com/
Social Archaeology
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
Additional services and information for Journal of Social Archaeology can be found at:
Subscriptions: http://jsa.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations: http://jsa.sagepub.com/content/5/3/307.refs.html
What is This?
ABSTRACT
Since the late 1970s, archaeologists have been concerned with the
origins and development of craft specialization in early civilizations.
More recently, some have examined the organization of production,
the identities of artisans, the use and consumption of the goods they
produced, and the cultural and social meanings of those objects. Much
of this literature is rooted in the conceptual framework of societal
evolutionism, which was formulated by eighteenth-century theorists,
who were attempting to account for the rise of capitalist agriculture
rather than the development of precapitalist forms of craft produc-
tion. This article examines the premises of the conceptual framework
as well as the political-economic and ideological context in which
societal evolutionism was formulated. It suggests that a theoretical
framework derived from Marx’s writings after 1857 provides insights
into the organization of craft production and an alternative expla-
nation of the role specialization played in the rise of civilization.
KEY WORDS
classical political economy ● craft specialization ● liberal social theory
● Marxism ● production relations ● proto-industrialization ● societal
evolution ● state formation
307
■ INTRODUCTION
What roles did craft production and specialization play in the origins of
civilization? How were they related to the concomitant processes of social
differentiation, the increasing division of labor, the formation of village
communities and expanded exchange relations typically associated with this
transformation? These questions have long vexed archaeologists. Between
the mid-1930s and the mid-1950s, V. Gordon Childe (1936/1983, 1958:
162–73) – theorist of socioeconomic development and life-long socialist –
was the first archaeologist to attempt a sustained, socioeconomic analysis
of the rise of civilization (Wailes, 1996). Childe’s thesis of uneven and
combined development was historically contingent and composed of three
elements: (1) agriculture facilitated surplus production over subsistence
needs and underwrote both technical and social divisions of labor; (2) the
ruling classes in the Mesopotamian lowlands used part of this surplus to
support full-time craft specialists, notably metalsmiths who relied on ores
obtained from the periphery; and (3) since the initial costs on the periph-
ery were underwritten by the lowland elites, development occurred on the
margins of civilization without significant local investment, where ‘supply
was met by independent smiths-cum-traders hawking their wares from
petty chief to petty chief, and innovation was unfettered by bureaucratic
control’ (Wailes, 1996: 9). It is also noteworthy that Childe (1950/2004)
discussed the development of craft specialization in the context of the
Urban Revolution (the formation of precapitalist states) and posited a
succession of artisans from those attached to the ruling classes to indepen-
dent, itinerant smiths.
In developing his thesis about the emergence of craft specialization,
Childe, the Marxist, engaged the societal evolutionism of liberal theorists
from Adam Smith through Herbert Spencer to Émile Durkheim and incor-
porated their arguments into his own (Patterson, 2003: 33–62). From this
perspective, Childe viewed the rise of full-time craft specialists as part of
increasing social structural differentiation, the emerging interdependency
of food-producers and artisans and the growth of market exchange. The
differentiation of production tasks marked the simultaneous withering
away of the self-sufficiency characteristic of neolithic (agro-pastoral)
communities that produced a surplus and the formation of a new kind of
society characterized by a division of labor and the production of goods for
exchange. The division of labor in the emerging society had three dimen-
sions: (1) the distinctions that prevailed among those individuals who
produced different goods for exchange; (2) the separation of direct pro-
ducers from those who appropriated their goods and labor power –
arguably the distinction between manual and mental labor; and (3) the
simultaneous separation of itinerant artisans from their natal communities
There are several reasons for the persistence of questions about the rise
of craft specialization. The absence of evidence that would confirm or invali-
date claims is certainly one reason; however, it is useful to keep in mind that
Childe formulated his thesis nearly six decades ago when fewer data were
available. A more important reason, in my view, is that the language of
societal or cultural evolutionism makes it difficult to examine problems of
historical development that are of interest to archaeologists. This results
from a set of built-in assumptions about exchange, community, the rural-
urban divide, distinctions between manual and mental labor, and even
specialization itself. The assumptions are a product of the foundational social
theories we use and of the sociopolitical and ideological contexts in which
they were developed. In the pages that follow, I want to examine this web
of often implicit assumptions that underpin the conceptual categories we use
to explain craft specialization and what theorists, both eighteenth-century
and modern, have said about the organization of production during the early
stages of capitalism, when social life and production were still largely rural
in Western Europe (a region where sociohistorical and economic develop-
ment is probably better documented than any of the places or periods typi-
cally discussed by archaeologists). I would then like to consider how and in
what ways Karl Marx broke with the foundational theories of the mid-nine-
teenth century. Finally, I would to offer one possible construction, based on
what Marx wrote after 1857, regarding the interconnections of craft special-
ization, changing property relations, and the rise of states, including the
precapitalist tributary states of interest to archaeologists.
17–18), for example, argued that modern society began with the advent of
production for exchange in the market and provided three reasons why
people engage in market exchange: interdependence increases productiv-
ity; exchange is a natural human propensity; and greed has become a central
feature of human nature in commercial society (Gudeman, 2001: 82). This
web of assumptions also influenced the naturalistic, evolutionary perspec-
tive on human history that various French and Scottish Enlightenment
writers, including Smith, formulated from the middle to the end of the
eighteenth century (Meek, 1976; Patterson, 1997; Trigger, 1998: 30–41).1 This
discourse was not limited to participants from a single national state or
continent. In slightly different words, the conceptual elements as well as the
rhetorical styles of liberalism, political economy and evolutionism have
been intertwined for more than two centuries. Today, these interconnec-
tions are too often unacknowledged or summarily dismissed as trivial,
unimportant, or of antiquarian interest. However, they are important
precisely because they affect the way we think about evidence, draw infer-
ences and present arguments.
The political-economic context in which liberalism, classical political
economy, and societal evolutionism were formulated occurred several
centuries after the dissolution of feudalism in Western Europe.2 In the
sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, as the Americas3 were increasingly
enmeshed in commercial relations, the merchant associations from the
sovereign states of Western Europe argued with increasing vigor that they
should not be encumbered with the taxes and tariffs imposed by feudal
lords. In their view, commerce and the expansion of the market should be
unencumbered since it was the source of wealth and power. Here, the senti-
ments of the trading companies often coincided with those of would-be
absolutist monarchs who wished to appropriate the revenues obtained by
the nobility in order to use them for their own purposes, most notably to
strengthen their own positions internally and with respect to the monarchs
of other national states. The policies advocated and supported by both the
merchants and monarchs promoted manufactured exports, low wages,
cheap raw material imports and favorable balances of trade (surpluses) that
would yield a net inflow of gold or silver. This was the ideological and
conceptual language of mercantilism. It is important to note that commod-
ity production and wage labor, two defining elements of the capitalist mode
of production, were already realities in the largely rural societies of Western
Europe.
Other worldviews, besides that of the merchants, were voiced from the
1690s onward.4 The most notable, for our purpose here, was that of an
emerging class of agrarian capitalists – farmers and husbandmen who
produced foodstuffs and raw materials, such as wool or hides, for local,
regional and national markets. They emphasized the importance of agri-
culture for restructuring and developing the national economy. Their
remarks, from the perspective of Kriedte and his associates, was that at least
some of the early industry in Europe, besides mining and iron work, took
place in the countryside rather than in urban areas as well as contexts where
feudal social relations were in decline and capitalist ones had not yet crys-
tallized. They referred to this phase as ‘proto-industrialization’. In their
view, rural industries developed in those parts of the countryside where
there was already a socially differentiated peasantry; where at least some
peasant families could not support themselves on the amount and quality
of land available to them even if they could intensify production; where
there was an elastic labor supply (seasonal unemployment); and where the
powers of local lords or village communities had weakened to the point
where earlier forms of socioeconomic cohesion and homogeneity could not
be maintained. The new social relations driving socioeconomic develop-
ment in these rural regions were capitalist ones based on commodity
production, market exchange and wage labor; they were not based on the
‘laws of the family economy [which had] functioned as the engine of proto-
industrial growth’ (Kriedte et al., 1977/1981: 136).7
Kriedte and his associates pointed out that proto-industrialization in
rural areas had a number of consequences. It promoted the development
of skilled artisans. In those industries where the ‘putting-out system’
prevailed, notably textiles, merchants came to be more closely connected
with production than their predecessors had been.8 It underwrote the
formation of symbiotic relations between agriculture and industry and the
creation of networks of local, regional and national markets. It also
witnessed the emergence of a group of individuals: merchants, middlemen
and artisans, who, with an infusion of capital, would become agents of indus-
trialization. At the same time, proto-industrialization, which they saw as
geared to quantitative changes in production rather than qualitative
changes in the mode of production, generated a series of contradictions that
became particularly evident during harvest seasons when high demands for
labor outside the factory conflicted with production schedules and priori-
ties of the factory. There were other difficulties as well, particularly with a
‘putting-out system’, in which merchants or middlemen provided raw
materials, like cotton, to households for spinning or weaving. It was diffi-
cult to supervise the work, to control the quality of the thread, to prevent
pilferage of the raw materials, or to coordinate the activities of the spinners
with the needs of the weavers. These and other contradictions, notably the
one between the growth dynamics of the family economy and the overall
system forged by proto-industrialization, were resolved, at least temporar-
ily, through mechanization and the centralization of production in factories
located increasingly in towns and cities (Kriedte et al., 1977/1981: 136–42).
This unleashed a new set of contradictions.
In the course of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, proto-
industrialization and early industrialization witnessed growing concerns
about work and factory discipline that involved increased supervision, regu-
larization of work schedules and standardization of the workday
(Thompson, 1967/1991). From the owner’s perspective, it was important to
increase his control over his employees’ schedules, activities, intelligence
and skills in ways that increased the efficiency of production.9 From the
workers’ perspective, it was essential to maintain their own schedules in
order to deal with subsistence and the production of use values outside the
factory. Time and work discipline increasingly became arenas of conflict
between factory owners and workers. The struggles that ensued involved
both arson and the increasing use of brick and stone in factory construc-
tion (Russell Handsman, 1990, personal communication). In New England,
it also involved new forms of discourse. In the early nineteenth century,
factory owners used the rhetoric of republicanism to emphasize their shared
community of interests with their employees. A few decades later, the same
owners dropped this pretense and began to employ arguments and rhetori-
cal forms based on liberalism, which emphasized supply and demand,
contracts and obligations to stockholders (Siskind, 1991; Wilentz, 1984).
■ MARX’S ALTERNATIVES
Karl Marx launched his critique of classical political economy in the early
1840s (Oakley, 1984–5). He drew inspiration from a number of writers,
notably Adam Smith and the Physiocrats; however, he also acknowledged
important intellectual debts to Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Georg W.F. Hegel
and the French socialists. He simultaneously built on their writings,
critiqued them and ultimately elaborated an original synthesis that incor-
porated and combined elements of their views with his own (Patterson,
2003: 7–32). While there were important continuities in Marx’s writings,
there were also points where he did not choose between alternative expla-
nations as well as where he simply changed his mind. During the process,
as historian Robert Brenner (1989: 272) observed, Marx developed two ulti-
mately incompatible theories of the transition from feudalism to capital-
ism. His observation clarifies a lot. For our purposes, it is noteworthy,
because the role of craft specialization and production is conceptualized
differently in the two theories. More broadly, the existence of the two
theories accounts has fueled a debate about whether or not Marx was a
societal evolutionist, the answer to which depends, of course, on which
theory contemporary authors prefer to emphasize and on which one they
choose to downplay or ignore altogether.
Marx’s earlier, societal evolutionary account of the transition from feudal-
ism to capitalism appeared in works that were written in the 1840s, notably
The Poverty of Philosophy, The German Ideology and The Communist
Manifesto, the latter two written with Frederick Engels (Marx, 1847/1963;
Marx and Engels, 1844–5/1974, 1848/1998). In this theory of transition, Marx
saw the structural differentiation of roles within the labor process – cooper-
ation within the production unit and the increasing distinction between
mental and manual labor – as the motor driving the evolution of class and
property relations. This motor was set in motion by the growth of trade and
competition. As Brenner (1989: 282) noted, this theory depends heavily on
Adam Smith’s theory of history. He writes that
Before the conquest, the Valley of Mexico was dotted with city-states, each
with its own city, dependent hinterland, and market. Hicks (1987: 94) writes
that the markets ‘were frequented by everyone’ from the polity; ‘they were
places where commoners could acquire household items and exchange
surpluses [and] . . . places to which specialized long-distance merchants
brought luxury and other exotic goods’.
Aztec state practices usually allowed local rulers to retain their positions
and to continue receiving tribute from their subjects. However, after each
conquest, the Aztec rulers also seized agricultural lands, most of which they
kept for themselves and some of which they distributed to favored nobles.
In all cases, the commoners were organized into communities (calpulli) to
work these lands and give service in the royal or noble households . . . To
facilitate the collection of tribute [including the harvests from these fields],
tribute collections centers were set up [but they] . . . were not necessarily
located in the head-towns that were the seats of the local rulers. (Hicks
1987: 95)
These practices had three immediate effects. First, the nobility had no local
power bases, since their landholdings were scattered and worked by the
members of communities with diverse local origins and loyalties; as a result,
their well-being was dependent on that of the Aztec state. Second, the local
markets were broken up. Third, this underwrote the growing importance of
the market in the Aztec capital, which the ruler divided among his nobles
in the late fifteenth century; this provided the nobles with ‘a tribute in kind
from the sellers on the market’ (Hicks 1987: 94, 96).
Skilled artisans – smiths, woodcarvers, feather workers, painters, and lapi-
daries to name only a few – were commoners who were brought by the
Aztec state from their natal communities to the capital in order to ply their
crafts full-time in the city. They were installed along with other practitioners
of their craft in wards (calpulli), which were also corporate landholding
groups. The state not only brought them by coercion to the city but also
determined whether they would produce items for the palace, the treasury,
or the market. Many (most) of the artisans were attached to the palace,
while others worked through the market. Their clientele consisted of petty
bureaucrats, ritual specialists, military professionals and merchants who
trafficked in raw materials and luxury goods, as well as other artisans. While
the artisan wards undoubtedly grew some of their food in garden plots, their
members likely acquired many subsistence items as well as raw materials
for their work through the market. Most of the food items found in the
market of the Aztec capital were probably grown on the large estates seized
earlier and made their way to the market as tribute to one or another noble
household. The estates were the economic base of a market system that
effectively by-passed the local rulers subordinated by the Aztecs and their
allies (Hicks, 1986: 53, 1987: 97–101, 1999: 413–16).
merchants sold emeralds to the local leaders of the local rulers of Inca
suggests that at least some of their transactions were not controlled directly
by either the Incas or the local rulers of Chincha (Patterson, 1987). In this
instance, merchant capital (buying cheap and selling dear) was instigated or
sustained by the imperial state. The merchants did not alter existing social
property relations (relations of production); the changes that occurred were
affected by the Inca state which would appropriate both land and labor from
communities that became enmeshed in its tributary relations.
The broad outlines of the social property relations the Inca state and its
rulers attempted to set in place are well known. The Inca state, its cult, and
the royal families appropriated lands and labor from local communities to
work them; the workers came from the local communities and were pro-
visioned by the Incas while they fulfilled their labor obligations. The state
also removed some young girls (acllas) and men (yanas) from their commu-
nities of origin; both remained physically and structurally separated from
those communities for the remainder of their lives. A second category of
men (camayos) were full-time craft specialists, e.g. weavers of fine cloth and
silversmiths to name two, who produced goods for the state; some of them
resided and worked in their natal communities, while others did not. Both
their status and speciality seem to have been hereditary (e.g. Costin, 2004;
Ebert and Patterson, forthcoming; Murra, 1980).
The question is: How did the Inca policies and practices impinge on the
local communities they enveloped? In the Huarochirí region of central
Peru, for example, everyday life continued as usual, even though some men
may have consumed more maize beer and meat outside their households
as they did in nearby Jauja (Hastorf, 1991: 150–1). Agricultural lands that
were not appropriated by the Incas were owned by corporate bilateral
kindreds (ayllus), even though they were held by individual households,
which constituted an important unit of consumption but not the only one.
Pastures for llamas and alpacas were also shared by the members of the
ayllu and contested occasionally with the members of other ayllus. Labor-
intensive tasks, like the repair of irrigation systems or housebuilding, were
carried out by the community as a whole with the immediate beneficiaries
providing food and entertainment. Surplus foodstuffs and goods produced
by the various households constituting an ayllu were also pooled and
shared. The members of certain ayllus and households, which presumably
also belonged to an ayllu, were renowned as silversmiths, potters, or
dancers, who
. . . seem to have practiced their particular skills on a part-time or seasonal
basis – after planting or harvesting, before the rainy season in the case of
potters, or when dancers were required for ceremonies or other occasions.
Their artisan activities were grafted onto food production; the goods they
produced or the services they performed benefited the entire community.
(Patterson, 1992: 99)
■ DISCUSSION
■ CONCLUDING REMARKS
Acknowledgements
An earlier version of this article was prepared and presented at a pre-congress
meeting of the International Congress of Anthropological and Ethnological
Sciences on ‘Artisanal Production throughout the Ages in Africa, Asia, Europe, and
the Americas’, organized by June Nash, Jane Schneider and John Clark, 20–23 July,
1993 in San Cristóbal de las Casas, Chiapas, Mexico. This much revised version has
profited over the years from the work, constructive criticism and thoughtful
comments of Wendy Ashmore, Elizabeth Brumfiel, Edward Calnek, Cathy Costin,
Tim Earle, John Gledhill, Christina Halperin, Russell Handsman, Frederic Hicks,
Lynn Meskell, Robert Paynter, Karen Spalding and, more recently, the observations
of three anonymous reviewers.
Notes
1 In the eighteenth century, sociocultural evolutionism was based on a notion of
development, i.e. ‘change was normal and resulted in general betterment’
(Trigger, 1998: 30). As William Outhwaite (1994: 59) noted, this ‘unfolding
model’ of evolution differed from some subsequent versions that
References
Amin, S. (1978) The Arab Nation: Nationalism and Class Struggles. London: Zed
Press.
Antal, F. (1947) Florentine Painting and Its Social Background: The Bourgeois
Republic before Cosimo de’ Medici’s Advent to Power: XIV and Early XV
Centuries. London: Kegan Paul.
Babbage, C. (1835/1963) On the Economy of Machinery and Manufacturers, 4th edn.
New York: A.M. Kelley.
Berg, M., P. Hudson and M. Sonenscher, eds (1983) Manufacture in Town and
Country before the Factory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Berger, J. (1972) Ways of Seeing. London: Penguin Books.
Boas, F. (1920/1940) ‘The Method of Ethnology’, in F. Boas (ed.) Race, Language,
and Culture, pp. 281–9. New York: Macmillan.
Braverman, H. (1974) Labor and Monopoly Capital: The Degradation of Work in
the Twentieth Century. New York: Monthly Review Press.
Brenner, R. (1976/1985) ‘Agrarian Class Structure and Economic Development in
Pre-Industrial Europe’, in T.H. Aston and C.H.E. Philpin (eds) The Brenner
Debate: Agrarian Class Structure and Economic Development in Pre-Industrial
Europe, pp. 10–63. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brenner, R. (1986) ‘The Social Basis of Economic Development’, in J. Roemer (ed.)
Analytical Marxism, pp. 23–53. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brenner, R. (1989) ‘Bourgeois Revolution and Transition to Capitalism’, in A.L.
Beier, D. Cannadine and J.M. Rosenheim (eds) The First Modern Society: Essays
in English History in Honour of Lawrence Stone, pp. 271–304. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Brumfiel, E.M. (1991) ‘Weaving and Cooking: Women’s Production in Aztec
Mexico’, in J.M. Gero and M.W. Conkey (eds) Engendering Archaeology: Women
and Prehistory, pp. 224–51. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Brumfiel, E.M. and T.K. Earle (1987) ‘Specialization, Exchange, and Complex
Societies: An Introduction’, in E.M. Brumfiel and T.K. Earle (eds) Specializa-
tion, Exchange, and Complex Societies, pp. 1–9. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Chayanov, A. (1924/1986) ‘On the Theory of Non-Capitalist Economic Systems’, in
D. Thorner, B. Kerblay, and R.E.F. Smith (eds) The Theory of Peasant Economy,
pp. 1–28. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Childe, V.G. (1936/1983) Man Makes Himself. New York: The New American
Library.
Childe, V.G. (1950/2004) ‘The Urban Revolution’, in T.C. Patterson and C.E. Orser,
Jr (eds) Foundations of Social Archaeology: Selected Writings of V. Gordon
Childe, pp. 107–16. Walnut Creek: Altamira Press.
Childe, V.G. (1958) The Prehistory of European Society. Harmondsworth: Penguin
Books.
Clark, J.E. (1995) ‘Craft Specialization as an Archaeological Category’, Research in
Economic Anthropology 16: 267–94.
Costin, C.L. (1991) ‘Craft Specialization: Issues in Defining, Documenting, and
Explaining the Organization of Production’, in M.B. Schiffer (ed.) Archaeo-
logical Method and Theory, Vol. 3, pp. 1–56. Tucson: The University of Arizona
Press.
Costin, C.L. (1998) ‘Introduction: Craft and Social Identity’, in C.L. Costin and R.P.
Wright (eds) Craft and Social Identity, pp. 3–16. Arlington: American Anthro-
pological Association.
Costin, C.L. (2001) ‘Craft Production Systems’, in G.M. Feinman and T.D. Price
(eds) Archaeology at the Millennium: A Sourcebook, pp. 273–327. New York:
Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
Costin, C.L. (2004) ‘Craft Economies in Ancient Andean States’, in G.M. Feinman
and L.M. Nicholas (eds) Archaeological Perspectives on Political Economies,
pp. 189–221. Salt Lake City: The University of Utah Press.
Davis, W. (1983) ‘Artists and Patrons in Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt’,
Studien zur alterägyptischen Kultur 10: 119–39.
Diamond, S. (2004) ‘Anthropology in Question’, Dialectical Anthropology 28(1):
11–32.
Duby, G. (1968) Rural Economy and Country Life in the Medieval West. Columbia:
University of South Carolina Press.
Earle, T.K. (1981) ‘Comment on “Evolution of Specialized Pottery Production: A
Trial Model” by Prudence M. Rice’, Current Anthropology 22(2): 230–1.
Ebert, V. and T.C. Patterson (forthcoming) ‘Gender in South American Archaeol-
ogy’, in S.M. Nelson (ed.) The Handbook of Gender in Archaeology. Walnut
Creek, CA: Altamira Press.
Evans, R.K. (1978) ‘Early Craft Specialization: An Example from the Balkan
Neolithic’, in C.L. Redman, M.J. Berman, E.V. Curtin, W.T. Langhorne, Jr, N.M.
Versaggi and J.C. Wanser (eds) Social Archeology: Beyond Subsistence and
Dating, pp. 113–29. New York: Academic Press.
Fox-Genovese, E. (1976) The Origins of Physiocracy: Economic Revolution and
Social Order in Eighteenth-Century France. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Gailey, C.W. and T.C. Patterson (1988) ‘State Formation and Uneven Development’,
in J. Gledhill, B. Bender and M.T. Larsen (eds) State and Society: The Emergence
and Development of Social Hierarchy and Political Centralization, pp. 77–90.
London: Unwin Hyman.
Gero, J.M. and M.C. Scattolin (2002) ‘Beyond Complementarity and Hierarchy:
New Definitions for Archaeological Gender Relations’, in S.M. Nelson and M.
Rosen-Ayalon (eds) In Pursuit of Gender: Worldwide Archaeological
Approaches, pp. 155–72. Walnut Creek: Altamira Press.
Gudeman, S. (2001) The Anthropology of Economy. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Harris, E.M. (2002) ‘Workshop, Marketplace, and Household: The Nature of Tech-
nical Specialization in Classical Athens and its Influence on Economy and
Society’, in P. Cartledge, E.E. Cohen and L. Foxhall (eds) Money, Labour, and
Land: Approaches to the Economies of Ancient Greece, pp. 67–99. London:
Routledge.
Hastorf, C. (1991) ‘Gender, Space, and Food in Prehistory’, in J.M. Gero and M.W.
Conkey (eds) Engendering Archaeology: Women and Prehistory, pp. 132–62.
Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Heckscher, E.F. (1955) Mercantilism, Vol. 1. London: George Allen and Unwin.
Hicks, F. (1986) ‘Prehispanic Background of Colonial Political and Economic
Organization in Central Mexico’, in Victoria Bricker (ed.) Supplement to the
Handbook of Middle American Indians, Vol. 4, pp. 35–54. Austin, TX: University
of Texas Press.
Hicks, F. (1987) ‘First Steps Toward a Market-Integrated Economy in Aztec Mexico’,
in H.J.M. Claessen and P. van de Velde (eds) Early State Dynamics, pp. 91–107.
Leiden: E.J. Brill.
Hicks, F. (1999) ‘The Middle Class in Ancient Central Mexico’, Journal of Anthro-
pological Research 55(3): 409–28.
Hilton, R. (1992) English and French Towns in Feudal Society: A Comparative Study.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hobsbawm, E.J., ed. (1964) ‘Introduction’, in K. Marx: Pre-Capitalist Economic
Formations, pp. 9–65. London: Lawrence and Wishart.
Jones, P.M. (1988) The Peasantry in the French Revolution. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Kriedte, P., H. Medick and J. Schlumbohm (1977/1981) Industrialization before
Industrialization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Leacock, E.B. (1982) ‘Relations of Production in Band Societies’, in E. Leacock and
R. Lee (eds) Politics and History in Band Societies, pp. 159–70. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Locke, J. (1690/1980) Second Treatise on Government. Indianapolis: Hackett
Publishing.
Löwy, M. and R. Sayre (2001) Romanticism Against the Tide of Modernity. Durham:
Duke University Press.
McNally, D. (1988) Political Economy and the Rise of Capitalism: A Reinterpretation.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
McNally, D. (1993) Against the Market: Political Economy, Market Socialism and the
Marxist Critique. London: Verso.
Magnusson, L. (1994) Mercantilism: The Shaping of an Economic Language.
London: Routledge.
Marx, K. (1847/1963) The Poverty of Philosophy: Answer to the ‘Philosophy of
Poverty’, Written by M. Proudhon. New York: International Publishers.
Marx, K. (1857–8/1973) Grundrisse: Introduction to the Critique of Political
Economy. New York: Vintage Books.
Marx, K. (1859/1970) A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy. New
York: International Publishers.
Marx, K. (1863–7/1977) Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Vol. 1. New York:
Vintage Books.
Marx, K. (1880–2/1974) The Ethnological Notebooks of Karl Marx. Assen: Van
Gorcum and Company.
Marx, K. (1881/1983) ‘Marx-Zasulich Correspondence: Letters and Drafts’, in
T. Shanin (ed.) Late Marx and the Russian Road: Marx and ‘The Peripheries of
Capitalism’, pp. 97–126. New York: Monthly Review Press.
Marx, K. and F. Engels (1844–5/1974) The German Ideology. New York: Inter-
national Publishers.
Marx, K. and F. Engels (1848/1998) ‘The Manifesto of the Communist Party’, in E.J.
Hobsbawm (ed.) The Communist Manifesto: A Modern Edition, pp. 31–77.
London: Verso.
Meek, R.L. (1962) The Economics of Physiocracy: Essays and Translations. London:
George Allen and Unwin.
Meek, R.L. (1976) Social Science and the Ignoble Savage. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Murra, J.V. (1980) The Economic Organization of the Inka State. Greenwich: JAI
Press.
Nikin, A.A. (1975) A Science in its Youth (Pre-Marxian Political Economy).
Moscow: Progress Publishers.
Oakley, A. (1984–5) Marx’s Critique of Political Economy: Intellectual Sources and
Evolution, 2 vols. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Outhwaite, W. (1994) Habermas: A Critical Introduction. Stanford: Stanford
University Press.
Patterson, T.C. (1987) ‘Merchant Capital and the Formation of the Inca State’,
Dialectical Anthropology 12(2): 217–28.
Patterson, T.C. (1992) The Inca Empire: The Formation and Disintegration of a Pre-
Capitalist State. Oxford: Berg Publishers.
Patterson, T.C. (1997) Inventing Western Civilization. New York: Monthly Review
Press.
Patterson, T.C. (2003) Marx’s Ghost: Conversations with Archaeologists. Oxford:
Berg Publishers.
Pyburn, K.A. (2004) ‘Preface’, in K.A. Pyburn (ed.) Ungendering Civilization,
pp. xi–xiii. London: Routledge.
Redfield, R. (1942/1962) ‘The Folk Society’, in M.P. Redfield (ed.) Papers of Robert
Redfield, Vol. 1, pp. 231–53. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Rubin, I.I. (1929/1979) A History of Economic Thought. London: Ink Links.
Sahlins, M.D. (1972) Stone Age Economics. Chicago: Aldine Publishers.
Schortman, E.M. and P.A. Urban (2004) ‘Modeling the Roles of Craft Production in
Ancient Political Economies’, Journal of Archaeological Research 12(2): 185–226.
Siskind, J. (1991) ‘Class Discourse in an Early 19th-Century New England Factory’,
Dialectical Anthropology 16(1): 35–50.
Smith, A. (1776/1976) An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of
Nations, 2 vols. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Stein, G.J. (1998) ‘Heterogeneity, Power, and Political Economy: Some Current
Research Issues in the Archaeology of Old World Complex Societies’, Journal
of Archaeological Research 6(1): 1–44.
Stein, G.J. and M.J. Blackman (1993) ‘The Organizational Context of Specialized
Craft Production in Early Mesopotamian States’, Research in Economic Anthro-
pology 14: 29–59.
Testart, A. (1986) Le communisme primitif, tome 1, Economie et idéologie. Paris:
Editions de la Maison des Sciences de l’Homme.