Bondarenko Dmitri M. Homoarchy
Bondarenko Dmitri M. Homoarchy
Bondarenko Dmitri M. Homoarchy
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
ББК ********<br />
3<br />
This study has been supported by the Russian Foundation<br />
for Basic Research (project # 06–06–80459)<br />
<strong>Bondarenko</strong> <strong>Dmitri</strong> M.<br />
<strong>Homoarchy</strong>: A Principle of Culture's Organization. The 13 th – 19 th<br />
Centuries Benin Kingdom As a Non-State Supercomplex Society. – Moscow:<br />
Editorial URSS. – 184 p.<br />
ISBN 5–<br />
Until quite recently, cultural evolution has commonly been regarded as the permanent<br />
teleological move to a greater level of hierarchy, crowned by state formation. However,<br />
recent research, particularly those based upon the principle of heterarchy – “... the relation of<br />
elements to one another when they are unranked or when they possess the potential for being<br />
ranked in a number of different ways” (Crumley 1995: 3) changes the usual picture<br />
dramatically. The opposite of heterarchy, then, would be a condition in society in which<br />
relationships in most contexts are ordered mainly according to one principal hierarchical<br />
relationship. This organizational principle may be called “homoarchy”. <strong>Homoarchy</strong> and<br />
heterarchy represent the most universal “ideal” principles and basic trajectories of sociocultural<br />
(including political) organization and its transformations. There are no universal<br />
evolutionary stages – band, tribe, chiefdom, state or otherwise – inasmuch as cultures so<br />
characterized could be heterarchical or homoarchical: they could be organized differently,<br />
while having an equal level of overall social complexity. However, alternativity exists not<br />
only between heterarchic and homoarchic cultures but also within each of the respective<br />
types. In particular, the present article attempts at demonstrating that the Benin Kingdom of<br />
the 13 th – 19 th centuries, being an explicitly homoarchic culture not inferior to early states in<br />
the level of complexity, nevertheless was not a state as it lacked administrative specialization<br />
and pronounced priority of the supra-kin ties. The Benin form of socio-political organization<br />
can be called “megacommunity,” and its structure can be depicted as four concentric circles<br />
forming an upset cone: the extended family, community, chiefdom, and megacommunity<br />
(kingdom). Thus, the homoarchic megacommunity turns out an alternative to the homoarchic<br />
by definition (Claessen and Skalnнk 1978b: 640) early state.