; Stepelevich 1990), who were also criticizing the traditional Hegelian position as being politically conservative and serving to bolster the German state. However, the Young Hegelians were irmly wedded to the idealist ontology of the Hegelian tradition. Marx and Engels make their materialist critique of this absolutely clear: proof Since the Young Hegelians consider conceptions, thoughts, ideas, in fact all the products of consciousness, to which they attribute an independent existence, as the real chains of men (just as the Old Hegelians declared them the true bonds of human society) it is evident that the Young Hegelians have to ight only against these illusions of the consciousness. Since, according to their fantasy, the relationships of men, all their doings, their chains and their limitations are products of their consciousness, these Young Hegelians logically put to men the moral postulate of exchanging their present consciousness for human, critical or egoistic consciousness, and thus of removing their limitations. . . . he Young Hegelian ideologists, in spite of their allegedly “world-shattering” statements, are the staunchest conservatives. . . . It Introducing Modes of Production in Archaeology · 7 does not occur to any of these philosophers to inquire into the connection of German philosophy with German reality, the relation of their criticism to their own material surroundings” (Marx and Engels 1978: 149). For Marx and Engels, politically progressive ideas are fatally undermined if the idealism of the Hegelian tradition is maintained. his means that twentieth-century French structural Marxists (as well as their post-structuralist and post-processualist brethren), with their idealist ontology, are the intellectual heirs of the Young Hegelians rather than Marx and Engels. It is on this point that Trigger (1993:186) long ago argued “that idealist explanations, and therefore much (but not all) of what passes as neo-Marxism, forfeit the right to bear the name.” But neither were Marx and Engels proposing economic reductionism. In a letter to Joseph Bloch written in 1890 (ater Marx’s death and ater the entire corpus of their writings had been set to paper), Engels makes this clear: According to the materialist conception of history, the ultimately determined element in history is the production and reproduction of real life. More than this neither Marx nor I have ever asserted. Hence if somebody twists this into saying that the economic element is the only determining one, he transforms the proposition into a meaningless, abstract, senseless phrase. he economic situation is the basis, but the various elements of the superstructure: political forms of the class struggle and its results . . . and even the relexes of these actual struggles in the brains of the participants, political, juristic, philosophical theories, religious views and their further development into systems of dogmas, also exercise their inluence upon the course of the historical struggles and in many cases preponderate in determining their form” (Tucker 1978:760, italics in original). proof Rosenswig (2015) has recently discussed ultimate versus proximate causation (or “determined elements in history”—to use Engels’ words above) in the context of Mesoamerican food production. He argues that ultimate causes associated with climate change (with resulting environmental, demographic changes) afected the economic organization of Late Archaic and Early Formative period (5000–1000 cal bc) Mesoamerican societies, but, crucially, that these changes played out through proximate causes that were deined by the historical details of the superstructure (see also 8 · Robert M. Rosenswig and Jerimy J. Cunningham Rosenswig 2012). To frame ultimate causality in terms of the economy is the essence of Marx and Engels’ insight as is the necessity that the economy is embedded in social relations. he nuanced materialism of Marx and Engels is deined in terms of the mode of production concept in he German Ideology. hey argue: he way in which men produce their means of subsistence depends irst of all on the nature of the actual means of subsistence they ind in existence and have to reproduce. his mode of production must not be considered simply as being the reproduction of the physical existence of the individuals. Rather it is a deinite form of activity of these individuals, a deinite form of expressing their life, a deinite mode of life on their part. As individuals express their life, so they are. What they are, therefore, coincides with their production, both with what they produce and with how they produce. he nature of individuals thus depends on the material conditions determining their production (Marx and Engels 1978:150, italics in original). Again, they emphasize that social relations are fundamental to the mode of production because that is “how they produce” and how they generate a surplus. his is also the passage that has led Bate (1977, 1998) and others in Latin America (Benavides 2001; Patterson 1994) to deine a Modo de Vida as the mode of life that can deine difering peoples that share the same mode of production (Acosta, chapter 4; Ensor 2000). As with the position advocated here, scholars in many parts of the Spanish-speaking world reject the functionalism and idealism of the French structural Marxists for the nuanced historical materialism of the original texts (Chapman 2003:18–31; McGuire 1993:110–111). proof Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy In his 1859 preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, Marx succinctly and unambiguously laid out the position that would guide his future analysis. We quote it at length here, as it is foundational to historical materialism and the generations of subsequent scholars’ discussions of modes of production. Marx begins: My investigation led to the result that legal relations as well as forms of state are to be grasped neither from themselves nor from the socalled general development of the human mind, but rather have their roots in the material conditions of life, the sum total of which Introducing Modes of Production in Archaeology · 9 Hegel . . . found combines under the name “civil society,” that however, the anatomy of civil society is to be sought in political economy (Marx 1978:4). His materialist ontology is consistently presented in explicit contrast to Hegelian idealist philosophy when deining the organization of society. One sentence later, he continues: he general result at which I arrived and which, once won, served as a guiding thread for my studies, can be briely formulated as follows: In the social production of their life, men enter into deinite relations of production which correspond to a deinite stage of development of their material productive forces. he sum total of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which rises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond deinite forms of social consciousness. he mode of production of material life conditions the social, political and intellectual life process in general. It is not consciousness of men that determine their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness (Marx 1978:4). proof While this passage gives us what might be considered the key “components” of a mode of production, it is important to stress that the concept was not formulated as a “model” of society, but was part of a distinct philosophical system that sought to explore humanity as a product of its material existence. Labor was the most fundamental concept because, as physical beings, humans transformed nature to produce the nutrients that they needed to survive through labor and came to understanding consciousness through actions in the world. Many of the key concepts, such as means of production or relations of production, relate to this fundamental question about how humanity produces its existence through labor. For example, the means of production is the dominant technology (e.g., stone tools, metal plow, factory) along with knowledge and organization of its use. In addition, the relations of production are the social relations (e.g., kinship, serfdom, private property) that allow for the means of production to operate. hese are framed by associated forms of social consciousness that provide a meaningful context for the deployment of labor and reproduction of the social system. Together the means and relations of production, as well as the political and jural superstructure, provide the elements that establish a holistic and dialectically intertwined mode of production. New forms of 10 · Robert M. Rosenswig and Jerimy J. Cunningham technology and new social relations have the potential to produce contradictions that lead to the emergence of new modes of production, just as preceding modes of production remain as “survivals.” he point is not to get bogged down in Marxist terminology but to emphasize that the mode of production is the overarching organization of Marx and Engels’ analysis and the way they expanded the political economy perspective of Adam Smith and others. Marx continues with an explanation of how change occurs: At a certain stage of their development, the material productive forces of society come in conlict with the existing relations of production, or—what is but a legal expression of the same thing—with the property relations within which they have been at work hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. hen begins an epoch of social revolution. With the change of economic foundations the entire immense superstructure is more or less rapidly transformed (Marx 1978:4–5). he mode of production concept is the most fundamental part of Marxist analysis and why we focus on it in this collection of essays. Changing modes of production provide yet untapped potential for archaeologists with our diachronic data. We cannot overemphasize that what distinguishes historical materialism from other forms of materialism is that the engine of change is internal to society itself. While environmental conditions and population levels can provide the ultimate potential for change to occur, it is the speciic, historically determined changes in social relations that are the proximate causes that explain how change actually happened. Marx continues by emphasizing his ontological frame of explaining such changes: proof Just as our opinion of an individual is not based on what he thinks of himself, so can we not judge of such a period of transformation by its own consciousness; on the contrary, this consciousness must be explained rather from the contradictions of material life, from the existing conlict between the social productive forces and the relations of production (Marx 1978:5). Marx clearly and consistently lays out a materialism that is based in social relations and is therefore not reductive to simple economic or environmental causes. here are those (e.g., Stalin) that quote Marx to say that the economic base determines ideology and other aspects of the superstructure Introducing Modes of Production in Archaeology · 11 in a simple and direct manner (i.e., vulgar materialism). here are others, like the French structural Marxists or post-processual archaeologists, who argue that social relations and ideology determine the economic base (i.e., vulgar idealism6). Both are at odds with what Marx and Engels actually wrote, as Roseberry (1989) has so cogently argued. Marx and Engels’ original writings were more nuanced than oten given credit and therefore worth returning to (Patterson 2003:19–20). When economic relations change they can come into conlict with ideological principles, laws, etc. and create tensions within society. his antifunctionalist proposal—that conlict and negotiation internal to society explain cultural change—is one of the single most signiicant contributions of historical materialism for archaeologists. Marx and Engels focused on speciic historical instances of change. hat is, on how capitalism was displacing feudalism in Europe and how European royalty with their divine right to rule and ownership of all national lands was quickly (by the mid-1800s) being displaced by various forms of parliamentary and republican rule justiied by democracy and with new private property laws (Meillassoux 1972:93–94). Elected houses of government, private property, and democratic ideals that justify them were not what ultimately caused change; these changes were wrested from the monarchy by an emerging capitalist class based on their newfound economic power. Marx and Engels’ theoretical proposal therefore needs to be understood in terms of the concrete and historically speciic political environment of nineteenth-century Europe.7 In the inal passage from A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy we will quote, Marx elaborates his view of both change and modes of productions. He observes that proof “mankind always sets itself only such tasks as it can solve; since, looking at the matter more closely, it will always be found that the task itself arises only when the material conditions for its solution already exist or are at least in the process of formation. In broad outlines Asiatic, ancient, feudal, and modern bourgeois modes of production can be designated as progressive epochs on the economic formation of society (Marx 1978:5). Again, the cause of change is internal to society, and the manner in which it occurs is therefore culturally speciic and historically determined. his second mention of modes of production could be read as a mechanical, unilineal evolutionary typology that all societies pass through, and this is precisely what Stalin did (see Currie 1984). However, Marx is simply 12 · Robert M. Rosenswig and Jerimy J. Cunningham describing what he knows to have happened, and this is only to the best of his mid-nineteenth-century knowledge of the past. It is worth emphasizing that the point of this review is not to argue that everything Marx ever wrote was correct. His writings are illed with the nineteenth-century taken-forgranted sexism and Western ethnocentrism that we disagree with today. he point is instead to elaborate the insight provided by his materialist analysis of history and social change through the speciic deinition of modes of production. Anthropology’s and Others’ Modes of Production he mode of production concept continues to igure prominently in social science analysis. Lately, some argue that modes of production should be reengineered to deine modes of exchange (Foster 2014; Karanti 2014) or how surplus production articulates with social relations (Graeber 2006:77). Others, particularly in relation to development of the Indian subcontinent, continue to argue for the importance of the classical mode of production concept (Banaji 2012), but this is not universally accepted (see Bernstein 2013; Campling 2013). he mode of production literature is immense, and we do not attempt to summarize or distill it here. Instead, we observe that idiosyncratic and incomplete uses of modes of production (and reactions to them) led to theoretical ennui among many anthropologists by the 1980s (see Roseberry 1989:129, 145). Further, arguments about modes of production can descend into detailed histories of Marxist theory that is of-putting to archaeologists not politically inclined or unfamiliar with nineteenthcentury terminologies and intellectual history. Our contention in putting this book together is that as originally conceived by Marx, and updated by Wolf (and others) for precapitalist societies, the mode of production has continued value for the interpretation of archaeological data. We critically discuss two examples of anthropological uses of modes of production to provide clarity as to the processes and social relation that are entailed. Simply put, mode(s) of production provide a framework to explore the organization of surplus production and appropriation and how this is employed to maintain the social and political status quo of existing kin and/ or class relations. As an inclusive framework, it is ideally suited for making cross-cultural and cross-temporal comparisons. proof Introducing Modes of Production in Archaeology · 13 Wittfogel and the Asiatic Mode of Production During the middle of the twentieth century, considerable efort was expended in deining precapitalist modes of production. he Asiatic mode received particular attention and was dissected from the Western academic tradition (Krader 1975) as well as from within the Soviet tradition (Dunn 1982; Wittfogel 1957:6–7). Polanyi’s (1957) Marxist-inspired work, with its divide between capitalist and pre-capitalist society, assumed absolute and unchanging power of Eastern dictatorships and was inluential for many archaeologists. However, Wittfogel (1957:6) notes “that Marx, far from originating the ‘Asiatic’ concept, had found it ready-made in the writings of classical economists” (see also Wittfogel 1957:372–386).8 Arguably the single most relevant formulation of the Asiatic mode of production for archaeologists was Wittfogel’s (1957:369–412) detailed treatment in Oriental Despotism, where he reviews how Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin each deined the Asiatic mode of production. Wittfogel’s perspective, that irrigation infrastructure was crucial to monopolizing political power, was so inluential that it launched a sustained treatment of the concept (e.g., Bailey and Llobera 1981; Currie 1984; Dunn 1982; O’Leary 1989). Our purpose here is not to review or add to debates concerning the Asiatic mode of production. he simple fact that so much research was conducted to both support and critique Wittfogel’s (and Polanyi’s) Marxistinspired ideas is a tribute to their importance in structuring the current academic landscape of various disciplines, including archaeology. However, that the control of irrigation infrastructure does not explain state power in, for example, Hawaii (Kirch 1994) or in Mesoamerica (Feinman and Nichols, chapter 10; Ofner 1981; but see Wittfogel 1972) as Wittfogel hypothesized, says little about the mode of production framework itself. Instead, it simply indicates that Wittfogel’s conception is not conirmed by empirical evaluation. Further, when processual archaeologists (e.g., Carneiro 1970:734; Flannery 1972:418) evaluated Wittfogel’s ideas, it was as a depoliticized version that did not address the political nature of surplus production but rather simply the importance of irrigation facilities for state control (and so the processual archaeologists provided examples of a political economy approach rather than of historical materialism). Likewise, Goody’s (1990) critique of the Asiatic mode of production is of Wittfogel’s formulation—not of the analytic framework but of a speciic application. his distinction between Marx’s mode of production concept and Wittfogel’s application is important. Currie (1984:259) convincingly argues that proof 14 · Robert M. Rosenswig and Jerimy J. Cunningham what Marx actually proposed was that in arid environments, rather than the emergence of despotic states being caused by the control of irrigation facilities, the link was instead “between conditions of irrigation agriculture and the extension of state control” (Currie 1984:259, italics in original). herefore, rather than making a generalizable rule about the origins of state power, as Wittfogel advocated, Marx himself was making an observation of speciic historical instances of already established states with existing funds of surplus labor using irrigation agriculture facilities to expand or cement existing power. Control of irrigation infrastructure was not a cause but an efect of state power. Marx observed a historical correlation, and Wittfogel inverted the causal arrow (see argument in Haldon 1993:2–4). Sahlins’ Domestic Mode of Production Marshall Sahlins’ (1972) discussion of underproduction deined in terms of a “domestic” mode of production is well-known to archaeologists. Within the context of traditional societies’ reactions to colonial powers, Sahlins (1972:86) proposed that the domestic mode of production “harbors an antisurplus principle. Geared to the production of livelihood, it is endowed with the tendency to come to a halt at that point. Hence if ‘surplus’ is deined as output above the producers’ requirements, the household system is not organized for it. Nothing within the structure of production for use pushes it to transcend itself.” his is not a mode of production in the Marxist sense, as should be clear ater our review in the previous section. Sahlins’ “mode” is instead a Chayanovian description of subsistence production of conquered peoples resisting a capitalist mode of production. his discrepancy is made clear when Sahlins (1972:86) claims: “Work is accordingly unintensive: intermittent and susceptible to all manner of interruption by cultural alternatives and impediments ranging from heavy ritual to light rainfall. Economics is only a part-time activity of the primitive societies, or else it is an activity of only part of the society.” Economic activity and the production of surplus can most certainly not be separated from the cultural or ritual realm according to the analysis proposed by Marx and Engels. Sahlins’ analysis is explicitly framed within the French structural Marxist tradition, and uses its terms. For example, he cites Engels and presents a table contrasting the relationships of the means of production between chiely and bourgeois ownership on the very same page where he proposes the economic rule that “there is no class of landless paupers in primitive society. If expropriation occurs it is accidental to the mode of production itself, a cruel fortune of war for instance, and not a systematic condition proof Introducing Modes of Production in Archaeology · 15 of the economic organization” (Sahlins 1972:93). How could appropriation of surplus labor possibly be accidental to a mode of production? hat is precisely what deines it! In Sahlins’ second complete chapter devoted to deining his domestic mode of production, the structural Marxist revisionism is clear. Sahlins (1972:102) claims: “he determination of the main organization of production at an infrastructural level of kinship is one way of facing the dilemma presented by primitive societies to Marxist analyses, namely, between the decisive role accorded by theory to the economic base and the fact that the dominant economic relations are in quality superstructural, e.g., kinship relations (see Godelier 1966; Terrey 1969).” His irst problem is citing the French structural Marxists rather than what Marx and Engels actually wrote (Roseberry 1989:160–161; and see Gailey 1987:6). Second, as presented clearly in the previous section, the superstructure (religion, laws, kin relations) certainly do structure the political economy. Just because a historical materialist perspective assumes the economic factors are causative (in an ultimate sense) does not mean that ideology is irrelevant to historical analysis. A materialist straw man is erected so as to present an idealist solution to a problem that never existed. We soon learn just how deeply antimaterialist Sahlins’ view of culture was. He claims: proof Hawaiian kinship is a more intensive economic system than Eskimo kinship. Because, simply, the Hawaiian system has a greater degree of classiication in the Morganian sense: a more extensive identiication of collateral with lineal relatives. . . . All other things equal, then, Hawaiian kinship will generate a greater surplus tendency than Eskimo (Sahlins 1972:123). To argue that kinship terms (and the relationships they relect) develop independently and then result in difering propensities to intensify economic production is squarely Hegelian, precisely what Marx and Engels railed against in he German Ideology. he basis of Marx and Engels’ argument (and ours) is that kinship relations come to relect (and reinforce) the conditions under which surplus is produced and deployed. Kinship relations may evolve slowly in traditional societies, and shiting standards may not seem abrupt to those living through periods of transition. Over dozens of generations kinship terms and obligations can be transformed dramatically, or, as Gailey (1987) documents for the Paciic during the nineteenth century, such changes in kinship can occur very rapidly in response to economic transformation. 16 · Robert M. Rosenswig and Jerimy J. Cunningham Sahlins’ idealist redeinition of the mode of production has resulted in much confusion. his very critique was long ago leveled against Sahlins’ appropriation of Marx and Engels’ terminology (e.g., Friedmann 1980), and it is not our purpose here to propose it as an original observation. Instead, we wish to clearly diferentiate the historical materialism we describe from Sahlins’ much-cited book. A Google Scholar search indicates that Stone Age Economics is Sahlins’ most cited work, with 6,447 citations as of January 23, 2016. Sahlins’ domestic mode of production thus persistently contributes to deinitional cloudiness and impedes what we are trying to lay out in this volume. Furthermore, Meillassoux (1981), also inspired by the Marxist tradition, employed a “domestic mode of production” but deined it in diferent terms than did Sahlins. Equally muddying is Wilk’s (ed. 1989) use in the subtitle of his edited volume Household Economy: Reconsidering the Domestic Mode of Production that follows neither Sahlins’ nor Meillassoux’s deinition. In this volume the domestic mode of production is used to understand not societies’ political economies but instead how households: “manage and combine their production, exchange, investment, inheritance, sharing, minding, pooling, preparing, and consuming” (Wilk 1989:25). In fact, only one paper, of the dozen assembled in the volume, cites anything written by Marx, only three cite Sahlins (1972), and two cite Meillassoux (1981). Wilk’s edited volume is thus primarily interested in exploring “domestic production” rather than a mode of production (e.g., Cunningham, chapter 8; Donham 1999). Domestic mode of production has been so variably used by anthropologists that we feel it should be retired for the sake of deinitional clarity. proof Wolf ’s Modes of Production: A Streamlined Trinity As we detail in this chapter, modes of production describe how social labor is deployed for economic pursuits, usually with political motivation and consequences. It is “a speciic, historically occurring set of social relations through which labor is deployed to wrest energy from nature” (Wolf 1982: 75). Wolf (2001 [1981]:342–352 and see 1982:75–100, 400–404) deines a capitalist, tributary, and kin-ordered mode of production. Wolf ’s elegantly simple trinity of modes has been employed by many archaeologists inluenced by the Marxist tradition (e.g., Arnold 2000; Gilman 1995; Ensor 2000; Kristiansen 1998; McGuire 1986; Rosenswig 2012; Saitta 1994, 2005; and see McGuire 1992:152–153; Muller 1997:30–37; Patterson 2003:18–25). Such modes are not proposed as being all-encompassing, universally applicable, Introducing Modes of Production in Archaeology · 17 or mutually exclusive. Instead, as Wolf (1982: 76–77) observes, the goal of structuring analysis with modes of production is in: “revealing the political economic relationships that underlie, orient, and constrain interaction. Such key relationships may characterize only a part of the total range of interactions in a society; they may comprehend all of a society; or they may transcend particular, historically constituted systems of social interaction. Used comparatively, the concept of mode of production calls attention to major variations in political-economic arrangements and allows us to visualize their efect.” A capitalist mode of production is deined by the ability to appropriate surplus value of production and to sever the tie between producers and the means of production (i.e., tools, land). Once this happens, the holders of wealth can dictate the terms under which they will allow workers to operate the means of production in exchange for a wage with which workers can then pay for what they need to sustain themselves. Workers produce more than their wage (and the operating costs of a farm or factory or shop) to generate a surplus, which is the proit for the holders of wealth. Such holders of wealth (aka capitalists) can increase proits either by lowering the wages of employees or by increasing their productivity, and the latter is usually achieved through improving the technology of production (more mechanized factories or farming practices, more eicient types of material like iron or plastic, as well as more productive species of plants and animals). Ever more surplus is accumulated by capitalists who reinvest part into increasingly eicient technology, which continues to increase proits. Importantly, wealth is not capital until it is reinvested into the system and so deines the engine that increases surplus production. In this way, the Marxist notion of capitalism does not describe a synchronic state (and certainly not a philosophy) but describes instead a dynamic set of relationships. he manner in which surplus is extracted by capitalists is economic and not (directly at least) through political mechanisms. Taxes are not levied by the capitalist class but instead are levied to support political administrators and other state functionaries who facilitate, but do not directly contribute to, the capitalist’s surplus production. Politicians facilitate wealth acquisition by the capitalist class domestically by maintaining infrastructure and enforcing private property laws, and internationally by sustaining an army to protect foreign investments. he tributary mode of production, in contrast, characterizes economic proof 18 · Robert M. Rosenswig and Jerimy J. Cunningham organization where producers are not separated from the means of production. his mode of production does not set up a self-perpetuating system of technological development that increases the surplus (and thus proit) of those who control the means of production. Instead, surplus is extracted directly from producers (who continue to own the means of productions such as their tools and land) through military and political coercion. his is the basis of a feudal system where serfs work the land and owe the lord a proportion of their crops and/or a number of days’ work per month. Noncompliance is generally enforced by threat of violence and, when necessary, actual violence. he organization of a tribute-extracting elite depends on whether there is a strong central ruler or if local lords hold more sway. Diachronically, there would be a continuous struggle between the central and local interests that make the system dynamic and luid. Central authorities are more powerful if they command standing armies or if they can control a strategic element of the means of production (e.g., irrigation canals). As we have seen, such a system of powerful, centralized organization is what Marx called the Asiatic mode of production. Local authorities are more powerful when they control the means of coercion and/or elements of the process of production. In such cases, local elite can limit the low of tribute that reaches the central authorities (and this is how the feudal mode of production was deined). As Wolf (2001 [1981]:347) observes, rather than diferent organizational logic, with the Asiatic and feudal modes of production “we are dealing, rather, with variable outcomes of the competition between classes of non-producers for power at the top” (and see Gledhill 1981:26). Modeling a variety of precapitalist societies that all possess exploitive relations is a signiicant contribution of Wolf ’s formulation (Haldon 1993:63–139). Kristiansen (1998:89) interprets European prehistory as cycling between these two ends of the tributary mode of production, and Gilman (1995:249) proposes that a Germanic mode (with even weaker central rulers) should also be considered on this continuum (see Ling et al., Chapter 9). As we previously emphasized, modes of production are not functional types but instead describe the creation and distribution of surplus in a dynamic and ever-changing manner. Local and regional elites are continually vying for the upper hand, and archaeologists have approached such intrapolity struggles using terms such as factional competition and heterarchy. he kin-ordered mode of production is deined by its use of kinship relations as the key to mobilizing resources rather than economy/technology of the capitalist mode or political/military means of the tributary mode. proof Introducing Modes of Production in Archaeology · 19 As Wolf (2001 [1981]:349) describes it: “Kinship thus involves symbolic constructs that place actors into social relationships which permit them to call on shares of social labor from others so as to efect the necessary transformations of nature.” his is a materialist deinition of kinship as the organizational system used to produce material goods. Far from being egalitarian, unequal relations in societies organized by the kin-ordered mode of production are based on seniority within the structure of kinship, and so elders, higher-ranking lineages, and the descendants of irst settlers dominate juniors, lower-ranking lines, and newcomers. Kinship ties determine who can direct the labor of others, decide marriages, have access to land, etc. Political hierarchy and economic egalitarianism are characteristics of many prehistoric societies in North America that operate according to a kin-ordered mode of production. What distinguished this mode from the other two is that “the kin-ordered mode regenerates itself and its oppositions by particularizing tensions and conlicts” (Wolf 2001 [1981]:351). Social classes do not exist, and so conlict arises not between classes but among individuals. However, conlicts frequently cannot be resolved in such societies, and social issioning results, which provides a mechanism for social change. Egalitarian foraging peoples as well as what some would call tribes, big-man societies, and simple chiefdoms are all organized according to this mode of production, as it was through kin relations that surplus was controlled (Ensor, chapter 10; Patterson 1986). Marx called this “primitive communism” or the “primordial mode of production,” and it subsumes what some have begun to call a ritual mode of production (Cunningham, chapter 8; Rappaport 1984:410; Spielmann 2002). he kinordered mode of production also describes the organization of societies on the Paciic coast of North America discussed by Patterson (chapter 2) and Angelbeck (chapter 3) as well as those in Latin America presented by Acosta (chapter 6) and Alvarez and Briz (chapter 5). proof his Volume Chapters in this volume employ the mode of production concept to enhance understanding of archaeological, ethnographic, historical, ethnohistorical, and cross-cultural data from a wide range of societies. We do not try to generate conceptual uniformity but instead seek to showcase the ways that a mode of production analysis can be employed to analyze past human organization. Most authors (re)introduce their understanding of the mode of production concept and its relevance for archaeological 20 · Robert M. Rosenswig and Jerimy J. Cunningham interpretation. Some redundancy is folded into this volume, as authors cover ground plowed by this introduction. However, each chapter plants the seeds for its own analysis. Further, the careful reader will note that we do not all completely agree with how modes of production are to be used; nor would we want theoretical homogeneity. As is generally the case when archaeologists get together, there are as many opinions as scholars present. As we have already stated, our aim in this volume is not to get buried in typological quibbling. Some authors subdivide what Wolf calls the kinordered mode and Marx originally referred to as the primitive mode of production (e.g., Angelbeck, chapter 3; Alvarez and Briz, chapter 5). Others deine a plantation mode of production as being a variety of the capitalist mode (Delle 2014, chapter 13). he assumption of these contributors is that each form of economic organization should be diferently named with a distinct mode. Ensor (chapter 6), citing Patterson (1986), calls such distinctions “forms of production” within a single mode. If modes of production are deined as the all-encompassing political, economic, social and ideological manner in which surplus production is organized and deployed, then a variety of economic strategies can be subsumed within an overarching mode. Each mode of production can contain a variety of means and relations of production so that seasonal variations of resource extraction, the tools used, and the social relations employed can change (and/or coexist). herefore, to some degree, the number of modes recognized depends on whether one is inclined to be a lumper or a splitter. Regardless of these inclinations, each contribution in this volume engages the mode of production framework to better understand how past societies were organized through the deployment of surplus labor. Whatever value this collection of essays provides will not be derived from this introductory chapter. Instead, the utility of modes of production depends on whether new insights can be provided through their use. We therefore hope you agree that the value of this framework is contained in the essays that follow. We also hope that these papers provide an openended invitation to engage with the classical Marxist tradition generally and, in particular, with a mode of production framework. proof Acknowledgements his essay has beneited from detailed and thoughtful comments of Tom Patterson. Introducing Modes of Production in Archaeology · 21 Notes 1. Trigger (1993:174–178) provides a succinct introduction to the archaeological implications of neo-Marxism, deined largely by the rejection of Marx’s idea that economic relationships form the basis of cultural change. 2. Niche construction theory has been used by archaeologists to examine small-scale societies (Smith 2007, 2011) but is equally relevant to more complex ancient pluralities. In fact, a Marxist niche construction theory could be deined as the economic adaptation to a culturally constructed political niche. hat is, the main existential threat driving human evolution is not getting enough to eat but getting on with others. 3. Dunn (1982:12) argues that the term mode of production refers only to the economic base and that ‘”order” is the broader term that Marx used to incorporate both base and superstructure. While this may be correct, it is not how the term has been used (see Jessop 1990 for a good introduction). We employ mode of production to necessarily incorporate both the social organization of labor and corresponding political, jural, and other ideological elements that constitute the superstructure (Wolf 1982:74–75). 4. Vulgar materialism was used by Friedmann (1974) to describe what today we would call economic or ecological reductionism, that is, that environment, ecology, or economy dictates cultural form. Such vulgar materialism includes today’s cultural materialists, cultural ecologists, selectionists, etc., who place the engine of cultural change external to human society. Because cultural evolution is assumed to be driven by forces external to human society, it is therefore external to human control. Among other things, this has the efect of naturalizing the status quo and absolving those that exploit the labor of others. Vulgar materialism is contrasted with the materialism of the classical Marxist tradition that we advocate, where both base and superstructure are dialectically linked. Operating within environmental and technological constraints, this historical materialism posits that cultural evolution is driven by the social cleavages (and related interests) within society. Again, among other things, those exploiting the labor of others create forms of consciousness that support this economic arrangement. Whether these new forms of consciousness are false or not, their creation does not alter the fact that economic interests generate justifying ideologies (Rosenswig, chapter 7). 5. As Haldon (1993:53) notes, such nonmaterialist redeinition of Marxism “does not help us to see either how the relations of production, appropriation and distribution of social wealth are achieved, nor how the production, accumulation and redistribution of surplus wealth is integrated into a process of social reproduction of the society in question as a totality.” 6. As Trigger (1993:175) points out, Jack Goody (1980:17) uses the term vulgar idealism to describe French structural Marxists such as Godelier (1977, 1984), who rejects Marx’s core proposal that economic relations are the cause of change and instead argues that politics, kinship, and religion organize the relations of production. his is the position that Sahlins (1972) popularized in the English-speaking world, and it is addressed at greater length below. 7. he Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte is arguably Marx’s ([1998][1869]) most substantive work with an extended application of his materialist theory of history to understanding the 1848 French coup. Anyone inclined to argue that Marx’s analytic proof 22 · Robert M. Rosenswig and Jerimy J. Cunningham framework was economic reductionism cannot have read this analysis, which is rich in historical detail and its exploration of the role of ideology in political drama. However, as Marx argues, political intrigues conceal the class struggle and so must be stripped away to truly understand history (see Tomba 2013). 8. To criticize the ethnocentric orientalism of calling a mode of production “Asiatic” (Said 1979:153–157) is precisely what Stalin did at the 1931 Leningrad conference when the term was stricken from twentieth-century communist theorizing (Currie 1984). his was part of the reason why Wittfogel (1957:2–3) opted to drop the term but maintain the idea of total state power that “Asiatic” had been employed to denote. Hindess and Hurst (1975:180), among many in the latter part of the twentieth century, critiqued the ethnocentrism of the unfortunate word choice. However, to use the racialization of concepts and the Western-centrism of nineteenth-century scholarship as a justiication for the dismissal of analytical ideas behind the label, as Blanton and Fargher (2008:8–10) recently have, displays a lack of historicism. As Currie (1984:263) notes, “he rejection of the term, however, does not necessarily entail negation of the mode.” Anderson (2010:208–224) has recently documented how Marx’s sympathies lay squarely with those resisting European colonialism and explicitly responds to Said’s critique (Anderson 2010:17–20). References Cited Anderson, Kevin B. 2010 Marx at the Margins: On Nationalism, Ethnicity, and Non-Western Societies. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Arnold, Jeanne E. 2000 Revisiting Power, Labor Rights, and Kinship: Archaeology and Social heory. In Social heory and Archaeology, edited by M. B. Schifer, pp. 14–30. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Bailey, Anne M., and Jesop R. Llobera 1981 he Asiatic Mode of Production: Science and Politics. Routledge, London. Banaji, Jairus 2012 heory as History: Essays on Modes of Production and Exploitation. Haymarket, Chicago. Bate, Luis F. 1977 Arqueología y materialismoistórico. Ediciones de Cultura Popular, Mexico City. 1998 El proceso de investigación en arqueología. Crítica, Barcelona. Beckman, Warren 1990 Marx, the Young Hegelians, and the Origins of Radical Social heory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Benavides, O. Hugo 2001 Returning to the Source: Social Archaeology as Latin American Philosophy. Latin American Antiquity 12:355–370. Bernstein, Henry 2013 Historical Materialism and Agrarian History. Journal of Agrarian Change 13:310–329. proof Introducing Modes of Production in Archaeology · 23 Blanton, Richard, and Lane Fargher 2008 Collective Action in the Formation of Pre-Modern States. Springer, New York. Campling, Liam 2013 Debating Modes of Production and Forms of Exploitation: Introduction to the Symposium on Jairus Banaji’s heory as History. Historical Materialism 21:3–10. Carneiro, Robert L. 1970 A heory of the Origin of the State. Science 169:733–739. Chapman, Robert 2003 Archaeologies of Complexity. Routledge, London. Cheal, David 1989 Strategies of Resource Management in Household Economies: Moral Economy or Political Economy? In he Household Economy: Reconsidering the Domestic Mode of Production, edited by Richard Wilk, pp. 11–22. Westview, Boulder, Colorado. Childe, V. Gordon 1936 Man Makes Himself. Watts, London. 1950 he Urban Revolution. Town Planning Review 21:3–17. Clark, John E. 2007 In Crat Specialization’s Penumbra: hings, Persons, Action, Value, and Surplus. In Rethinking Crat Specialization in Complex Societies: Archaeological Analysis of the Social Meaning of Production, edited by Rowan K. Flad and Zachary X. Hruby, pp. 20–35. Archeological Papers No. 17. American Anthropological Association, Arlington, Virginia. Cobb, Charles R. 1993 Archaeological Approaches to the Political Economy of Nonstate Societies. Journal of Archaeological Method and heory 5:43–100. Currie, Kate 1984 he Asiatic Mode of Production: Problems of Conceptualizing State and Economy. Dialectical Anthropology 9:251–268. Delle, James A. 2014 he Colonial Caribbean: Landscapes of Power in Jamaica’s Plantation System. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Donham, Donald L. 1999 History, Power, Ideology: Central Issues in Marxism and Anthropology. University of California Press, Berkeley. Dunn, Stephan P. 1982 he Fall and Rise of the Asiatic Mode of Production. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London. Ensor, Bradley E. 2000 Social Formation, Modo de Vida, and Conlict in Archaeology. American Antiquity 65:15–42. Feinman, Gary M., and Linda M. Nicholas 2004 Archaeological Perspectives on Political Economy. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. proof 24 · Robert M. Rosenswig and Jerimy J. Cunningham Flannery, Kent V. 1972 he Cultural Evolution of Civilizations. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 3:399–426. Foster, John Bellamy 2014 he heory of Monopoly Capitalism: An Elaboration of Marxian Political Economy. Monthly Review Press, New York. Friedmann, Harriet 1980 Household Production and the National Economy: Concepts for the Analysis of Agrarian Reformations. Journal of Peasant Studies 7:158–184. Gailey, Christine Ward 1987 Kinship to Kingship: Gender, Hierarchy and State Formation in the Tongo Islands. University of Texas Press, Austin. Gailey, Christine Ward, and homas C. Patterson 1988 State Formation and Uneven Development. In State and Society: he Emergence of Social Hierarchy and Political Centralization, edited by John Gledhill, Barbara Bender, and Mogens Trolle Larsen, pp. 77–90. Unwin Hyman, London. Gilman, Antonio 1984 Explaining the Upper Paleolithic Revolution. In Marxist Perspectives in Archaeology, edited by Matthew Spriggs, pp. 115–126. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 1989 Marxism in American Archaeology. In Archaeological hought in America, edited by C. C. Lamberg-Karlovsky, pp. 63–73. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 1995 Prehistoric European Chiefdoms: Rethinking “Germanic” Societies. In Foundations of Social Inequality, edited by T. Douglas Price and Gary M. Feinman, pp. 235–251. Plenum, New York. Gledhill, John 1984 he Transformation of Asiatic Formations: he Case of Late Prehispanic Mesoamerica. In Marxist Perspectives in Archaeology, edited by Matthew Spriggs, pp. 135–148. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Godelier, Maurice 1977 Perspectives in Marxist Anthropology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 1984 To Be a Marxist in Anthropology. In On Marxian Perspectives in Anthropology, edited by Jacques Maquet and Nancy Daniels, pp. 35–57. Undena, Malibu, California. Goody, Jack 1980 Slavery in Time and Space. In Asian and African Systems of Slavery, edited by James L. Watson, pp. 16–42. Blackwell, Oxford. 1990 he Oriental, the Ancient and the Primitive: Systems of Marriage and the Family in the Pre-Industrial Societies of Eurasia. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Graeber, David. 2006 Turning Modes of Production Inside Out, or, Why Capitalism Is a Transformation of Slavery. Critique of Anthropology 26: 61–85. proof Introducing Modes of Production in Archaeology · 25 Haldon, John F. 1993 he State and the Tributary Mode of Production. Verso, London. Hicks, Kathryn, and William R. Leonard 2014 Developmental Systems and Inequality: Linking Evolutionary and PoliticalEconomic heory in Biological Anthropology. Current Anthropology 55:523– 550. Hindess, Barry, and Paul Hirst 1975 Pre-capitalist Modes of Production. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London. 1977 Mode of Production and Social Formation. Macmillan, London. Hirth, Kenneth G. 1996 Political Economy and Archaeology: Perspectives on Exchange and Production. Journal of Archaeological Research 4:203–239. Jessop, R. 1990 Mode of Production. In Marxian Economics, edited by John Eatwell, Murray Milgate, and Peter Newman, pp. 289–296. Norton, New York. Karanti, Kojin 2014 he Structure of World History: From Modes of Production to Modes of Exchange. Duke University Press, Durham. Kirch, Patrick 1994 he Wet and the Dry: Irrigation and Agricultural Intensiication in Polynesia. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Kohl, Philip L. 1981 Materialist Approaches in Prehistory. Annual Review of Anthropology 10:89– 118. Kolakowski, Leszek 1978 Main Currents of Marxism. Vol. 1, he Founders. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Krader, Lawrence 1975 he Asiatic Mode of Production. Van Gorcum, New York. Kristiansen, Kristian, and Larsson, homas B. 2005 he Rise of Bronze Age Society: Travel, Transmission and Transformation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Marx, Karl 1978 Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy. In he MarxEngels Reader, 2nd ed., edited by Robert C. Tucker, pp. 3–6. Norton, New York. 1998 [1869] he Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte. International, New York. Marx, Karl, and Frederick Engels 1978 he German Ideology. In he Marx–Engels Reader. 2nd ed., edited by Robert C. Tucker, pp. 146–200. Norton, New York. McGuire, Randall H. 1986 Economics and Modes of Production in the Prehistoric Southwestern Periphery. In Ripples in the Chichimec Sea: New Considerations of SouthwesternMesoamerican Interactions, edited by Frances Joan Mathien and Randall H. McGuire, pp. 243–269. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale. proof 26 · Robert M. Rosenswig and Jerimy J. Cunningham 1992 A Marxist Archaeology. Academic, New York. 1993 Archaeology and Marxism. Archaeological Method and heory 5:101–157. 2008 Archaeology as Political Action. University of California Press, Berkeley. McGuire, Randall H., Maria O’Donovan, and LouAnn Wurst 2005 Probing Praxis in Archaeology: he Last Eighty Years. Rethinking Marxism 17:355–372. Meillassoux, Claude 1972 From Reproduction to Production: A Marxist Approach to Economic Anthropology. Economy and Society 1:93–105. 1981 Maidens, Meal and Money: Capitalism and the Domestic Community. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Muller, Jon 1997 Mississippian Political Economy. Plenum, New York. Odling-Smee, F. John, Kevin N. Laland, and Marcus W. Feldman 2003 Niche Construction: he Neglected Process in Evolution. Princeton University Press, Princeton. Ofner, Jerome A. 1981 On the Inapplicability of “Oriental Despotism” and the “Asiatic Mode of Production” to the Aztecs of Texcoco. American Antiquity 46:43–61. O’Leary, Brendan 1989 he Asiatic Mode of Production: Oriental Despotism, Historical Materialism, and Indian History. Blackwell, Oxford. Orser, Charles E., Jr. 2011 Race and Practice in Archaeological Interpretation. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia. Patterson, homas C. 1986 La creación de cultura en las formaciones sociales pre-estatales y no-estatales. Boletín de Antropología Americana 14:53–61. 1994 Social Archaeology in Latin America: An Appreciation. American Antiquity 59:531–537. 2003 Marx’s Ghost: Conversations with Archaeologists. Berg, Oxford. 2009 Karl Marx, Anthropologist. Berg, Oxford. Pauketat, Timothy R. 2007 Chiefdoms and Other Archaeological Delusions. AltaMira, Lanham, Maryland. Polanyi, Karl 1957 he Great Transformation. Beacon, Boston. Rappaport, Roy A. 1984 Pigs for the Ancestors: Ritual in the Ecology of a New Guinea People. New, enl. ed. Yale University Press, New Haven. Rolland Calvo, Jorge 2005 “Yo [tampoco] soy marxista”: Relexiones teoréticas en torno a la relación entre marxismo y arqueología. Complutom 16:7–32. Roseberry, William 1989 Anthropologies and Histories: Essays in Culture, History and Political Economy. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick. proof Introducing Modes of Production in Archaeology · 27 Rosenswig, Robert M. 2010 he Beginnings of Mesoamerican Civilization: Inter-regional Interaction and the Olmec. Cambridge University Press, New York. 2012 Materialism, Mode of Production and a Millennium of Change in Southern Mexico. Journal of Archaeological Method and heory 19:1–48. 2015 A Mosaic of Adaptation: he Archaeological Record for Mesoamerica’s Archaic Period. Journal of Archaeological Research 23:115–162. Sahlins, Marshall 1972 Stone Age Economics. Aldine, New York. Said, Edward W. 1979 Orientalism. Random House, New York. Saitta, Dean J. 1994 Agency, Class and Archaeological Interpretation. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 13:201–227. 2005 Dialoguing with the Ghost of Marx: Mode of Production in Archaeological heory. Critiques of Anthropology 25:27–35. 2007 he Archaeology of Collective Action: American Experience in Archaeological Perspective. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Shanks, Michael, and Christopher Tilley 1987a Social heory and Archaeology. Polity, Cambridge. 1987b Re-constructing Archaeology: heory and Practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Smith, Bruce D. 2007 Niche Construction and the Behavioral Context of Plant and Animal Domestication. Evolutionary Anthropology 16:188–199. 2011 General Patterns of Niche Construction and the Management of “Wild” Plant and Animal Resources by Small-Scale Pre-industrial Societies. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society 366:836–848. Spielmann, Katherine A. 2002 Feasting, Crat Specialization, and the Ritual Mode of Production in SmallScale Societies. American Anthropologist 104:195–207. Spriggs, Matthew 1984 Marxist Perspectives in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Stepelevich, Lawrence S. (editor) 1999 he Young Hegelians: An Anthology. Humanity, New York. Tomba, Massimiliano 2013 Marx as the Historical Materialist: Re-reading he Eighteenth Brumaire. Historical Materialism 21:21–46. Trigger, Bruce G. 1993 Marxism in Contemporary Archaeology. Archaeological Method and heory 5:159–200. 1998 Sociocultural Evolution: Calculation and Contingency. Blackwell, Oxford. 2003 Introduction: Understanding the Material Remains of the Past. In Artifacts and Ideas: Essays in Archaeology, edited by Bruce G. Trigger, pp. 1–30. Transaction, New Brunswick. proof 28 · Robert M. Rosenswig and Jerimy J. Cunningham A History of Archaeological hought. 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Tucker, Robert C. 1969 he Marxian Revolutionary Idea. Norton, New York. 1978 he Marx–Engels Reader. 2nd ed. Norton, New York. Wilk, Richard R. 1989 Decision Making and Resource Flows within the Household: Beyond the Black Box. In he Household Economy: Reconsidering the Domestic Mode of Production, edited by R. Wilk, pp. 23–52. Westview, Boulder, Colorado. Wilk, Richard R. (editor) 1989 he Household Economy: Reconsidering the Domestic Mode of Production. Westview, Boulder, Colorado. Wittfogel, Karl A. 1957 Oriental Despotism: A Comparative Study of Total Power. Yale University Press, New Haven. 1972 he Hydraulic Approach to Pre-Spanish Mesoamerica. In he Prehistory of the Tehuacán Valley, vol. 4, edited by Richard S. MacNeish, pp. 59–80. University of Texas Press, Austin. Wolf, Eric R. 1982 Europe and the People without History. University of California Press, Berkeley. 1999 Envisioning Power: Ideologies of Dominance and Crisis. University of California Press, Berkeley. 2001 [1981] he Mills of Inequality: A Marxian Approach. In Pathways of Power: Building an Anthropology of the Modern World, edited by Eric Wolf, pp. 335–352. University of California Press, Berkeley. Yofee, Norman 1993 Too Many Chiefs? (or, Safe Texts for the ’90s). In Archaeological heory: Who Sets the Agenda?, edited by Norman Yofee and Andrew Sherratt, pp. 60–78. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 2006 proof