THE COMPARATIVE ARCHAEOLOGY OF COMPLEX SOCIETIES ated by ‘Michael E, Smith Arion Sate Unison CAMBRIDGE ‘UsIVERSIFY PRESSGomi Nev Yr torn, Mab, Cape Tow, ‘Srp Sno ut aly, Mace ly Serum fh on New Yk, 0-403 rigenrosengise © Combige Using Pet sot: sor isco hang ts emton of Caubdge Dry Ere Prien the Une Stes of Aerie Ao pin ie fe Bi Ly Lio of Cop Cg Pi do ‘Thecomprntveatcag of cmp aie yj Michal. Sith Inladertigrpl rnc in, ISivusbegstarenstuniac-navipeese-iar opt) {Sealand Sl yrage Config 1 Sih Mie sw grosert7ats Halak | | | CONTENTS List of Tables List of Figures Contributors Foreword by Jeremy A. Sabloff Preface COMPARATIVE ARCHAEOLOGY: A COMMITMENT TO. UNDERSTANDING VARIATION Robert D. Drennan, Tanothy Earle, Gary M, Fenn, Roland Fhe, Michael. Kol, Peter Peregrine, Chitin F Petra, Gal Sinopo, Michael E, Smith, Money L. Smith Barbe L Sk, sd Mira T. Stk ccharrin2 APPROACHES TO COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS IN ARCHAEOLOGY Michoe E. Smith sn Peer Peregrine ‘COMPARATIVE FRAMES FOR THE DIACHRONIC ANALYSIS: (OF COMPLEX SOCIETIES. NEXT STEPS Gary ML Feinmanso THE COMPARATIVE ARCHAEOLOGY OF COMPLEX SOCIETIES Store, Glens R. 1939 Archaecogy aml Roms Sox: Inegating Teta and rchawoogial Dr, Formal of bag Rr 72058 “Thema Cys +898 porto Mound Eeplorson of the Bares of Amen Thoin ir fe Brae of ser Bboy 13774 “Ty, Charles 1984 By Spare Large Pras age Compares Rese ‘Sige Founistion, New Yor. “Tonge, Bruce Gp Sailr Ev Cabo and Cuoge Blak we Oxford 2005 Undoing Early Chitin: A Compare Sry. Cami ‘Univers Press New York Boos Hwy of bug! Thane Cambridge Uniesy Pres, New Yor “Tylon Edvard B pt Prin Cues ol J. Mary, Landon ‘Ward Kevin 2009 Towards Relonl ComparveAppcih othe Stay of Gis: Pre b Hema Graal 3-1 \WebuesJae 008 Lass Beloved Roman Slag, ler, the Fir 0 Compare. tre sonata 0-35 ‘Westen, Jer Le 1994 Varies of Geoprapbie Comparison nthe Earth “Tented vo he dei of mr Grape 8431-5. ‘Whe Lec. ss Te Beso of Coe Thx Deep of eat e Pao aoe McGrsu-Fl Now York, \WhilngJohn Wand Bs Ayes 96 nencs fom dhe Shope of Dusting: Selecta cded ty KeangChih hog pp. 87e35. ale Usersty Press New Five, ‘engayin,Arsm& itr 2036 Malo Compr Thay on Prax Univesy “ichigin rem, An Abr ‘ote Norn 993 Tm any Chico Sees then In dre “el Pheu S the ent? ete bp Norman Ve and Andre Shera, ‘9. 078: Cambeidge Univers Press, New York CHAPTER 3 COMPARATIVE FRAMES FOR THE DIACHRONIC ANALYSIS OF COMPLEX SOCIETIES NEXT STEPS Gary M. Feiaman “The top scientific discovery according to the journal Stems in 2007 (Kenney 2007) wt the radng that the DNA of ll mans ince alike, “More specially, he extent of person-to-person genomiedversiy mich seater than was expected (Pennisi 2007). To place this breakthrough in ontst, it was les than ten years ago that che ste publeston proudly announced the uneling of The Human Genome" (Jsny and Kennedy 43001), although in hirmess the furure comparison of diferest human fenomic sequences was aniipaed. What genetics iil conceived to beaspecesovidegenomic pater encompasing relatively sims ele- ‘ments of ndividal variation has even a this early date been shown to be tore diverse chan st cients imagined, Although these research findings in evolutionary bilogy lave been played outa warp seed, perhaps chi path of discovery and interpre has a degree of andogical utility fr those of us who study human soi ‘ees over long temporal sales or deep history. More than » century a0, ‘rly social scent recognized broad patterns of human societal versity (, Morgan 187) Yer the fs recogntions of such diversity were ofen mistakenly commingled with element of human biology. Mote than af czntury later, smilr overarching schemes of hynan organietion were resurrected and refamed as Marsst and neoevoluionry theoretical per spectves.Butby thisime eg, White r949), thes eas were ppuopritly ‘scranged fom the simple bilogiea explanations of prior eras, Neverthe Jes, the later conceptual approaches, ike chose of ah elie, essed broad modes of socal diversity (suchas Servie's (rp eteares of bands ries, chiefdoms, sates) hat were organized and dierented by2 THE COMPARATIVE ARCHAEOLOGY OF COMPLEX SOCIETIES lstinet degrees of poltco-economic complexity. As with the 200% eary ‘genomic work, che emphassin these sedies wos understandably on the broadsbrush modal pattems, ‘Thus key works of this era featured tes such a The Econ of Culture (White r950), Primitive acl Onganzarion (Gervice 1971, The Eran of Pain Sar (Bred 96), nd The Eo lanion of the Probitric Stare (Haas 1983). The focus ofthis comparative ‘work was on sila, and uch discussion centered on evsoating the relative merits of diferent prime movers thet might uniformly account for the eramstion to more bierrchical modes of rgnizaton atcha thse) inditferenc regions of the globe, Since the mid-twentieth century, © great del has been leamed about societal change and diversity by both anthropological archaeologists and Scholars in aacentdssiplines. Ae with the investgution of the human genome, much ofthis ew knowledge highlights sigaican aspect of pat termed variation sithin the broad ders of organizational complexity tha vere outlined decides ago. Infact, i seems evident that recent compar tive efforts have recognized this greater diversity, adopting tides with Plural nouns such as roe Stare (Feinman and Marcus 1998), Empires, {Alcock eral. 2001), Chima: Power, Esnumy, ad Leaog Eaele +951), Unieranding Early Cision (Trigger 2003), and Clase ction te Formation of Pre-Mern Stare (Blanton and Fargher 2008). Nevertheless, iis a central enee of ths chaprer tha key frames tha were pat of that -nid-ewenticth-centry Framework remain in place and req jodiious reevaluation and modiication. Specifically, argue for more systmacieand croseacplinary approaches to examine the recognized variation within broad organizational modes (such as “sares) In other words, compara ‘ve approaches now focus on societal variation a wel a sialartey and ‘modified theoretial frames are neces to accommodate and explain the ‘ariation in societies that cou be lumped under the rubric “sttes* hie,” fr that matter. Furthermore, archaeological dialogues and frameworks forthe consid ration of hiersechcilyenganied societies should he open to theoret- cal constrcts and conceptual ames that are curreny being employed Jn cognate disciplines where the stay of societal change and variation ie alsoa serious and ongoing focs. Oue comparative archseologial perspec tives on human groups and groupings should nor necessarily be eticed to the past, but shoul ideally contribute ro and proft fom compari tive studies of societal organization inthe more recent past and even che preten. (COMPARATIVE IRAMES FORTHE DIACHRONIC ANALYSIS a3, ‘The Challenge: Understanding Societal Change and Diversity Following decides of sustained fieldwork, in conjunction with inno- sative Laboratory analyses, amplifed computer technologies, and new archival invetgaions,diachtonic studies of complex/hirchiel soe ties in anthropological archaeology are on afr rer and gecgrphically bronderempiica footing today than ever before. In most global areas, the depth and quality of publshed/eadilysvuiable information on past Socioeconomic oganiatons have increased by several orders of magi rode ove the stat of knowledge By years ago, And, in certainkey places ‘we now poses sigicandy amplified, even entirely novel, penptives at ‘he regional and comesirhoute scales, These vantages provide empicl bases to asses seven, economy and power relations in was hat were no: posible befor. Tn addtion to anchropolegica archaeology, scholars sruted ia large ‘numberof cognate discipline (or sectors there, incluing history, chs= sic, aren studies, politi science, economic history, and socology, are also seudying shifts (and theosiing shout variation and change in human socioeconomic arangetents ove long tine horizons. oneal, thete preciow litle dalogue and slmostno consensus across these dsiplines regarding how to conceptualize complex socipalial formations or even bron accepeec metalngvage to facta the exchange of fermion an comparison, Within anthropological archacology, where the invest {ation of hese sss has ong heen recognized as fal top esearch, 8 sizable ition of practconers seems to eschew systematic comparison, 1nd relatively lls elf is devoted to engaging those researhers wich related interests outside of anthropology In fa, while achacoligis have been effective in conveying tothe press and the publi their clans for the aest or the richest, they have Bee Jess sncesfl ac diseminating the fil’ long-standing interests in and contributions to the eof (and variation in hierarchical polital organizations. The lack of effective bedges and communication to her disiplne has its cows, For esmple, recently Sexe (Kennedy and Norman 108) ote lined 135 bigrimporant questions thacwere diving contemporary siete research. These included *how cana skin cellbucome a nerve el "can the Jnws ofphysesbe unified” and "are we slonein the universe" Rereaby, ‘elacvely few questions from the social sciences were even placed on the list anda much sraller subset of them concerned the dynamics of human24 THE COMPARATIVE ARCHAEOLOGY OF COMPLEX SOCIETIES sacl formations, Nowhere o be found were ies ach (oF elated “Oye docs neal beeome installed in aman sce," and aha coe an conn histo ave engendered mas societies soa il, and corte” Such earch er are ot el eer tfersanding or tsi asa spel, but they are relevant eating Shing poltcosconon hams toy ‘On Suen ie tc only ution tn wa losin coment foreme stened oa qucsions about soe grit wt “ow dos cope ‘Me betwiot eve” Peni sons) Cert hs perden ee ‘Sean to our bond undersaning of man voit binge. Ye the pusher bekhroughs wat fine sos alive Within the Tfmuincafevclaonar biology and gn toy Absent wasany mention archaclogeempa ings rewding bow human Sve proup- Sean the equations of coop beinor have changed ore sme 1 sed over sce Peni on) By ring he eof rod n= he nin ne ge ess of Sine sete en concen rearing they thr anthropos Shy tdci communis si ge (200 te es nd fener eduewed pli T hs esd ris oro ino nsec hac de owe rad read sews ets onthe ies and cols of ‘Sonex sotes (Diamond opp, 005) ere writen by nonarhao top ‘the contrition of theory andthe cngace sy of stlement cennonand power ne dephisory in many tener version of - Sree imeton of wor hon” le sss ao Norhrap Seog: Sanetiontyprns) tha cereal ees oa eoner on Ho Ron sole ey expnd ecnfigre and ary ver ine. The pst ithe i win eon oro se ree far ameopology more tan sgh yest of, ene satel that "we ty de eure ce scege owner he ep hick man hs come to be at he lg pelo nd ‘Mhuntly.” What eit about the sell enterprise th Boss em SToned thal nels oral a charac ad ec compare esmith 0060 hasemphasied ashe icefsererdexdesf relate shel is nao ee od ee ao ‘te appro to comple soc ine For in accord wk Hone indap kh sthere a ngiy, m oknoe, without omparson Fe {sto mmponanttoswes tht omparsoneoughtsartoberescel © oe Shen nano pr whe cre pari pPro2c ‘COMPARATIVE FAMES FORTHE DIACHRONIC ANALYSIS. a5, the history off, the contemporary biologic eoluionary sys com= parative analyses soc evolution should be considered and ented along ‘arious dimension and scales they inform and are appropri framed ty) overarching theoretial questions. Although this may seem obous, tress this pint in contrast roa recent approach (Yofee 3005) that argves thaspecitie sequences of ocietl change looked atin thei eniey) are the ‘principal gest for comparative study. The auton of chi approach sto find and emphasis the “uniqueness” of many parila dischreno series ‘Yee sequences of change tll ws lite of broader relevance abot the past without Slering in some understanding ofthe dams ofthe sci and economic formations and other broader principles chat help w nerpret sad understand thee sequences Here agua, an inalogy withthe theoretical fame for he history of lie Isinformative. asthe overarching concep me for the invesigation of human social evlstion wil have tobe just = complex and mulifeceted, ‘fot moreso (Shermer 2007; Wats 2007). Specific branching sequences of biological evluonary change are import fo the synthetic theory of lie’ history (asthe are for socal evolution). Yer its not shone historical sequence (eg, the evoliton of horses or betes) when examined on thet ‘own that have advanced biological knowledge. Rather, the apicaion of ‘more general, ovenching principles ~ concerning reproduce ates, predator and prey relations, socials, popultion/resource dynamics (nd tertainy genetics) as well many ether broadly comparsiverebstons to the study of chose sequences serves to explain the history of ie both in the general and spc ene, “The remainder ofthis dscassion advances major initiatives expand ann enkance the eomparaive fame tha archacologiss employ examine ‘comples societies. This Broadening agenda ought to include bath incens fed eft to daloue and communicate with other disciplines and explo- racionstowarda mstalanguage or theoreti res that ae les parochial instructre (ee Pearson and Shera 2008) and promote more tematic analyses of the vation in complex societies (parcularysoctes with comparable degres of hierarchical compli. IF there ae inllectal reasons to seprega the study of non-Western ciseshistores,attaeolog- ically mown complex societies or the subst of early (Formerly cusidere “pristine states, then these reasons shoul be deionstrated or oriented 10 specitc problem foi. They should nos reece abitrary o antiquated scplinary barvies or residues thar largely reflect scholarly prices or Drones ser decaces if not centuries, ago and maintained forthe most ar by inersn/pracce (Wallerstein 2003)26 THE COMPARATIVE ARCHAEOLOGY OF COMPLEX SOCIETIES More spel, propose that an expansion of the base or dinensina ae hn empaes beret comps an dios racer uation), employed for mare thn ly yes y ho pli achaclgin i neces 0 connate varition more Tenuta Seer thera reson den frm diferene olny Telion reintoducduarntende define scone orinpor {intare of artim stl nso with simar Jers of herr Compleiy-Fhseindependem, yep penpecnes oer den Fr theoreal expansion, whl ssting the potential gin om enbaned ‘row-ciplinry eommuniiion, Ath sme Gn, they chalenge al tales repaing rection or Hiseon in which hoes ees iy fing be omg Expanding the Comparative Frame As outlined elie, che examination of sce sequences (or mote tothe Poin, shits in che arcifcral record of» given region overtime are just ts inadequate for understanding societal evauton a5 narrow treatments of the fossil record alone would beta explain the history of ite. Nevertheless, she paced in 2 bole omparate hese coment he ama vantages of diachronie perspectives over src syichronic analyses ate tient (Adams 2004'349). For ehe reason, is uaforranate that frame- tvorks and findings derived from the comparative examination of archaic ‘complex sociecies are 0 rarely engaged by scholarly considerations of later ieneratons of sates (eg, Smith 3206) and vie vers. Clearly, a wide- "inging dialogue, f not even an overarching Ser of ideas comparing sites and sateerft and the eyling (15s, falls and shies in implementation of paltial power, would be highly informative and could enhance the kinds bf paterned variation recognizable in the corps of complen societies pst tnd present (ee Jones and Philips 2005 for 3 parallel argumen [As Trigger (20033) stated succinctly “The most important isue n= fronting the social scence isthe extentto which himan behaviours shaped Ly factors that operat ros-cultrallyas opposed eo factors hacare unique particule cultures” Yet, given this all nd the related argument ‘expand the seape of such comparisons, irs necessary wo assess ad recon- Sider hon anthropological archaeologists genersly have framed the ise ‘of similrises and diflerences in archaic states/complex societies. Although focused attention has on ecasion been given productively to subsers oF cemples societies, such as smal (iy) states (eg, Hansen 2000; Nichols snd Chaveon 1997) and empires (Aleck er al 2601, les theory building ‘COMPARATIVE FLAMES FOR THE DIACHRONIC ANALYSIS. a7 nd stematic corpo sen devored to the construcon of ore fener frames at teat inet organizatoal proper i crs Cakeal theories onparionand conta) tdgmmicand change erst Tiger 9) I propose hats eposioning oreo a he predominant neeoluioay there penpetive wold beg ehaee tle approaches ore ine wih compare ef inca In Sines while oping wp th potential for more overchingFemenerks forth say of pond presen cmp ates Asim eae th fling iewsion a rato in cong so ses deroples tht eonsertion fom any nessa b oie pth ‘yo change ee Deman gr) In aero exainn y Specie regional oreven loa quence, neither pres moat ond. Brash reevonal sk oer tmeisasumed (eg Blanonctl eh). Chasen soo:4-4). Empl there seems le spor ee the notion hasan precede ge ploe Ye soa) ‘the cones tater ser eerily says aie ite enc ‘ise ino sar ple ni ek Maris gp, 98) nf cle and reconfigure conten fears ofthe Morel ond od the hres of dtrene regions ine alienate pte. re ee ie comergn pt ofchge or en ol ena ey recon innariesoch bit pers eq enplaron sn ought not be considered peodsne or ata” Nevertheless to ares ‘derstand sce very and cong comparte fnew ce {sary ashe ce cent fos here Anglophone atropolge rchcobgy, nos comparntieandoeo- cxoaionaty approx have ben founded forthe bee pt fre decades (if 0 ong in the recolaton ead by Stinson Seree (9) ofthe eenly conor evohanry apron seed reins by thet nena Whit (949 1959 a Stevan og) Tk !nanion Gee parley Sali yf) petony sen deed std and arene by many thors (Chesen seco gto Fney 49, Sanderson topctsrgh Sennen sg74 Tepe 19892) THe rsconclaon cued two ere apts of he netlist rch ‘ends, general and pci sce velo. Basel, general leon ‘otensonedava son the bod shared cial pts else ated with nrg oraneatona sompleny uch thee feee af Servic’ [97 wodel of bn ee, chitlom, ao), wheren pete ‘voluon was define! a the fans on the remand prema ees gue aspects af socal arin linked co parole eon dione and exsepeccadipations to vaying sodaemitonmentl cosiccor28. THE COMPARATIVE ARCHAEOLOGY OF COMPLEX SOCIETIES “The focus of speci evolution isthe individual pathway followed by each sociocultural grouping, society, or regional population; in contrast, the main concern of general evolution i the defntion/denteatin of he pterned variation (ean Drennan and Peterson 2008) sociated expicty With stepped increases in onganizasional compli From this theoreti Feame, which hasbeen a east mpc employed in many archaeological analyses ctosteulturl salaries are generally searched for and reo nized a indicators oF properties of dsinct levels of hierarchical eomplex- ig, whereas variation within these modes is presumed eo ave a bassin more cae-specife or idespncrate crs “The proposed framework suggested Here builds on these prior stadies that hive recognized broad cros-cltural paters of varaion assciated ‘vith increasing hierarchical complet. Ar the same time, my pine not to tke isue withthe obvious and important influences of lol histories, for environs on societal diversity or change inorder ro account for erin specie fearres Goan Hatis 196845) leary local, cultural, seemingly idisynertie actors ate one dimension of societal variation. Patorsassoci- sted with liferene degrees ofhierareiclcomplesityareasecond although this isnot an effort relly social type (Goch “chiefdoms” and “sexes -My strong reservations regarding the eg adherence to (or reification of) such societal taxonomies have been expressed elsewhere Blanton etal 1993:13-23;Feivan and Neel 198) Nevertheless, fone unpacks such “organizational types or mod, reasonably clear hat eroseeutualy there isa srong correlation across societies between hierarchical complex ity an elements of organisational sele, namely poly sie and the ie ofa sociey’s largest community (, Feinman 199959-6; Kosse rope, tlso Drennan and Peterson, this volume). As hasbeen long dacumented in ‘many prior suis, other societal variables broad eoerelat with these evo factors aswell eg Fried 196; Johnson and Earle 2000; Service 1972) ‘Yer the am here isto expand the extant interpretive frame to include 4 new comparative dimension, in order to recognize and systematically ‘explore the patterned variation associated wih lferene coss-culural prac- tics of socioeconomic integration. Diverse yet pate moves of socio= ‘economic integration maybe found across societies with relatly compa Fable degrees of hierarchic complex The bse premises of che Sahlns and Service (1960) theoretical recon ciation have beon widely influential for che interpretation of silrites tnd diferences by anthropological archaeologist over the last decades “The influence of this evo-dimensional approach o understanding societal versity may pardy stem from its parallel to eae approaches including ‘nco-Marsian analyses (ef Armills 1957) and Coons (1962) terminology i 1 1 | ‘COMPARATIVE FRAMES FOR THE DIACHRONIC ANALYSIS ay Of 9 ann en Seder ad yay are, this bie famewrk fs had mah les npc in he dpe as tse Toogins doe eee ee tener aca ese ae ‘hora pir sonal nicceboapaen et ind not ick neon yon dice orton op tet inprcny, nd cr he apa oe ae fom sare adam iis tcoinp de tae her comet paar te ie fas trope an thera cong oleae ee “Bauplan® fe Spencer gpysaq) Adltonlaces eevee, coodeee Organizing Diversity within Hierarchical Modes Athogh thei sof cere vaion freely been draenei ce Tiger 1995 br na eet ‘aay ihe ge gs anatase eed purl invert te popes aon ea ee Inder major wleloeaVearmenatne Secu n a e OF sts hve od te sal tates pat of ea ee fen sting» eds on tn sae ee a degrees of connectivity with neighboring states, smaller bureaucratic ik nln py ag i ‘Triger cpp) In the sine vein there ave properses of open ta cinta haere, emerges Sneek wane, that distinguish them from smaller polities (Alcock ee al. 2001; Doyle 1986; Sinopoiscovaas-). Likewise, germ srecigny sad Satcher ed etna a wos mnie a oe ted iene my men sat fom th of ee anes frit fc Chesen 98s pesca ee ‘ts nel cn eee eg soe es tnd pylon he mme st ete nao Skee ne pa Haun and. Seu soo Nee ‘inv pperia hyped otal Wen eed oti ln Ty 99) maa te pessoa ps ion and Ferry, Fay ate ee Rael ti consis pocnes sored ea Orne aes (ihe Fat oe ealshed sep eat ea th proc tel th oration of etn om30 THE COMPARATIVE ARCHAEOLOGY OF COMPLEX SOCIETIES oes not imply chat the organizational properties ofthese pristine sates ‘were more similar asa group 38 compared t ater states, ‘fea and certain communiation/transpore technologies canbe linked to (orpattem with) other characterise of sates, then other eos-eultural ss of varintion in complex societies are also worth investigating. Here, 1 facus on different modes of palitco-economie integration in complex ‘Through an array ofdilferent approaches, some more theoretically driven (whereas others work more empitically from a more targeted contss of specifi ass), a range of scholar, working independently in diferent de “Fem Mery. ful ipa dda eho chan Ear ip Towed s Neco Sow Taal ri 3445-65. Leni Marae 988 OF ulead Rene Unie of Cato Pe, Dil Uc eo 9 Th as Da, Ute Ms Pes Som IH The Corn Dio. Universo Michigan Pr, Ann Ae ‘Maren doe ip: Briere Moen Se Pos inMesoumern. Neo Gp Reva Eglin ys al Teen alopotnce Sens tne yan ‘ode in ra Su eed by Gay M Fenman ane ses fo 14, Scho of Aran Resear Pro Sana Fe a sot The Area Een or il Erolon dun Rei of i as, Est 8 Th vf Baga Touhy Hara, Con il Briar ton 09a ers Sg te Pee Sune. The Uy of rons Pres Tro42 THE COMPARATIVE ARCHAEOLOGY OF COMPLEX SOCIETIES Morgan, Lewis 1877 din Sty, Wold Pblsing NewYork NOY Deborah aud Thorns 1: Charon cor 1997 Thr ray of ‘Suter Cs Cutra spatosSboin Tsvon Pros, Was ome Nontirp, Dasid 30s Glotltion nd the Gres Convergence: Rethinking “Wt! Hiner inte Long erm Jmol Wid Hi 1), Located snhieonerpesste one fer ovan seed (arth Arsen Greks Can Tall Usabou Dena: ea Re Pal Se 899 (non Mca tg The Lag of Cnc Ati Pai Gad and te Toy ‘Gaps anand Unies Pes, Cai esr os and Laweeor W. Sherman 2204 Te Achiwemens Fr “mand romeo the Sool Sener Aly Aeron ley of Pia! tv Sa Stu 5-5 nls Plvabe soos How Did Cooperate Rehr Ele Sins 393 a crey Becatvengh ofthe Near Human Gene Varian. Stee pik. ene e974 Beyond Susence Economy The Elson of Sxl Op isan n alr Earp Ia Ronan Cpe Sti ccc [Ey Cayo eed by Caro B. Moor: p. 698 Supplement coe Bulecn sf the venta Schl of Orel Revert No, 0: Masachuets Insane of Technology, Cambri. leo Commodiaton an san in Group Onented and Indie Tang Sac Te Ov of Han Sal Fon ite WV. Rancitan pp 9p-t7,Osrd Uniesiy Pres Ovo Roldan Surin togy Maddie and Methods the Comparative Sey of Nan Buling a Soy 35-73 asser Brce Mg neu Insta The Relation of Land Tere to olin Wot Ress. Saline rl D. gto Esl: Ses abd Gener zi nd Clo, tel by Marshal Saline and Ean Sepp. 1-44, Us tichigan Pres An Arbor Schlna Marsal Daa Elman R.Senice (ttn) toto Et and Cl ‘Unwersyo Michignn Prem Aan acon. Sanders Wiliam and Barr), Pee 1058 Mesmerie The Bo of ‘Craton. Randen Hose, New Yor. Sanderson, Sper igo Soi in Ctl Hiya Pa Titers Combe, MA Segrney Barua A tong Flo Genera and Seucl Transrmati 37 Socakarl Syme Sree 6830-93 Sen, Eman tops Pinna Sod Onna ste Ein Psp ‘Second Ein, Random Hose New York. Shermer Mice s0y The Rely Hard Secs. rom 29g Sino Car Msoo1 Epes Inne the Sie: Sore ‘ake by Gay Mi Fen snd Dou Pi, por Klorer ‘Teor Plpn Publ, New ork COMPARATIVEFRAMES FORTHE DIACHRONIC ANALYSIS 3 Shih Michal 200 How Do Archos Compare ay Ss ras _Annbrapolgy 3555-35. “Sensis spencer Chats 5. 1597 Fsluonry Approaches in Arche, Paral rn, att Een Arocha Ar Jarl f Spe enc soon The Oris, Delmon and Poaible Dee of “Modern State, dana Review of Political Science $:127-49. ci Seve uian Hog Catared Caaiy ad ne al Fomulion of be Devlpmen ol fal Cilsatone mec cintnpabgr sian Sion, Bred Lowel 308 The Evan of Cale nd Seco Te Ameria iy Chae iy, Chitty 197 Ween See Maing ad Thor f Pll Trango nn The Smarr Sa nar Ea te oy Chr mE Pint Ung fem ico eee OM Misra; Lage Prose nt Fe Gap, Rassl Sa Foandation Nev York a ane se Pratt id chins of Docs. Sehgal Thy “Torlo, Mic 159 Hume Adon fr Cle. emai of te hit stsor39 . ger Bee G8 Hy of ug! Tag, Camp Ue Press, Cambridge. cea eoominaieaes 199) Eh Cileine: Amie Bp Cn. Ant Uae ‘Cairo Press, Cairo, ae eee Sp) oii Er Citi. Cae Unie Pes Ga “Trait Mary Beth. c00Moand Bsiingand rege Goat Esch fg Seite Calin Cian strane esas Wales marl so) Anping, Sco td Os Bao i nce Coen dtp ggg ne ns Oe Dao Di Was Dane 3071 Teeny ie Cnr See. Nu 4 White, Les gp The Sime of Cure Noa Oe, uate of A Study of Men amd Civcaion. Grove, 1959 Th ion f Cale Te Despont Sms | MeGraw-Fill, New York. siti tat ey, Gordon 1559 Ser an Ste Formations. Latin 1 Ses and Sue Formations. Latin teria diy Warne Ra E y on of Bo indi elite His, Ue Caen aes Norman cc Mts ben Su: eon ofthe i Se Bein ofthe Ere Ci Sr hiss. Carrie Univer Br, Came, ia Fa Meet Lincs on Missin Lederip. In Loi and ly Iv Miigion Suey, eed by Bran M. Butera Pal D. Wee BR 398-fr. Came for Arceesloge Incestigasons, Ocesondl Pap Suter nis Unies, Carbondale ce