Bondarenko Dmitri M. Homoarchy

12
ones. Remarkably, according to Whiting and Childe (1953) the dependence
training is associated precisely with extended families, whereas the respective
socialization pattern tends to ensure the compliance in the performance of
assigned tasks and dependence on the family, rather than reliance on oneself,
which would tend to produce a personality type compatible with homoarchic
rather than heterarchic sociopolitical systems (see also Bondarenko and
Korotayev 2000b). This is typical of not only such paradigmatic examples of
heterarchic cultures as the ancient polis and civitas, some late-ancient and
early-medieval European societies, or Western countries from the time of
Renaissance on, but also of many other cultures, probably less prominent
though not less significant for anthropological theorizing: egalitarian huntergatherers
(e.g., Gardner 2000), “acephalous complex societies” of mountainous
areas like the Himalayas (e.g., Leach 1954; Fьrer-Haimendorf 1962; Berezkin
1995a; 1995b; Shinkaryov 1997), the Caucasus (e.g., Khashaev 1961; Ikhilov
1967; Magometov 1978; Aglarov 1988), etc., the most complex of which
resemble the socio-political model of the Greek polis (Aglarov 1988;
Korotayev 1995c; Kisriev 2004: 23), tribal societies of the Americas (e.g.,
Lowie 1935; Oberg 1953; Hoebel 1960; Hickerson 1962; Harner 1972), Eurasia
(e.g., Barth 1959; Irons 1975; Tapper 1983; Korotayev 1998b), and Africa
(e.g., Evans-Pritchard 1940; Tait 1961; Hart 2000; Bonte 2004), or the sociopolitical
organization of Iceland in the “Age of Democracy” (930 – 1267) (e.g.,
Tomasson 1980; Hastrup 1985; Byock 1988) unclassifiable in categories
commonly accepted in anthropology, to mention just a few.
Bruce Trigger (2003: 196–197, 661, 665–666) postulates that
heterarchical relations played greater role in small city-states than in larger citystates
and territorial states. Even if Trigger is correct with respect to what he
defines as “early civilizations”, the regularity “the smaller territory, the more
heterarchy” is clearly inapplicable to non-state and modern industrial societies.
For example, a typical tribe, generally heterarchic (vide stricto Service
1971/1962: 103, 142, 145–146; 1975: 63–70; 1978b: 4–6; Fried 1975; Haas and
Creamer 1993: 1–9; Rogers 1995; Southall 1996; Bonte 2000), covers
relatively vast territory while a typical chiefdom is both generally homoarchic
(vide stricto Service 1971/1962: 133–169; 1975: 15–16; 1978b: 6–8; Feinman
1996; Muller, J.-C. 2000; Beliaev et al. 2001) and territorially more compact
than the tribe. As for modern societies, the elaboration of principles of
federalism and representative governmental bodies (local and national), joint
with the development of means of communication eliminated the territory size
as a significant predictor of societal type. However, in light of the tendency
noticed by Trigger, we may regard early civilizations as cultures in which a
very important general feature leading to heterarchy or homoarchy found the
most vivid and materially visible expression. This feature is that normally
more heterarchy can be observed in the societies in which interpersonal face-to-