It has always been peculiar to evolutionists to compare social and biological evolution, the latter as visualized by Charles Darwin.[1] But it also seems possible and correct to draw an analogy with another great discovery in the field of evolutionary biology, with the homologous series of Nikolay Vavilov (1921, 1927, 1967). However, there is no complete identity between cultural parallelism and biological homologous series. Vavilov studied the morphological homology, whereas our focus within the realm of social evolution is the functional one. No doubt, the morphological homomorphism also happens in the process of social evolution (e.g., in the Hawaii Islands where a type of the sociocultural organization surprisingly similar with the ones of other highly developed parts of Polynesia had independently formed by the end of the 18^th century [Sahlins 1972/1958; Goldman 1970; Earle 1978; Johnson and Earle 2000; Seaton 1978]). But this topic is beyond the present article's problematique.

What is important for us here is that there are reasons to suppose that an equal level of sociopolitical (and cultural) complexity (which makes it possible to solve equally difficult problems faced by societies) can be achieved not only in various forms but on essentially different evolutionary pathways, too. Thus, it is possible to achieve the same level of system complexity through differing pathways of evolution which appeared simultaneously (and even prior to the formation of Homo sapiens sapiens [Butovskaya and Feinberg 1993; Butovskaya 1994, 2000; Butovskaya, Korotayev, and Kazankov 2000]) and increased in quantity throughout almost whole sociocultural advancement (Pavlenko 1996: 229–251; 2000). Diversity could be regarded as one of the most important preconditions of the evolutionary process. This implies that the transition to any qualitatively higher level of socio-cultural complexity is normally impossible without a sufficient level of variability at the preceding complexity level (among both the given culture's predecessors and contemporaries).[2]

Within the first level of analysis, all evolutionary variability can be reduced to two principally different groups of homologous series (Bondarenko 1997: 12–15; 1998a, 2000b; Bondarenko and Korotayev 1999, 2000b; Korotayev et al. 2000). Earlier these al­ternatives were distinguished either as ‘hierarchical’ vs. ‘non-hierarchical’ (e.g., Bondarenko and Korotayev 2000a), or ‘hierarchical’ vs. ‘heterarchical’ (e.g., Ehrenreich et al. 1995; Crumley 2001).

In one of the publications on the problem of heterarchy the latter is defined as ‘...the relation of elements to one another when they are unranked or when they possess the potential for being ranked in a number of different ways’ (Ehrenreich et al. 1995: 3; see also Crumley 1979: 144). It is clear that the second version of heterarchy is more relevant for the study of the complex societies.

However, when we have a system of elements which ‘possess the potential for being ranked in a number of different ways’, it seems impossible to speak about the absence of hierarchy. In this case we rather deal with a system of heterarchically arranged hierarchies. Hence, it does not appear reasonable to denote the heterarchy alternative as ‘hierarchy’. We would rather suggest designating it as ‘homoarchy’ which could be defined as the relation of elements to one another when they possess the potential for being ranked in one way only. Totalitarian regimes of any time give us plenty of examples of such a sociocultural situation when the ruled have no chances to get ranked above the rulers in any possible contexts. This stands in a sharp contrast with, say, an archetypal example of a complex heterarchical system – the civil community (polis) of Athens (the 5^th–4^th centuries ВС) where the citizens ranked lower within one hierarchy (e.g., the military one) could well be ranked higher in many other possible respects (e.g., economically, or within the subsystem of civil/religious magistrates). Consequently, it was impossible to say that one citizen was higher than any other in any absolute sense.

On the other hand, it seems necessary to stress that it appears impossible to find not only any cultures totally lacking any hierarchies (including informal ones), but also any totally homoarchical cultures. Hence, though in order to simplify our analysis in this paper we speak about heterarchical and homoarchical evolutionary pathways for our analysis' simplifying, in fact we are dealing here with heterarchy-homoarchy axis along which one could range all the known human cultures. Within this range there does not seem to be any distinct border between homoarchical and heterarchical cultures; hence, in reality it might be more appropriate to speak not about just two evolutionary pathways (heterarchical and homoarchical), but about a potentially infinite number of such pathways, and, thus, finally not about evolutionary pathways, but rather about evolutionary probability field (see for details Korotayev 1992, 1999, 2003c, 2004; Korotayev et al. 2000). Yet, as was mentioned above, in order to simplify our analysis we speak about just two alternative pathways.

In particular, until recently it was considered self-evident that just the formation of the state marked the end of the ‘Primitive Epoch’ and alternatives to the state did not actually exist.[3] All the stateless societies were considered pre-state ones, standing on the single evolutionary staircase squarely below the states. Nowadays postulates about the state as the only possible form of political and sociocultural organization of the post-primitive society, about a priori higher level of development of a state society in comparison with any non-state one are subjected to rigid criticism. It has become evident that the non-state societies are not necessarily less complex and less efficient. The problem of existence of non-state but not primitive (i.e. principally nоn- and not pre-state) societies, alternatives to the state (as the allegedly inevitable post-primitive form of the sociopolitical organization) deserves attention.

Of course, in no way do we reject the fact of existence and importance of the states in world history. What we argue, is that the state is not the only possible post-primitive evolutionary political form. From our point of view, the state is nothing more than one of many forms of the post-primitive sociopolitical organization; these forms are alternative to each other and are able in certain conditions to transform to one another without any loss in the general level of complexity. Hence, the degree of sociopolitical centralization and ‘homoarchization’ is not a perfect criterion for evaluating a society's evolutionary level, though it is regarded as such within unilinear concepts of social evolution.

As Brumfiel wrote several years ago, ‘the coupling of [socio­political] differentiation and hierarchy is so firm in our minds that it takes tremendous intellectual efforts even imagine what differentiation without hierarchy could be’ (Brumfiel 1995: 130).[4] Usually, even if the very existence of complex but non-homoarchical cultures is recognized, they are regarded as a historical fortuity, as an anomaly. Such cultures are declared as if capable to reach rather low levels of complexity only, as if incapable to find inter­nal stability (Tuden and Marshall 1972: 454–456).

Thus, on the further level of analysis the dichotomy turns out not to be rigid at all as far as actual organization of any society employs both vertical (dominance – subordination) and horizontal (apprehended as ties among equals) links. Furthermore, in the course of their history, societies (including archaic cultures) turn out capable to change models of sociopolitical organization radically, transforming from homoarchical into heterarchical or vice versa (Korotayev 1995d, 2006; Korotayev, Kradin, and Lynsha 2000; Korotayev, Klimenko, and Prusakov 2007; Crumley 1987: 164–165; 1995: 4; 2001; Bondarenko and Korotayev 2000c; Dozhdev 2000; Kradin 2000a). Perhaps the most well known historical example of the latter case is Rome where the Republic was established and further democratized with the Plebian political victories. Note that in the course of such transformations the organizational background changes, but the overall level of cultural complexity may not only increase or de­crease but may well stay practically the same (for example in ancient and medieval history of Europe, the Americas, Asia, see on this Korotayev 1995d, 1996b, 1996c, 1997, 1998, 2000с, 2000d, 2006; Korotayev, Klimenko, and Prusakov 2007; van der Vliet 1987; Ferguson 1991; Korotayev 1995a, 1996a; Levy 1995; Lynsha 1998; Beliaev 2000b; Chamblee 2000: 15–35; Dozhdev 2000; Kowalewski 2000; Kradin 2000a; Grinin 2004b, 2004c; 2007g, 2007h).

Nevertheless, vertical and horizontal links play different parts in different societies at every concrete moment. Already among the primates with the same level of morphological and cognitive development, and even among primate populations belonging to the same species, one could observe both more and less heterarchically/homoarchically organized groups. Hence, the non-linearity of sociopolitical evolution originates already before the Homo sapiens sapiens formation (Butovskaya and Feinberg 1993; Butovskaya 1994; Butovskaya, Korotayev, and Kazankov 2000).

Let us consider now in more details one of the most influential and widespread unilineal evolutionary schemes, the one proposed by Service (1971 [1962]; its outline is, however, already contained in Sahlins's well-known article [Sahlins 1960: 37]): band – tribe – chiefdom – state. The scheme implies that the growth of the political complexity (at least up to the stage of the agrarian state) is inevitably accompanied by the growth of the inequality, stratification, the social distance between the rulers and the ruled, the ‘authoritarianism’ and hierarchization of the political system, decrease of the political participation of the main mass of population etc. Of course, these two sets of parameters seem to be related rather closely. It is evident that we observe here a certain correlation, and a rather strong one. But, no doubt, this is just a correlation, and by no means a functional dependence. Of course, this correlation implies a perfectly possible line of sociopolitical evolution – from an egalitarian, acephalous band, through a big-man village community with much more pronounced inequality and political hierarchy, to an ‘authoritarian’ village community with a strong power of its chief (found, e.g., among some Indians of the North-West Coast – see, e.g., Carneiro 2000), and than through the true chiefdoms having even more pronounced stratification and concentration of the political power in the hands of the chief, to the complex chiefdoms where the political inequality parameters reach a qualitatively higher levels, and finally to the agrarian state where all such parameters reach their culmination (though one could move even further, up to the level of the ‘empire’ [e.g., Adams 1975], see an example of such a line in Johnson and Earle 2000: 246, 304). However, it is very important to stress that on each level of the growing political complexity one could find easily evident alternatives to this evolutionary line.

Let us start with the human societies of the simplest level of sociocultural complexity. Indeed, one can easily observe that acephalous egalitarian bands are found among most of the unspecialized hunter-gatherers. However, as has been shown by Woodburn (1972, 1979, 1980, 1982, 1988a, 1988b) and Artemova (1987, 1991, 1993, 2000a, 2000b; see also Chudinova 1981; Whyte 1978: 49–94), some of such hunter-gatherers (the inegalitarian ones, first of all most of the Australian aborigine see also Bern 1979) display a significantly different type of sociopolitical organization with much more structured political leadership concentrated in the hands of relatively hierarchically organized elders, with a pro­nounced degree of inequality both between the men and women, and among the men themselves.[5]

On the next level of the political complexity we can also find communities with both homoarchical and heterarchical political organization. One can mention e.g., the well-known contrast between the Indians of the Californian North-West and South-East:

The Californian chiefs were in the center of economic life, they exercised their control over the production, distribution and exchange of the social product, and their power and authority were based mainly on this. Gradually the power of the chiefs and elders acquired the hereditary character, it became a typical phenomenon for California... Only the tribes populating the North-West of California, notwithstanding their respectively developed and complex material culture, lacked the explicitly expressed social roles of the chiefs characteristic for the rest of California. At the meantime they new slavery... The population of this region had an idea of personal wealth... (Kabo 1986: 20).

One can also immediately recall the socio-culturally complex communities of the Ifugao (e.g., Barton 1922; Meshkov 1982: 183–197) lacking any pronounced authoritarian political leadership compared with the one of the communities of the North-West Coast, but with a comparable level of overall sociopolitical and sociocultural complexity.

Hence, already on the levels of simple and middle range communities we observe several types of alternative sociopolitical forms, each of which should be denoted with a separate term. The possible alternatives to the chiefdom in the prehistoric Southwest Asia, heterarchical systems of complex acephalous communities with a pronounced autonomy of single family households have been analyzed recently by Berezkin who suggests reasonably Ара Tanis as their ethnographic parallel (1995a, 1995b, 2000). Frantsouzoff finds an even more developed example of such type of polities in ancient South Arabia in Wadi Hadramawt of the 1st millennium ВС (Frantsouzoff 1995, 1997, 2000a, 2000b).

One of the present authors has pointed out elsewhere (Grinin 2007g) that probably some intertribal secret societies can also be considered as a form of political organization alternative to the chiefdom (see, e.g., Кubbel' 1988а: 241), as well as, for example, complex age-grade systems that allowed creation of firm horizontal ties between separate communities within a tribe and between related tribes (on the role of such an age-grade system among some Naga tribes of mountainous North-East India see, e.g., Мaretina 1995: 83; on some other examples see Kalinovskaya 1976; van Gennep 2002, etc.).

As an analogue to the chiefdom the organized groups of turncoats, adventurers or criminals of different sorts that do not recognize any official authorities can be considered too (see Grinin 2007g). Not infrequently such armed communities were created as counterbalance to the consolidating official power of a new state. ‘This part of the population that has separated itself and does not recognize laws often acquires considerable power due to freedom of being anyway restricted by the law..., as well as to respect of the bravest and poorest from the neighboring tribes’ (Ratzel' 1902, vol. 1: 445).

Another evident alternative to the chiefdom is constituted by the tribal organization. As is well known, the tribe has found itself on the brink of being evicted from the evolutionary models (Townsend 1985: 146; Carneiro 1987: 760). However, the political forms entirely identical with what was described by Service as the tribe could be actually found in, e.g., medieval and modern Middle East (up to the present): these tribal systems normally comprise several communities and often have precisely the type of political leadership described by Service as typical for the tribe (Service 1971 [1962]: 103–104; Dresch 1984: 39, 41).

What is important, is that we are dealing here with some type of polity that could not be identified either with bands, or with village communities (because such tribes normally comprise more than one community), or with chiefdoms (because they have an entirely different type of political leadership), or, naturally, with states. They could not be inserted easily either in the scheme somewhere between the village and the chiefdom. Indeed, as has been shown convincingly by Carneiro (see, e.g., 1970, 1981, 1987, 1991, 2000), chiefdoms normally arose as a result of political centralization of a few communities without the stage of the tribe preceding this. On the other hand, a considerable amount of evidence could be produced suggesting that in the Middle East many tribes arose as a result of political decentralization of chiefdoms which preceded the tribes in time. It is also important to stress that this could not in any way be identified with a ‘regression’, ‘decline’, or ‘degeneration’, as we can observe in many of such cases that political decentralization is accompanied by the increase (rather than decrease) of overall sociocultural complexity (Korotayev 1995a, 1995c, 1995d, 1996a, 1996b, 1996c, 1997, 1998, 2000a, 2000b). Hence, in many respects tribal systems of the Middle Eastern type appear to be chiefdom alternatives (rather than chiefdom predecessors).

Large complex chiefdoms could have analogues too. First and foremost, those were large tribal confederations or federations. Not infrequently, however, in such cases the bottom structure was represented by a sort of chiefdom while the top one was formed by the tribal council without a permanent leader (the council of chiefs or elders). This was the case of some American Indians tribes' structure. The tribes of the Iroquois had another organization system: family-clan units were headed by clan elders (sachems) who were the tribal council members. At the same time the Iroquois confederation also had the supreme administrative level – the League council in which clan chiefs of each tribe were represented (fifty persons in total [see Fenton 1978: 122]) and in which consensus for making up decisions was necessary. As it organized a great number of people and provided exceptionally high level of integration, we regard the Iroquois political system as an analogue (though incomplete) not to the chiefdom but to the early state (for details see Grinin 2007g; Grinin and Korotayev 2009b: Essay 5). Such analogues to the chiefdom as communities federations and confederations of, for example, the highlanders are also worth noting (see, e.g., Aglarov 1988; Кorotayev 1995e, 1995f, 2006b; Grinin 2007g).

We have argued elsewhere (Кorotayev 1995b, 1995с, 1995e) that in general there is an evident evolutionary alternative to the development of the rigid supra-communal political structures (chiefdom – complex chiefdom – state) constituted by the development of internal communal structures together with soft supra-communal systems not alienating communal sovereignty (various confederations, amphictyonies, etc.). One of the most impressive results of the sociopolitical development along this evolutionary line is the Greek poleis (see Berent [1994, 1996, 2000a, 2000b] regarding the statelessness of this type of political systems) some of which reached overall levels of complexity quite comparable not only with the ones of chiefdoms, but also with the one of states. The same can be said about its Roman analogue, the civitas (Shtaerman 1989). Note that polis/civitas as a form of sociopolitical organization was known far beyond the Classical world, both in geographical and chronological sense (Korotayev 1995b; Bondarenko 1998b), though quite a number of scholars still insist on its uniqueness.[6]

The ‘tribal’ and ‘polis’ series seem to constitute separate evolutionary lines, with some distinctive features: the ‘polis’ forms imply the power of the ‘magistrates’ elected in one or another way for fixed periods and controlled by the people in the absence (or near-absence) of any formal bureaucracy. Within the tribal systems we observe the absence of any offices whose holders would be obeyed simply because they hold posts of a certain type, and the order is sustained by elaborate mechanisms of mediation and search for consensus.

There is also a considerable number of other complex stateless polities (like the ones of the Cossacks of Ukraine and Southern Russia till the end of the 17^th century [Chirkin 1955; Rozner 1970; Nikitin 1987; Shtyrbul 2006; Grinin 2007g: 179–180], the Celts of the 5^th–1^st centuries ВС [Grinin 1997: 32–33; 2003: 141–142; 2004c: 97–98; 2006b: 95–96; 2007a: 173; 2007g: 182–184; Grinin and Korotayev 2009b: 435–436; Кradin 2001: 149], or the Icelandic polity of the ‘Age of Democracy’ till the middle of the 13^th century [Ol'geirsson 1957; Gurevich 1972; Steblin-Kamenskiy 1984; Hjaul'marsson 2003; Grinin 2003: 139; 2004c: 95; 2006b: 93; 2007a: 172; 2007g: 179; Grinin and Korotayev 2009b: 432) which could not yet be denoted with any commonly accepted terms, and whose own self-designations are often too complex (like Kazach'e Vojsko) to have any chance to get transformed to general terms.

There were a great many of historically and ethnographically known polities that a) surpassed considerably typical prestate socio-political forms (like simple chiefdoms, tribes, local communities) in size, complexity level and some other parameters; b) were not inferior to the early-state systems in size, socio-cultural and/or political complexity; c) at the same time, basically differed from the early state in their political order, power and administration structure (Alexeev et al. 2004; Beliaev et al. 2002; Bondarenko 1995a, 1995b, 2000a, 2000b, 2001; Bondarenko, Grinin, and Korotayev 2002, 2004; Bondarenko and Korotayev 2000a, 2000c; Bondarenko and Sledzevski 2000; Crumley 1995, 2001, 2005; Grinin 2000c, 2002a, 2002b, 2003, 2004c, 2007a, 2007b; Grinin et al. 2004, 2006; Korotayev 1995b; Kradin et al. 2000; Kradin, Bondarenko, and Barfield 2003; Kradin and Lynsha 1995; McIntosh 1999; Possehl 1998; Schaedel 1995; Bondarenko, Grinin, and Korotayev 2006; Bondarenko and Korotayev 2002; Girenko 1993; Grinin 1997–2001 [1997, № 5], 2001–2006, 2002с, 2006d, 2007g, 2007h, 2007i; Grinin and Korotayev 2009b; Korotayev 1995d, 1995e, 1996b, 1997, 2000c, 2000d, 2006; Kradin and Lynsha 1995; Kradin and Bondarenko 2002; Ророv 1995a, 1995b, 2000; Shtyrbul 2006).

Elsewhere we have designated the non-state societies comparable to the state in complexity and the functions performed as the early state analogues or alternatives to the state (Bondarenko, Grinin, and Korotayev 2002, 2004; Bondarenko 1995b, 2000a, 2000b, 2005a, 2006, 2007a, 2007b, 2007c; Bondarenko and Korotayev 2000a, 2000c; Bondarenko and Nemirovskiy 2007; Grinin 1997–2001, 2001–2006, 2000c, 2002a, 2002b, 2002с, 2003, 2004a, 2004b, 2004c, 2006а, 2006b, 2006c, 2006d, 2007a, 2007b, 2007c, 2007d, 2007e, 2007f, 2007g, 2007h, 2008; Grinin and Korotayev 2007a, 2007b, 2009a, 2009b; Grinin et al. 2004, 2006; Кorotayev 2000c, 2003c; Korotayev, Kradin, and Lynsha 2000; Korotayev et al. 2000). We provide a classification of such societies below.

But let us return to the Service – Sahlins's scheme. There is another evident problem with Service's scheme. It is evidently pre-‘Wallersteinian’, not touched by any world-system discussions, quite confident about the possibility of the use of a single polity as a unit of social evolution. It might be not so important if Service spoke about the typology of polities; yet, he speaks about the ‘levels of cultural integration’, and within such a context the world-system dimension should be evidently taken into consideration.[7]

The point is that the same overall level of complexity could be achieved both through the development of a single polity and through the development of a politically uncentralized interpolity network. This alternative was already noticed by Wallerstein (1974, 1979, 1987) who viewed it as a dichotomy: world-economy – world-empire. Note that according to Wallerstein these are considered precisely as alternatives, and not two stages of social evolution.

In this respect the examples of the Ancient Greek and especially Maya and Yoruba ‘peer polities’ are instructive (see Bondarenko 2005b: 7–8). The system of Greek poleis never transformed to an empire and remained heterarchic even in the time of the Delian League (see Golubtsovа 1983). The case of the Maya and Yoruba interpolity networks is instructive even more so, as they, though consisted of societies organized along predominantly homoarchic lines, nevertheless did not transform to integrated empires too, notwithstanding domination of these or those polities within the networks in definite historical periods (see, e.g., Beliaev 2000a; Beliaev and Pakin 2009; Martin and Grube 2000; Кochakova 1968, 1986; Smith 1988).

Thus, as one would expect, we agree with Wallerstein whole-heartedly at this point. However, we also find here a certain oversimplification. In general, we would like to stress that we are dealing here with a particular case of a much more general set of evolutionary alternatives.

The development of a politically uncentralized interpolity network became an effective alternative to the development of a single polity long before the rise of the first empires. As an example, we could mention the interpolity communication network of the Mesopotamian civil-temple communities of the first half of the 3 millennium ВС which sustained a much higher level of technological development than that of the politically unified Egyptian state, contemporary to it. Note that the intercommunal communication networks already constitute an effective evolutionary alter­native to the chiefdom. For example, the sociopolitical system of the Ара Tanis should be better described as an intercommunal network of a few communities (incidentally, in turn acting as a core for another wider network including the neighboring less developed polities [chiefdoms and sovereign communities] – see Führer-Haimendorf 1962).

We also do not find it productive to describe this alternative type of cultural integration as a world-economy. The point is that such a designation tends to downplay the political and cultural dimension of such systems.

Take for example, the Classical Greek inter-polis system. The level of complexity of many Greek poleis was rather low even in comparison with a complex chiefdom. However, they were parts of a much larger and much more com- plex entity constituted by numerous economic, political and cultural links and shared political and cultural norms. The economic links no doubt played some role within this system. But links of other types were not less important. Take, e.g., the norm according to which the inter-poleis wars stopped during the Olympic Games, which guaranteed the secure passage of people, and consequently the circulation of enormous quantities of energy, matter and information within the territory far exceeding the one of an average complex chiefdom. The existence of the inter-poleis communication network made it possible, say, for a person born in one polis to go to get his education in another polis and to establish his school in a third. The existence of this system reduced the de-structiveness of inter-poleis warfare for a long time. It was a basis on which it was possible to undertake important collective actions (which turned out to be essential at the age of the Greek-Persian wars). As a result, the polis with a level of complexity lower than the one of the complex chiefdom, turned out to be part of a system whose complexity was quite comparable with that of the state (and not only the early one).

The same can be said about the intersocietal communication network of Medieval Europe (comparing its complexity in this case with an average world-empire). Note that in both cases some parts of the respective systems could be treated as elements of wider world-economies. On the other hand, not all the parts of such communication networks were quite integrated economically. This shows that the world-economies were not the only possible type of politically decentralized intersocietal networks. Actually, in both cases we are dealing with the politically decentralized civilization, which for most of human history over the last few millennia constituted the most effective alternative to the world-empire. Of course, many of such civilizations could be treated as parts of larger world-economies. Wallerstein suggests that in the age of complex societies only the world-economies and world-empires (‘historical systems’, i.e. the largest units of social evolution) could be treated as units of social evolution in general. Yet we believe that both politically centralized and decentralized civilizations should also be treated as such quite productively.[8] One should stress again the importance of the cultural dimension of such systems. Of course, the exchange of bulk goods was important. But exchange of information was also important. Note that the successful development of science both in Classical Greece and Medieval Europe became only possible through an intensive intersocietal information exchange between the constituent societies of respective civilizations, whereas the development of science in Europe affected, to a significant extent, the evolution of the Modern World-System.

It is important to stress that the intersocietal communication networks could appear among much less complex societies (Wal­lerstein has denoted them as ‘mini-systems’ without actually studying them, for a recent review of the research on the archaic intersocietal networks see Chase-Dunn and Grimes 1995; Chase-Dunn and Hall 1993, 1994, 1995, 1997; see also Grinin and Korotayev 2009b: Introduction). Already it seems possible to speak about a communication network covering most of abo­riginal Australia.[9] Again we come here across a similar phenome­non – a considerable degree of cultural complexity (complex forms of rituals, mythology, arts, and dance well comparable with the ones of early agriculturists) observed among populations with an apparently rather simple political organization. This could largely be explained by the fact that relatively simple Australian local groups were parts of a much more complex whole: a huge intersocietal communication network that apparently covered most of Australia (e.g., Bakhta and Senyuta 1972; Artemova 1987).

Thus, it is possible to contrast societies that followed the pathway of political centralization and ‘authoritarianization’ with cultures that further elaborated and perfected democratic communal backgrounds and corresponding self-government institutions. However, such a culture as the Benin Kingdom of the 13^th–19^th centuries can make the picture of sociopolitical evolution even more versatile. In particular, it reveals that not only heterarchical but also homoarchical societies can reach a very high (incomparably higher than that of complex chiefdoms) level of sociocultural complexity and political centralization still never transforming to a state during the whole long period of existence. The Benin evidence also testifies that local community's autonomy is not a guarantee of complex society's advancement along the hierarchical pathway. We have suggested elsewhere to define this form of sociopolitical organization as ‘megacommunity’ (see, e.g., Bondarenko 1994; 1995a: 276–284; 1995b, 1996, 1998c; 2000a: 106–117; 2001: 230–263; 2004a, 2005a; 2006: 64–88, 96–107). Its structure may be depicted in the shape of four concentric circles forming an upset cone. These ‘circles’ are as follows: the extended family, extended-family community (in which familial ties were supplemented by those of neighbor ones), chiefdom, and finally, the broadest circle that included all the three narrower ones, that is the megacommunity as such (the Benin Kingdom as a whole). The specific characteristic of megacommunity is its ability to organize a complex, ‘many-tier’ society predominantly on the basis of transformed kinship principle within rather vast territories.

Besides the 13^th – 19^th centuries Benin Kingdom, megacommunities in pre-colonial Africa can be recognized, for instance, in the Bamum Kingdom of the late 16^th – 19^th centuries in present-day Cameroon which as a whole represented an extension up to the supercomplex level of the lineage principles and organization forms, so the society acquired the shape of ‘maximal lineage’ (Tardits 1980). Analogously, in some other traditional kingdoms on the territory of that post-colonial state ‘the monarchical system... is... in no way a totally unique and singular form of organization but displays a virtually identical structure to that of the lineage groups’ (Koloss 1992: 42). Outside Africa megacommunities (although not obligatorily of the Benin, that is based on the kin-oriented local community, type) may be recognized, for example, in the Indian societies of the late 1^st millennium BC – first centuries AD. Naturally, differing in many respects from the Benin pattern, they nevertheless fit the main distinctive feature of megacommunity as a non-state social type: Integration of a supercomplex (exceeding the complex chiefdom level) society on the community basis and the whole society's encompassment from the local level upwards. In particular, Samozvantsev (2001) describes those societies as permeated by communal orders notwithstanding the difference in socio-political organization forms. ‘The principle of communality’, he argues, was the most important factor of social organization in India during that period (see also Leljukhin 2001, 2004). In the south of India this situation lasted much longer, till the time of the Vijayanagara Empire – the mid-14^th century when the region finally saw ‘...the greater centralization of political power and the resultant concentration of resources in the royal bureaucracy…’ (Palat 1987: 170). A number of other examples of supercomplex societies in which ‘the supracommunity political structure was shaped according to the community type’ is provided by the 1^st millennium AD Southeast Asian societies, like Funan and possibly Dvaravati (Rebrikova 1987: 159–163; see, however, Mudar 1999). The specificity of the megacommunity becomes especially apparent in its comparison with the ‘galaxy-like’ states studied by Tambiah in Southeast Asia (Tambiah 1977, 1985). Like these states, a megacommunity has the political and ritual center – the capital which is the residence of the sacralized ruler – and the near, middle, and remote circles of periphery round it. However, notwithstanding its seeming centripetality, a megacommunity culture's true focus is the community, not the center, as in those Southeast Asian cases. As heterarchic non-kin-ties-based megacommunities, or civil megacommunities, one can consider societies of the polis type (Bondarenko 1997: 13–14, 48–49; 1998b, 2000b; 2001: 259–263; 2004b; 2006: 92–96; Shtyrbul 2006: 123–135).

Still, another evident alternative to the state seems to be represented by the supercomplex chiefdoms created by some nomads of Eurasia – the number of the structural levels within such chiefdoms appear to be equal, or even to exceed those within the average state, but they have an entirely different type of political organization and political leadership; besides, this type of political entities do not appear to have been ever created by agriculturists (e.g., Kradin 1992: 146–152; 1996, 2000a, 2000b). This is also confirmed by the history of Scythia. Being similar to supercomplex chiefdoms and an analogue to the early state (see Grinin 2007g: 187–188), it was transforming to an early state more and more obviously in the course of the Scythians' sedentarization. The growth of trade in bread, particularly with Bosphorus, contributed significantly to the development of statehood and consolidation of royal power (see Grakov 1971: 38).

Besides the megacommunity and nomadic supercomplex chiefdoms, the Indus, or Harappa civilization that exceeded considerably in size such pristine civilzations as Egyptian and Mesopotamian, can serve as an example at this point. According to Possehl, this civilization was an example of ancient sociocultural complexity without archaic state form of political organization, what testifies that ancient civilizations, vary in form and organization to a much greater degree than traditional unilinear evolutionary schemes can reflect (Possehl 1998: 291). Definitely, the variability of sociopolitical forms and alternativity of state formation process is demonstrated not only by ancient civilizations but also by different other complex societies of different historical periods.

Societies with thoroughly elaborated rigid cast system can also be a homoarchic alternative to the homoarchic (by definition see Claessen and Skalník 1978: 533–596, 637–650; Claessen et al. 2008: 260; see also Claessen 2008: 13; Bondarenko 2008: 20–21, 32–33 [note 7]) early state (see, e.g., Quigley 1999: 114–169; Kobishchanov 2000: 64).

So, alternativity characterizes not only two basic macrogroups of human associations, i.e. homoarchical and heterarchical societies. Alternativity does exist within each of them, too. In particular, within the upper range of complexity and integrativity of the sociopolitical organization the state (at least in the pre-industrial world) ‘competes’ with not only heterarchical systems of institutions (e.g., with polis) but also with some forms of sociopolitical organization not less homoarchical than the state.

Among numerous factors capable to influence the nature of this or that society, the family and community type characteristic of it seems to deserve notice. The distinction in the correlation of kin and neighborhood (territorial) lines is in its turn connected with the dominant type of community (as a universal substratum social institution). A cross-cultural research conducted earlier (Bondarenko and Korotayev 1999, 2000b) has generally corroborated the initial hypothesis (Bondarenko 1997: 13–14; 1998b: 198–199) that the extended-family community in which vertical social ties and non-democratic value system are usually vividly expressed, given the shape of kinship relations (elder – younger), is more characteristic of homoarchical societies.[10] Heterarchical societies appear to be more frequently associated with the territorial communities consisting of nuclear families in which social ties are horizontal and apprehended as neighborhood ties among those equal in rights (Korotayev and Tsereteli 2001; Korotayev 2003b).[11]

In the course of our cross-cultural research in the community forms, another factor important for determining societies' homoarchization vs. heterarchization was revealed. It appeared that probability of a democratic (heterarchical) sociopolitical organi­zation development is higher in cultures where monogamous rather polygynous families dominate (Korotayev and Bondarenko 2000, 2001; Korotayev 2003a).

However, besides social factors (including those mentioned above), a set of phenomena stemming from the fact that political culture is a reflection of a society's general culture type, is also important for determining its evolutionary pathway. The general culture type that varies from one civilization to another defines the trends and limits of sociocultural evolution. Though culture itself forms under the influence of different factors (sociohistorical, natural, etc.) the significance of the general culture type for the sociopolitical organization is not at all reduced to the so-called ‘ideological factor’ (Bondarenko and Korotayev 2000c; Claessen 2000). It influences crucially the essence of political culture characteristic for a given society, ‘most probably revealing itself as fully as economic, religious, artistic potential from the very beginning’ (Zubov 1991: 59). In its turn, political culture determines human vision of the ideal sociopolitical model which correspondingly, may be different in various cultures. This way political culture forms the background for the development of character, types and forms of complex political organization emergence, including the enrolling of this process along either the homoarchical or heterarchical evolutionary pathways. But real, ‘non-ideal’ social institutions are results of conscious activities (social creativity) of people to no small degree, though people are frequently not capable to realize completely global sociopolitical outcomes of their deeds aimed at realization of personal goals. People create in the social sphere (as well as in other spheres) in correspondence with the value systems they adopt within their cultures in the process of socialization. They apprehend these norms as the most natural, the only true ones.

Hence, it is evident that the general culture type is intrinsically connected with its respective modal personality type. In their turn, the fundamental characteristics of modal personality types are transmitted by means of socialization practices which correspond to the value system generally accepted in a given society and can influence significantly its political evolution (see Irons 1979: 9–10, 33–35; Ionov 1992: 112–129; Bondarenko and Korotayev 2000a: 309–312; Korotayev and Bondarenko 2000, 2001; Korotayev 2003a; Grinin 2007g: 85) though scholars usually tend to stress the opposite influence, i.e. the influence of political systems on socialization processes and personality types.

The ecological factor is also important for determination of the pathway which this or that society follows (Bondarenko 1998b, 2000b; Кorotayev 2003c; Korotayev, Klimenko, and Prusakov 2007; Grinin and Korotayev 2009b). Not only natural environment but the sociohistorical one as well should be included into the notion of ‘ecology’ in this case. The environment also contributes a lot to the defining of a society's evolutionary potential, creating limits to its advancement along the homoarchical or heterarchical axes. For example, there is no predestined inevitability of transition from the simple to complex society (Tainter 1990: 38; Lozny 2000) or from the early state to mature one (Claessen and van de Velde 1987: 20ff.; Grinin 2007f).

Let us discuss now the implications of the approach discussed above for the study of the state formation processes and ‘polito­genesis’ in general. The tendency to see historical rules always and everywhere the same results in gross perversion of historical real­ity. For example, concurrent political processes are declared con­secutive stages of the formation of the state. Besides, the features of already mature state are illegitimately attributed to its early forms and in consequence of this it becomes impossible to find any ‘normal’ early state practically anywhere (for details see Grinin 2007f).

The notion of ‘politogenesis’ was elaborated in the late 1970s and 80s by Kubbel' (e.g., 1988b). However, Kubbel', as well as many others using this notion today, equalized politogenesis to state formation exclusively (Ibid.: 3). This approach resulted from the dominant that time and still very wide-spread now, although out-of-date, unilinear ideas that: a) all non-state forms are pre-state by definition; b) the development of political institutions and forms led directly to state formation; c) any even the least developed state is naturally more complex than any non-state society; d) political relations appear with the rise of state only. However, it is impossible to reduce politogenesis to state formation at least because, as we have seen above, complex non-state societies, too developed to be called pre-state, existed alongside with states. Hence, it is necessary to ascertain substitution of a wider process of various complex political institutions and systems formation, that is of politogenesis, with a narrower (and later) one – of state formation. Meanwhile, as Lewis have fairly noted, there exist huge riches of organizational variety of non-state societies worldwide (Lewis 1981: 206). To avoid these stretches and errors, we have developed new approaches to the conception of politogenesis (see Bondarenko and Korotayev 2000a; Bondarenko et al. 2002; Korotayev et al. 2000; Korotayev and Bondarenko 2000; Korotayev, Kradin, and Lynsha 2000; Grinin 2003, 2004c, 2007e, 2007f, 2007g; Grinin and Korotayev 2006).

We suggest defining the term ‘politogenesis’ as the process of singling out of the political sphere in a society and formation of the political system as partially independent; as the process of rising of specific forms of power organisation in a society connected with concentration of power and political activity (both internal and external) in the hands of definite (including functional) groups or layers. In other words, it is possible to define politogenesis as the process of formation of complex political organisation of any type, what looks more well-grounded in the etymological respect: in ancient Greece the word politeia meant a political order of any type, not just the state.

In the English-language (and obviously Western in general) anthropology the notion of politogenesis is absent as political anthropologists regard that of state formation process[12] as sufficient. However, it would be very much desirable to distinguish these notions: politogenesis should be recognized as a broader one that describes the genesis of a complex society's political subsystem while state formation process should be seen as a politogenesis' specific type that leads just to the rise of statehood. That is why it would be productive if ‘politogenesis’ were added to the Western political anthropology's thesaurus (on this point see Bondarenko and Korotayev 2000a; Bondarenko et al. 2002: 66–67; Grinin and Korotayev 2009a: 56–57).

In the result of state formation administrative, violent, and legal methods applied by new types of military and civil professional administrators begin to play an ever-growing part. Clearly, state formation is ‘younger’ than politogenesis. Like politogenesis singles out of the general process of social (in the broader sense) development, state formation process separates from politogenesis at its definite stage. It is worth noting that as a rule, state formation demands larger territories, more population and resources for its start than other politogenetic processes that lead to the rise of the middle-range polities like simple chiefdoms and their analogues (see Grinin 2007g, 2009). Gradually state formation process becomes the leading and then dominant direction of politogenesis. Due to this one can get the impression that politogenesis is just the process of the rise of the state as a political institution. However, this impression is completely wrong. The state formation process is not just younger than politogenesis. Even after the first state's appearance the directions of politogenesis have never been reduced to the only – statehood – line. To the contrary, these lines were multiple, and at first that of statehood was an exception to the rule among them remaining a rare case long after its appearance.

One more point is important for understanding of the correlation between politogenesis and state formation process. Cycles of states' centralization and decentralization that were among the most significant historical processes in Antiquity and the Middle Ages (see, e.g., Nefedov 2007; Turchin 2007; Korotayev, Komarova, and Khaltourina 2007; Grinin 2007j), can be interpreted in some cases as trends, opposite to state formation and as instances of non-state politogenesis (Grinin 2007g). Indeed, the collapse of vast states (especially immature) into small parts resulted not infrequently in the rise of polities of the type that cannot be regarded as state because of those polities' small size, their administrative apparatus' weakness and uncertainty of sovereignty. For example, in pre-Hispanic Mexico and the Andes the debris of the early states are classified by different scholars either as chiefdoms or as ‘small states’, ‘city-states’ (see Chabal et al. 2004: 50). If the differences between the politogenesis and state formation processes are taken into account, the solution to the problem can be seen in another point: politogenesis has given rise to different political forms but in the course of time evolution usually returned to the road of state formation.

Therefore, the evolutionary pathway, within which the features of the state familiar to us are guessed retrospectively, is only one of the possible ‘branches’ of the politogenesis. But since later most alternative sociopolitical structures were destroyed by states, absorbed into states, or transformed to states,[13] it might be reasonable to recognize retrospectively the ‘state’ branch of the politogenesis as ‘general’ and the alternative pathways as ‘lateral’.

This, however, does not deny the fact that the alternative sociopolitical structures mentioned above cannot be adequately described as pre-state formations, that they are quite comparable with early states by range of their functions and level of their structural complexity. Therefore, it seems possible to designate them as state analogues (for details see Grinin 1997, 2000а, 2000b, 2002b, 2002с, 2003, 2004a, 2004b, 2004c, 2006a, 2006b, 2006c, 2006d, 2007a, 2007d, 2007e, 2007f, 2007g, 2007h, 2008, 2009). The term state analogue underlines both typological and functional resemblance of such forms to the state and differences in structure. The introduction of this term makes it possible to describe the process of politogenesis more adequately.

In the present article the analogue to the early state is defined as the category that covers different forms of complex non-state societies comparable with the early state (but as a rule do not surpass the typical early state level) in size, socio-cultural and/or political complexity, the level of functional differentiation and the scale of the problems and tasks the societies face which, however, do not have at least one of the features enumerated in the early state definition.

The following types of analogues have been singled out by us (for details see Grinin 2003, 2006c, 2007a, 2007d, 2007g, 2007h, 2007i, 2009; Grinin and Korotayev 2009b: Essay 5):

1. Some self-governed city and temple communities and territories (including settlement territories or colonies like Iceland of the 10^th – 13^th centuries) with population from several to tens of thousands.

2. Some large tribal unions with rather strong power of the supreme ruler (the ‘king’ and so forth) with population of tens of thousands (even hundred thousands or more in some cases). An example is given by some Germanic tribal unions of the Migration period.

3. Large tribal unions and confederations in which the ‘royal’ power was absent (had never been established or had been abolished) but the processes of social and functional differentiation were well noticeable and even surpassed the pace of political development. Examples of such tribal unions without royal power one can find among the Saxes and some Gallic peoples. The number of people they integrated usually amounted tens of thousand and even hundreds thousands in some cases.

4. Nomads' state-like polities, large and militarily strong, that look like large states (e.g., Scythia or the Xsiungnu empire).

5. Many complex chiefdoms (especially very large), as they are not inferior to small and even middle states in size and complexity (for instance, the Hawaiian chiefdoms population was from thirty to one hundred thousand people [Johnson and Earle 2000: 246]).

Some of these analogues never became states. Others transformed to it but at an already rather high development level; so they transformed directly to large (not small or middle in size) states. We have described in detail elsewhere two basically different models of transition to the state (see e.g., Grinin 2007f, 2007h, 2007i, 2009; Grinin and Korotayev 2009a, 2009b). One of those models is represented just by cases, in which states formed ‘vertically’ i.e. direct transition from pre-state to state societies took place. Most often this transition resulted in small states appearance, as it happened, for example, with the Betsileo of Madagascar in the 17^th century (Kottak 1980; Claessen 2000, 2004; see also Orlova 1984: 178–179). Many such instances can be found in Ancient Greece where compelled resettlement from several small settlements to one for the sake of defense from military actions or from pirates was spread very widely and got the name of synoecism (see Gluskina 1983: 36; Frolov 1986: 44; Andreev 1979: 20–21).[14] However, there could be cases of large states' vertical formation.[15]

Thus, in order to find solutions to a certain range of political anthropology problems it is necessary to consider the genesis of early state in the general context of socioevolutionary processes coeval with it. This could make it possible to appreciate more exactly the correlation between general evolution and state formation proc­esses. For example, it seems evident that the early state formation is finally connected with general changes caused by the transition from the foraging to food production. This generally resulted in the growth of sociocultural complexity. This led to the appearance of the objective needs in new methods of organization of societies and new forms of contacts between them. But in different societies it was expressed in different ways. So, over long periods of time, the growth of sociostructural complexity, the exploitation of neighbors, development of commerce, property inequality and private ownership, growth of the role of religious cults and corporations etc. could serve as alternatives to purely administrative and political decisions of above-mentioned problems. And in these terms, the early state is only one of forms of new organization of the society and intersociety relations, although later it became almost universal due to quite objective evolutionary reasons.

References

Adams R. N. 1975. Energy and Structure. Austin – London: University of Texas Press.

Aglarov 1988 – Агларов М. А. 1988. Сельская община в Нагорном Дагестане в XVII – начале XIX в. М.: Наука.

Alexeev I. L., Beliaеv D. D., and Bondarenko D. M. 2004. (Eds.) Hierarchy and Power in the History of Civilizations. Third International Conference. Abstracts of the 3^rd International Conference (Moscow, 18–24 June, 2004). Moscow: Center for Civilizational and Regional Studies Press.

Andreev 1979 – Андреев Ю. В. 1979. Античный полис и восточные города-государства. Античный полис / Ред. Э. Д. Фролов, с. 8–27. Л.: Изд-во ЛГУ.

Artemova 1987 – Артемова О. Ю. 1987. Личность и социальные нормы в раннепервобытной общине (по австралийским этнографическим данным). М.: Наука.

Artemova 1991 – Артемова О. Ю. 1991. Эгалитарные и неэгалитарные первобытные общества. Архаическое общество: узловые проблемы социологии развития / Ред. А. В., Коротаев, В. В. Чубаров, т. 1, с. 44–91. М.: Ин-т истории СССР АН СССР.

Artemova 1993 – Артемова О. Ю. 1993. Первобытный эгалитаризм и ранние формы социальной дифференциации. Ранние формы социальной стратификации: генезис, историческая динамика, потестарно-политические функции / Ред. В. А. Попов, с. 40–70. М.: Наука.

Artemova O. Yu. 2000a. Initial Phases of Politogenesis. In Bondarenko and Korotayev 2000a: 54–72.

Artemova O. Yu. 2000b. Monopolization of Information and Social Inequality. In Kradin et al. 2000: 132–137.

Aunger R. 2006. Culture Evolves Only if there is Cultural Inheritance. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 29: 347–348.

Bakhta and Senyuta 1972 – Бахта В. М., Сенюта Т. В. 1972. Локальная группа, семья и узы родства в обществе аборигенов Австралии. Охотники, собиратели, рыболовы / Pед. А. М. Решетов, с. 68–90. Л.: Наука.

Barkow J. H. 2006. Vertical/Compatible Integration versus Analogizing with Biology. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 29: 348–349.

Barton R. F. 1922. Ifugao Economics. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Beliaev D. D. 2000a. Classic Lowland Maya (AD 250–900). In Bondarenko and Korotayev 2000a: 87–127.

Beliaev D. D. 2000b. ‘Joint Government’ in Mesoamerican History. In Bondarenko and Sledzevski 2000: 13–14.

Beliaev D. D., Bondarenko D. M., and Frantsouzoff S. A. 2002. (Eds.) Hierarchy and Power in the History of Civilizations. Moscow: Institute for African Studies Press.

Beliaev and Pakin 2009 – Беляев Д. Д., Пакин А. В. 2009. Правитель и его подданные в государствах древних майя. Правитель и его подданные: социокультурная норма и ограничения единоличной власти / Ред. Д. М. Бондаренко, А. А. Немировский, с. 123–151. М.: Институт Африки РАН.

Berent M. 1994. Stateless Polis. Unpublished Ph. D. thesis manuscript. Cambridge: Cambridge University.

Berent M. 1996. Hobbes and the ‘Greek Tongues’. History of Political Thought 17: 36–59.

Berent M. 2000a. Greece (11^th–4^th Centuries ВС). In Bondarenko and Korotayev 2000a: 228–254.

Berent M. 2000b. The Stateless Polis: Towards a New Anthropological Model of the Ancient Greek Community. In Kradin et al. 2000: 225–241.

Berent 2000c – Берент М. 2000. Безгосударственный полис: раннее государство и древнегреческое общество. Альтернативные пути к цивилизации / Ред. Н. Н. Крадин, А. В. Коротаев, Д. М. Бондаренко, В. А. Лынша, с. 235–258. М.: Логос.

Berent M. 2006. The Stateless Polis: A Reply to Critics. Social Evolution & History 5(1): 141–163.

Berezkin Yu. E. 1995a. Alternative Models of Middle Range Society. ‘Individualistic’ Asia vs. ‘Collectivistic’ America? In Kradin and Lynsha 1995: 75–83.

Berezkin 1995b – Березкин Ю. Е. 1995. Вождества и акефальные сложные общества: данные археологии и этнографические параллели. Ранние формы политической организации: от первобытности к государственности / Ред. В. А. Попов, с. 62–78. М.: Наука.

Berezkin Yu. E. 2000. Once Again on Horizontal and Vertical Links in Structure of the Middle Range Societies. In Kradin et al. 2000: 220–224.

Bereznitsky 2003 – Березницкий С. В. 2003. (Ред.) История и культура нанайцев: историко-этнографические очерки. СПб.: Наука.

Bern J. 1979. Ideology and Domination: Toward a Reconstruction of Australian Aboriginal Social Formation. Oceania 50: 118–132.

Blackmore S. 2006. Why We Need Memetics. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 29: 349–350.

Bondarenko D. M. 1994. Precolonial Benin: Personality, Authority and the Structure of Society. State, City and Society / Ed. by J. A. Sabloff and M. Lai, pp. 1–10. New Delhi: WAC-3.

Bondarenko 1995a – Бондаренко Д. М. 1995. Бенин накануне первых контактов с европейцами: Человек. Общество. Власть. М.: Ин-т Африки.

Bondarenko D. M. 1995b. Megacommunity as a Variant of Structure and Type of Society: Precolonial Benin. In Kradin and Lynsha 1995: 100–108.

Bondarenko 1996 – Бондаренко Д. М. 1996. Мегаобщина как вариант структуры и типа социума: предпосылки сложения и функционирования. Восток 3: 30–38.

Bondarenko 1997 – Бондаренко Д. М. 1997. Теория цивилизаций и динамика исторического процесса в доколониальной тропической Африке. М.: Ин-т Африки.

Bondarenko D. M. 1998a. ‘Homologous Series’ of Social Evolution. In Butovskaya, Korotayev, and Khristoforova 1998: 98–99.

Bondarenko 1998b – Бондаренко Д. М. 1998. Многолинейность социальной эволюции и альтернативы государству. Восток 1: 195–202.

Bondarenko D. M. 1998c. The Benin Kingdom (13^th – 19^th Centuries) as a Megacommunity. In Butovskaya, Korotayev, and Khristoforova 1998: 111–113.

Bondarenko D. M. 2000a. Benin (1^st millennium BC – 19^th century AD). In Bondarenko and Korotayev 2000a: 87–127.

Bondarenko D. M. 2000b. Homologous Series’ of Social Evolution and Alternatives to the State in World History (An Introduction). In Kradin et al. 2000: 213–219.

Bondarenko 2001 – Бондаренко Д. М. 2001. Доимперский Бенин: формирование и эволюция системы социально-политических институтов. М.: Ин-т Африки РАН.

Bondarenko D. M. 2004a. From Local Communities to Megacommunity: Biniland in the 1^st Millennium B.C. – 19^th Century AD. The Early State, Its Alternatives and Analogues. In Grinin et al. 2004: 325–363.

Bondarenko 2004b – Бондаренко Д. М. 2004. Социально-политическая эволюция: от равноположенности типов общины к альтернативности форм надобщинной организации. Alaica. Сборник научных трудов российских востоковедов, подготовленный к 70-летнему юбилею профессора, доктора исторических наук Л. Б. Алаева / Ред. О. Е. Непомнин, с. 32–53. М.: Вост. лит-ра.

Bondarenko D. M. 2005a. A Homoarchic Alternative to the Homoarchic State: Benin Kingdom of the 13^th – 19^th Centuries. Social Evolution & History 4(2): 18–88.

Bondarenko 2005b – Бондаренко Д. М. 2005. Мир-системный и цивилизационный подходы: противоположность или взаимодополнительность? История и синергетика: Методология исследования / Ред. С. Ю. Малков, А. В. Коротаев, с. 7– 16. М.: КомКнига, 2005.

Bondarenko D. M. 2006. Homoarchy: A Principle of Culture's Organization. The 13^th – 19^th Centuries Benin Kingdom as a Non-state Supercomplex Society. Moscow: KomKniga/URSS.

Bondarenko D. M. 2007a. Approaching ‘Complexity’ in Anthropology and Complexity Studies: The Principles of Social-Political Organization and Prospects for Bridging the Interdisciplinary Gap. Emergence: Complexity and Emergence 9(3): 55–67.

Bondarenko D. M. 2007b. Homoarchy as a Principle of Social-Political Organization: An Introduction. Anthropos 102: 187–199.

Bondarenko D. M. 2007c. What Is There in a Word? Heterarchy, Homoarchy and the Difference in Understanding Complexity in the Social Sciences and Complexity Studies. Explorations in Complexity Thinking / Ed. by K. A. Richardson and P. Cilliers, pp. 35–48. Mansfield, MA: ISCE Publishing.

Bondarenko D. M. 2008. Kinship, Territoriality and the Early State Lower Limit. Social Evolution & History 7(1): 19–53.

Bondarenko D. M. 2009. The Social World's Parts and Whole: Globalization and the Future of Some Non-Western Cultures in the Civilization and World-System Theories Perspectives. Systemic Development: Local Solutions in a Global Environment / Ed. by J. Sheffield, pp. 17–24. Litchfield Park, AZ: ISCE Publishing.

Bondarenko D. M., Grinin L. E., and Korotayev A. V. 2002. Alternative Pathways of Social Evolution. Social Evolution & History 1: 54–79.

Bondarenko D. M., Grinin L. E., and Korotayev A. V. 2004. Alternatives of Social Evolution. In Grinin et al. 2004: 3–27.

Bondarenko, Grinin, and Korotayev 2006 – Бондаренко Д. М., Гринин Л. Е., Коротаев А. В. 2006. Альтернативы социальной эволюции. Раннее государство, его альтернативы и аналоги / Ред. Л. Е. Гринин, Д. М. Бондаренко, Н. Н. Крадин, А. В. Коротаев, с. 15–36. Волгоград: Учитель.

Bondarenko and Korotayev 1999 – Бондаренко Д. М., Коротаев А. В. 1999. Политогенез, «гомологические ряды» и нелинейные модели социальной эволюции (К кросс-культурному тестированию некоторых политантропологических гипотез). Общественные науки и современность 5: 129–140.

Bondarenko D. M., and Korotayev A. V. 2000a. (eds.) Civilizational Models of Politogenesis. Moscow: Institut Afriki RAN.

Bondarenko D. M., and Korotayev A. V. 2000b. Family Size and Community Organization: A Cross-Cultural Comparison. Cross-Cultural Research 34: 152–189.

Bondarenko D. M., and Korotayev A. V. 2000c. Introduction. In Bondarenko and Korotayev 2000a: 5–31.

Bondarenko and Korotayev 2002 – Бондаренко Д. М., Коротаев А. В. 2002. (Ред.) Цивилизационные модели политогенеза. М.: Ин-т Африки РАН.

Bondarenko D. M., and Nemirovskiy A. A. 2007. (eds.) Alternativity in Cultural History: Heterarchy and Homoarchy as Evolutionary Trajectories. Moscow: Center for Civilizational and Regional Studies Press.

Bondarenko D. M., and Sledzevski I. V. 2000. (eds.) Hierarchy and Power in the History of Civilizations. Moscow: Institute for African Studies Press.

Borsboom D. 2006. Evolutionary Theory and the Riddle of the Universe. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 29: 351.

Bouzek J. 1990. Studies of Greek Pottery in the Black Sea Area. Prague: Charles University.

Bridgeman B. 2006. It is not Evolutionary Models, but Models in General that Social Science Needs. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 29: 351–352.

Bromley 1981 – Бромлей Ю. В. 1981. Современные проблемы этнографии (очерки теории и истории). М.: Наука.

Brumfiel E. M. 1995. Heterarchy and the Analysis of Complex Societies: Comments. In Ehrenreih et al. 1995: 125–131.

Bulgakova 2001 – Булгакова Т. Д. 2001. Шаманство в традиционной культуре: системный анализ. СПб.: Изд-во Рос. гос. пед. ин-та им. А. И. Герцена.

Bulgakova 2002 – Булгакова Т. Д. 2002. Потестарная культура народов Севера. СПб.: Изд-во Рос. гос. пед. ин-та им. А. И. Герцена.

Butinov 1960 – Бутинов Н. А. 1960. Разделение труда в первобытном обществе. Проблемы истории первобытного общества / Ред. Л. П. Потапов, с. 120–126. М. – Л.: Изд-во Академии наук СССР.

Butovskaya M. L. 1993. Kinship and Different Dominance Styles in Three Species of the Genus Macaca. Folia Primatologica 60: 210–224.

Butovskaya 1994 – Бутовская М. Л. 1994. Универсальные принципы организации социальных систем у приматов, включая человека. Автореф. дис. … д-ра ист. наук. М.: Ин-т этнологии и антропологии РАН.

Butovskaya M. L. 2000. Biosocial Preconditions for Social-Political Alternativity. In Bondarenko and Korotayev 2000a: 35–53.

Butovskaya and Feinberg 1993 – Бутовская М. Л., Файнберг Л. А. 1993. У истоков человеческого общества. Поведенческие аспекты эволюции человека. М.: Наука.

Butovskaya M. L., Korotayev A. V., and Kazankov A. A. 2000. Variabilité des relations sociales chez les primates humains et non humains: à la recherche d' un paradigme général. Primatologie 3: 319–363.

Butovskaya M. L., Korotayev A. V., and Khristoforova О. В. 1998. (eds.) Sociobiology of Ritual and Group Identity: A Homology of Animal and Human Behavior. Concepts of Humans and Behavior Patterns in the Cultures of the East and the West: Interdisciplinary Approach. Moscow: RSUH.

Carneiro R. L. 1970. A Theory of the Origin of the State. Science 169: 733–738.

Carneiro R. L. 1981. The Chiefdom: Precursor of the State. The Transition to Statehood in the New World / Ed. by G. D. Jones and R. R. Kautz, pp. 37–79. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Carneiro R. L. 1987. Cross-Currents in the Theory of State Formation. American Ethnologist 14: 756–770.

Carneiro R. L. 1991. The Nature of the Chiefdom as Revealed by Evidence from the Cauca Valley of Colombia. Profiles in Cultural Evolution / Ed. by A. T. Rambo and K. Gillogly, pp. 167–190. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Carneiro R. L. 2000. Process vs. Stages: A False Dichotomy in Tracing the Rise of the State. In Kradin et al. 2000: 52–58.

Chabal P., Feinman G., and Skalník P. 2004. Beyond States and Empires: Chiefdoms and Informal Politics. In Grinin et al. 2004: 46–60.

Chamblee J. F. 2000. The Classic-Postclassic Transition in the Central Mixteca Alta, Oaxaca. Unpublished M.A. thesis manuscript. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona.

Chase-Dunn Ch., and Grimes P. 1995. World-System Analysis. Annual Review of Sociology 21: 387–417.

Chase-Dunn Ch., and Hall T. D. 1993. Comparing World-Systems: Concepts and Working Hypotheses. Social Forces 71: 851–886.

Chase-Dunn Ch., and Hall T. D. 1994. The Historical Evolution of World-Systems. Sociological Inquiry 64: 257–280.

Chase-Dunn Ch., and Hall T. D. 1995. The Historical Evolution of World-Systems. Protosoziologie 7: 23–34, 301–303.

Chase-Dunn Ch., and Hall T. D. 1997. Rise and Demise. Comparing World-Systems. Boulder – Oxford: Westview Press.

Chirkin 1955 – Чиркин В. Е. 1955. Об изучении государственных образований, возникавших в ходе восстаний рабов и крестьян. Вестник истории 9: 57–64.

Christian D. 2004. Maps of Time: An Introduction to Big History. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Chudinova 1981 – Чудинова О. Ю. 1981. Мужчины и женщины в обществе аборигенов Австралии. Пути развития Австралии и Океании. История, экономика, этнография / Ред. К. В. Малаховский, с. 220–237. М.: Наука.

Claessen H. J. M. 2000. Structural Change. Evolution and Evolutionism in Cultural Anthropology. Leiden: Research School CNWS, Leiden University.

Claessen H. J. M. 2004. Was the State Inevitable? In Grinin et al. 2004: 72–87.

Claessen H. J. M. 2008. Before The Early State and After: An Introduction. Social Evolution & History 7(1): 4–18.

Claessen H. J. M., Hagesteijn R. R., and van de Velde P. 2008. Early State Today. Social Evolution & History 7(1): 245–265.

Claessen H. J. M., and Skalník P. 1978. (Eds.) The Early State. The Hague: Mouton.

Claessen H. J. M., and van de Velde P. 1987. (Eds.) Early State Dynamics. Leiden: Brill.

Cronk L. 2006. Intelligent Design in Cultural Evolution. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 29: 352–353.

Crumley С. L. 1979. The Locational Models: An Epistemological Assessment for Anthropology and Archaeology. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory / Ed. by M. Schiffer. Vol. 3, pp. 141–173. New York: Academic Press.

Crumley С. L. 1987. A Dialectical Critique of Hierarchy. In Patterson and Gailey 1987: 155–169.

Crumley С. L. 1995. Heterarchy and the Analysis of Complex Societies. In Ehrenreich et al. 1995: 1–15.

Crumley С. L. 2001. Communication, Holism, and the Evolution of Social-Political Complexity. From Leaders to Rulers / Ed. by J. Haas, pp. 19–33. New York etc.: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

Crumley С. L. 2005. Remember How to Organize Heterarchy Across Disciplines. Nonlinear Models for Archaeology and Anthropology / Ed. by C. S. Beekman and W. W. Baden, pp. 35–50. Aldershot: Ashgate.

Dennett D., and McKay R. 2006. A Continuum of Mindfulness. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 29: 353–354.

Dozhdev D. V. 2000. Rome (8^th – 2^nd Centuries В.С.). In Bondarenko and Korotayev 2000a: 255–286.

Dresch P. 1984. The Position of Shaykhs among the Northern Tribes of Yemen. Man 19: 31–49.

Earle T. 1978. Economic and Social Organization of a Complex Chiefdom: The Halelea District, Kiua‘i, Hawaii. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Ehrenreich R. M., Crumley С. L., and Levy J. E. (Eds.) 1995. Heterarchy and the Analysis of Complex Societies. Washington, D.C.: American Anthropological Association.

Fenton 1978 – Фентон У. Н. 1978. Ирокезы в истории. Североамериканские индейцы / Ред. Ю. П. Аверкиева, с. 109–156. М.: Прогресс.

Ferguson Y. 1991. From Chiefdoms to City-States: The Greek Experience. Chiefdoms: Power, Economy, and Ideology / Ed. by T. Earle, pp. 169–192. Cambridge – New York: Cambridge University Press.

Fortes M., and Evans-Pritchard E. E. 1987 [1940]. (Eds.) African Political Systems. London – New York: International African Institute.

Frantsouzoff S. A. 1995. The Inscriptions from the Temples of Dhat Himyam at Raybun. Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 25: 15–27, tables I–II.

Frantsouzoff S. A. 1997. Regulation of Conjugal Relations in Ancient Raybun. Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 27: 47–62.

Frantsouzoff S. A. 2000a. The Society of Raybun. In Kradin et al. 2000: 258–265.

Frantsouzoff 2000b – Французов С. А. 2000. Общество Райбуна. Альтернативные пути к цивилизации / Ред. Н. Н. Крадин, А. В. Ко­ротаев, Д. М. Бондаренко, В. А. Лынша, с. 302–312. М.: Логос.

Frolov 1986 – Фролов Э. Д. 1986. Рождение греческого полиса. Становление и развитие раннеклассовых обществ (город и государство) / Ред. Г. Л. Курбатов, Э. Д. Фролов, И. Я. Фроянов, с. 8–99. Л.: Изд-во ЛГУ.

Fuentes F. 2006. Evolution Is Important but It Is not Simple: Defining Cultural Traits and Incorporating Complex Evolutionary Theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 29: 354–355.

Führer-Haimendorf C. 1962. The Ара Tanis and Their Neighbours. London – New York: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

van Gennep 2002 – ван Геннеп А. 2002 [1909]. Обряды перехода. М.: Вост. лит-ра.

Girenko 1993 – Гиренко Н. М. 1993. Племя и государство: проблемы эволюции. Ранние формы социальной стратификации. Генезис, историческая динамика, потестарно-политические функции / Ред. В. А. Попов, с. 122–131. М.: Вост. лит-ра.

Gluckman M. 1987 [1940]. The Kingdom of the Zulu of South Africa. In Fortes and Evans-Pritchard 1987: 25–55.

Gluskina 1983 – Глускина Л. М. 1983. Проблемы кризиса полиса. Античная Греция. Проблемы развития полиса. 2. Кризис полиса / Ред. Е. С. Голубцова, с. 5–42. М.: Наука.

Goldman I. 1970. Ancient Polynesian Society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Golubtsova 1983 – Голубцова Е. С. 1983. (Ред.) Античная Греция. Проблемы развития полиса. Т. I. Становление и развитие полиса. М.: Наука.

Grakov 1971 – Граков Б. Н. 1971. Скифы. М.: МГУ.

Grinin 1997–2001 – Гринин Л. Е. 1997–2001. Формации и цивилизации. [Книга печаталась в журнале «Философия и общество» с 1997 по 2001 г.]

Grinin 1997 – Гринин Л. Е. 1997. Формации и цивилизации. Гл. 4. Социально-политические, этнические и духовные аспекты социологии истории. Философия и общество 5: 5–64.

Grinin 1998 – Гринин Л. Е. 1998. Формации и цивилизации. Глава 7. Законы исторического процесса. Философия и общество 6: 5–51.

Grinin 2000а – Гринин Л. Е. 2000. Политогенез: генеральная и боковые линии. Волгоград: Учитель.

Grinin L. E. 2000b. Politogenesis: General and Lateral Branches. In Bondarenko and Sledzevski 2000: 51.

Grinin 2000c – Гринин Л. Е. 2000. Производительные силы и исторический процесс. М.: Теис.

Grinin 2001–2006 – Гринин Л. Е. 2001–2006. Генезис государства как составная часть процесса перехода от первобытности к цивилизации (общий контекст социальной эволюции при образовании раннего государства). Философия и общество 4/2001: 5–60; 2/2002: 5–74; 3/2002: 5–73; 2/2003: 5–42; 3/2003: 5–57; 1/2004: 5–44; 4/2004: 5–44; 4/2005: 5–29; 2/2006: 20–67.

Grinin L. E. 2002a. General Context of Social Evolution at the Early State Formation. Volgograd: Uchitel.

Grinin L. E. 2002b. General Context of the Social Evolution at the Early State Formation. In Beliaev, Bondarenko, and Frantsouzoff 2002: 86–87.

Grinin 2002c – Гринин Л. Е. 2002. Общий контекст социальной эволюции при образовании государства. Волгоград: Учитель.

Grinin L. E. 2003. The Early State and its Analogues. Social Evolution & History 1: 131–176.

Grinin L. E. 2004a. Democracy and Early State. Social Evolution & History 3(2): 93–149.

Grinin L. E. 2004b. Early State and Democracy. The Early State, Its Alternatives and Analogues. In Grinin et al. 2004: 419–463.

Grinin L. E. 2004c. The Early State and Its Analogues: A Comparative Analysis. In Grinin et al. 2004: 88–136.

Grinin 2006а – Гринин Л. Е. 2006. От раннего к зрелому государству. Раннее государство, его альтернативы и аналоги / Ред. Л. Е. Гринин, Д. М. Бондаренко, Н. Н. Крадин, А. В. Коротаев, с. 523–556. Волгоград: Учитель.

Grinin 2006b – Гринин Л. Е. 2006. Раннее государство и демократия. Раннее государство, его альтернативы и аналоги / Ред. Л. Е. Гринин, Д. М. Бондаренко, Н. Н. Крадин, А. В. Коротаев, с. 337–386. Волгоград: Учитель.

Grinin 2006c – Гринин Л. Е. 2006. Раннее государство и его аналоги. Раннее государство, его альтернативы и аналоги / Ред. Л. Е. Гринин, Д. М. Бондаренко, Н. Н. Крадин, А. В. Коротаев, с. 85–163. Волгоград: Учитель.

Grinin 2006d – Гринин Л. Е. 2006. О стадиях эволюции государства. Проблемы теории. История и современность 1: 3–45.

Grinin L. E. 2007a. Alternativity of State Formation Process: The Early State vs. State Analogues. In Bondarenko and Nemirovskiy 2007: 167–183.

Grinin L. E. 2007b. The Early State Analogues. Social Natural History: Selected Lectures of I–XVI Schools ‘Human Being and Nature: Problems of Social-Natural History’ (1992–2007) / Ed. by E. S. Kulpin, pp. 77–105. Moscow: KomKniga/URSS.

Grinin L. E. 2007c. Production Revolutions and the Periodization of History. Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences 77(2): 150–156.

Grinin 2007d – Гринин Л. Е. 2007. Аналоги раннего государства: альтернативные пути эволюции. Личность. Культура. Общество 9(1): 149–169.

Grinin 2007e – Гринин Л. Е. 2007. Государство и исторический процесс: Политический срез исторического процесса. М.: КомКнига/URSS.

Grinin 2007f – Гринин Л. Е. 2007. Государство и исторический процесс. Эволюция государственности: от раннего государства к зрелому. М.: КомКнига/URSS.

Grinin 2007g – Гринин Л. Е. 2007. Государство и исторический процесс. Эпоха формирования государства: общий контекст социальной эволюции при образовании государства. М.: КомКнига/URSS.

Grinin 2007h – Гринин Л. Е. 2007. Зависимость между размерами общества и эволюционным типом политии. История и Математика: Aнализ и моделирование социально-исторических процессов / Ред. А. В. Коротаев, С. Ю. Малков, Л. Е. Гринин, с. 263–303. М.: КомКнига/URSS.

Grinin 2007i – Гринин Л. Е. 2007. Размеры общества и эволюционный тип политии: некоторые зависимости (к постановке проблемы). Природа и общество: Сибирь – судьба России / Ред. Э. С. Кульпин, с. 82–116. М.: ИАЦ-Энергия.

Grinin 2007j – Гринин Л. Е. 2007. Некоторые размышления по поводу природы законов, связанных с демографическими циклами (к постановке проблемы определения общих методологических подходов к анализу демографических циклов). История и математика: Концептуальное пространство и направления поиска / Ред. П. В. Турчин, Л. Е. Гринин, С. Ю. Малков, А. В. Коротаев, с. 219–246. М.: ЛКИ/URSS.

Grinin 2008 – Гринин Л. Е. 2008. Эволюция государственности: от догосударственной эпохи к надгосударственной. Личность. Культура. Общество 10(5–6): 184–198.

Grinin L. E. 2009. The Pathways of Politogenesis and Models of the Early State Formation. Social Evolution & History 8(1): 92–132.

Grinin et al. 2006 – Гринин Л. Е., Бондаренко Д. М., Крадин Н. Н., Коротаев А. В. 2006. (Ред.) Раннее государство, его альтернативы и аналоги. Волгоград: Учитель.

Grinin L. E., Carneiro R. L., Bondarenko D. M., Kradin N. N., and Korotayev A. V. 2004. (Eds.) The Early State, Its Alternatives and Analogues. Volgograd: Uchitel.

Grinin L. E., and Korotayev A. V. 2006. Political Development of the World System: A Formal Quantitative Analysis. History and Mathematics. Historical Dynamics and Development of Complex Societies / Ed. by P. Turchin, L. Grinin, A. Korotaev, and V. de Munck, pp. 115–153. Moscow: KomKniga/URSS.

Grinin and Korotayev 2007а – Гринин Л. Е., Коротаев А. В. 2007. Социальная макроэволюция и исторический процесс (к постановке проблемы). Философия и общество 2: 19–66; 3: 5–48; 4: 17–50.

Grinin and Korotayev 2007b – Гринин Л. Е., Коротаев А. В. 2007. Политическое развитие Мир-Системы: формальный и количественный анализ. История и математика: макроисторическая динамика общества и государства / Ред. С. Ю. Малков, Л. Е. Гринин, А. В. Коротаев, с. 49–101. М.: КомКнига/URSS.

Grinin L. E., and Korotayev A. V. 2009a. The Epoch of the Initial Politogenesis. Social Evolution & History 8(1): 52–91.

Grinin and Korotayev 2009b – Гринин Л. Е., Коротаев А. В. 2009. Социальная макроэволюция. Генезис и трансформации Мир-Системы. М.: Изд-во ЛКИ/URSS.

Grinin, Markov, and Korotayev 2008 – Гринин Л. Е., Марков А. В., Коротаев А. В. 2008. Макроэволюция в живой природе и обществе. М.: УРСС.

Grinin, Markov, and Korotayev 2009 – Гринин Л. Е., Марков А. В., Коротаев А. В. 2009. Ароморфозы в живой природе и обществе: опыт сравнения биологической и социальной форм макроэволюции. Эволюция: космическая, биологическая, социальная / Ред. Л. Е. Гринин, А. В. Марков, А. В. Коротаев, с. 176–225. М.: Книжный дом «ЛИБРОКОМ».

Gurevich 1972 – Гуревич А. Я. 1972. История и сага. М.: Наука.

Hallpike C. R. 1986. Principles of Social Evolution. Oxford: Clarendon.

Hjaul'marsson 2003 – Хьяульмарссон Й. Р. 2003. История Исландии. М.: Весь мир.

Ionov 1992 – Ионов И. Н. 1992. Исторический субъект и альтернативы социальной деятельности. Альтернативность истории / Ред. Я. Г. Шемякин, А. В. Коротаев, с. 109–131. Донецк: ДО САМИ.

Irons W. 1979. Natural Selection, Adaptation, and Human Social Behavior. Evolutionary Biology and Human Social Behavior. An Anthropological Perspective / Ed. by N. A. Chagnon and W. Irons, pp. 4–39. North Scituate, MA: Duxbury Press.

Johnson A. W., and Earle T. K. 2000. The Evolution of Human Societies: From Foraging Group to Agrarian State. 2^nd ed. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Kabo 1986 – Кабо В. Р. 1986. Первобытная доземледельческая община. М.: Наука.

Кalinovskaya 1976 – Калиновская К. П. 1976. Возрастные группы народов Восточной Африки. Структура и функции. М.: Наука.

Kelly D., Machery E., Mallon R., Mason K., and Stich S. P. 2006. The Role of Psychology in the Study of Culture. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 29: 355.

Kincaid H. 2006. Evolutionary Social Science beyond Culture. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 29: 356.

Knudsen T., and Hodgson G. M. 2006. Cultural Evolution is More than Neurological Evolution. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 29: 356–357.

Kobishchanov Yu. M. 2000. The Community-Caste Systems. In Bondarenko and Sledzevski 2000: 63–64.

Kochakova 1968 – Кочакова Н. Б. 1968. Города-государства йорубов. М.: Наука.

Kochakova 1986 – Кочакова Н. Б. 1986. Рождение африканской цивилизации (Ифе, Ойо, Бенин, Дагомея). М.: Наука.

Koloss H.-J. 1992. Kwifon and Fon in Oku. On Kingship in the Cameroon Grasslands. Kings of Africa. Art and Authority in Central Africa / Ed. by E. Beumers and H.-J. Koloss, pp. 33–42. Maastricht: Foundation Kings of Africa.

Korotayev 1992 – Коротаев А. В. 1992. Объективные социологические законы и субъективный фактор. Альтернативность истории / Ред. Р. В. Манекин, с. 76–108. Донецк: Донецкое отделение САМИ.

Korotayev A. V. 1995a. Ancient Yemen. Some General Trends of Evolution of the Sabaic Language and the Sabaean Culture. Oxford – New York: Oxford University Press.

Korotayev A. V. 1995b. Mountains and Democracy: An Introduction. In Kradin and Lynsha 1995: 60–74.

Korotayev 1995c – Коротаев А. В. 1995. Некоторые проблемы социальной эволюции арха­ических (и не только архаических) обществ. Восток 5: 211–220.

Korotayev 1995d – Коротаев А. В. 1995. Апология трайбализма: Племя как форма социально-политической организации сложных первобытных обществ. Социологический журнал 4: 68–86.

Korotayev 1995e – Коротаев А. В. 1995. Горы и демократия: к постановке проблемы. Альтернативные пути к ранней государственности / Ред. Н. Н. Крадин, В. А. Лынша, с. 77–93. Владивосток: Дальнаука.

Korotayev A. V. 1995f – Коротаев А. В. 1995. Горы и демократия. Восток 3: 18–26.

Korotayev A. V. 1996a. Pre-Islamic Yemen. Social-Political Organization of the Sabaean Cultural Area in the 2^nd and 3^rd Centuries AD. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.

Korotayev 1996b – Коротаев А. В. 1996. Два социально-экологических кризиса и генезис племенной организации на северо-востоке Йемена. Восток 6: 18–28.

Korotayev 1996c – Коротаев А. В. 1996. От вождества к племени? Некоторые тенденции эволюции политических систем северо-восточного Йемена за последние две тысячи лет. Этнографическое обозрение 2: 81–91.

Korotayev 1997 – Коротаев А. В. 1997. Сабейские этюды. Некоторые общие тенденции и факторы эволюции сабейской цивилизации. М.: Вост. лит-ра.

Korotayev 1998 – Коротаев А. В. 1998. Вождества и племена страны Хāшид и Бакил. М.: ИВ РАН.

Korotayev 1999 – Коротаев А. В. 1999. Объективные социологические законы и субъективный фактор. Время мира. Вып. 1. Историческая макросоциология в ХХ веке / Ред. Н. С. Розов, с. 204–233. Новосибирск: Научно-издательский центр ОИГГМ СО РАН.

Korotayev A. V. 2000a. The Chiefdom: Precursor of the Tribe? (Some Trends of the Evolution of the Political Systems of the North-East Yemen in the 1^st and 2^nd Millennia AD). In Kradin et al. 2000: 242–257.

Korotayev A. V. 2000b. North-East Yemen (1^st and 2^nd Millennia AD). In Bondarenko and Korotayev 2000a: 191–227.

Korotayev 2000c – Коротаев А. В. 2000. От государства к вождеству? От вождества к племени? (Некоторые общие тенденции эволюции южноаравийских социально-политических систем за последние три тысячи лет). Ранние формы социальной организации. Генезис, функционирование, историческая динамика / Ред. В. А. Попов, с. 224–302. СПб.: Вост. лит-ра.

Korotayev 2000d – Коротаев А. В. 2000. Племя как форма социально-политической организации сложных непервобытных обществ (в основном по материалам Северо-восточного Йемена). Альтернативные пути к цивилизации / Ред. Н. Н. Крадин, А. В. Коротаев, Д. М. Бондаренко, В. А. Лынша, с. 265–291. М.: Логос.

Korotayev A. V. 2003a. Christianity and Democracy: A Cross-Cultural Study (Afterthoughts). World Cultures 13(2): 195–212.

Korotayev A. V. 2003b. Unilineal Descent Groups and Deep Christianization: A Cross-Cultural Comparison. Cross-Cultural Research 37(1): 132–156.

Korotayev 2003c – Коротаев А. В. 2003. Социальная эволюция: факторы, закономерности, тенденции. М.: Вост. лит-ра.

Korotayev A. V. 2004. World Religions and Social Evolution of the Old World Oikumene Civilizations: A Cross-Cultural Perspective. Lewiston, NY: The Edwin Mellen Press.

Korotayev 2006 – Коротаев А. В. 2006. Социальная история Йемена. М.: КомКнига/URSS.

Korotayev A. V., and Bondarenko D. M. 2000. Polygyny and Democracy: A Cross-Cultural Comparison. Cross-Cultural Research 34: 190–208.

Korotayev and Bondarenko 2001 – Коротаев А. В., Бондаренко Д. М. 2001. Полигиния и демократия: кросс-культурное исследование. Алгебра родства 7: 173–186.

Korotayev, Klimenko, and Prusakov 2007 – Коротаев А. В., Клименко В. В., Прусаков Д. Б. 2007. Возникновение ислама: Социально-экологический и политико-антропологический контекст. М.: ОГИ.

Korotayev, Komarova, and Khaltourina 2007 – Коротаев А. В., Комарова Н. Л., Халтурина Д. А. 2007. Законы истории. Вековые циклы и тысячелетние тренды. Демография. Экономика. Войны. М.: КомКнига/URSS.

Korotayev, Kradin, and Lynsha 2000 – Коротаев А. В., Крадин Н. Н., Лынша В. А. 2000. Альтернативы социальной эволюции (вводные замечания). Альтернативные пути к цивилизации / Ред. Н. Н. Крадин, А. В. Коротаев, Д. М. Бондаренко, В. А. Лынша, с. 24–83. М.: Логос.

Korotayev A. V., Kradin N. N., Lynsha V. A., and de Munck V. 2000. Alternatives of Social Evolution: An Introduction. In Kradin et al. 2000: 27–89.

Korotayev and Tsereteli 2001 – Коротаев А. В., Церетели Т. К. 2001. Родовая организация и «глубокая Христианизация». Язык, культура и общество / Ред. О. Б. Христофорова, А. В. Дыбо, с. 19–44. М.: РГГУ.

Kottak C. P. 1980. The Past in the Present. History, Ecology and Cultural Variation in Highland Madagascar. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Kowalewski S. A. 2000. Cyclical Transformations in North American Prehistory. In Kradin et al. 2000: 177–187.

Kradin 1992 – Крадин Н. Н. 1992. Кочевые общества. Владивосток: Дальнаука.

Kradin 1996 – Крадин Н. Н. 1996. Империя Хунну. Владивосток: Дальнаука.

Kradin N. N. 2000a. The Xsiungnu (200 ВС – AD 48). In Bondarenko and Korotayev 2000a: 287–304.

Kradin N. N. 2000b. Nomads, World-Empires, and Social Evolution. In Kradin et al. 2000: 274–288.

Kradin 2001 – Крадин Н. Н. 2001. Политическая антропология. М.: Ладомир.

Kradin and Bondarenko 2002 – Крадин Н. Н., Бондаренко Д. М. 2002. (Ред.) Кочевая альтернатива социальной эволюции. М.: Ин-т Африки РАН.

Kradin N. N., Bondarenko D. M., and Barfield T. J. 2003. (eds.) Nomadic Pathways in Social Evolution. Moscow: Center for Civilizational and Regional Studies RAS.

Kradin N. N., Korotayev A. V., Bondarenko D. M., de Munck V., and Wason P. K. 2000. (eds.) Alternatives of Social Evolution. Vladivostok: FEB RAS.

Kradin N. N., and Lynsha V. A. 1995. (eds.) Alternative Pathways to Early State. Vladivostok: Dal'nauka.

Krasheninnikov 1949 – Крашенинников С. П. 1949. Описание земли Камчатка. М. – Л.: Изд-во Главсевморпути.

Krushanov 1990 – Крушанов А. И. 1990. (Ред.) История и культура ительменов: историко-этнографические очерки. Л.: Наука.

Kubbel' 1988а – Куббель Л. Е. 1988. Возникновение частной собственности, классов и государства. История первобытного общества. Эпоха классообразования / Ред. Ю. В. Бромлей, с. 140–269. М.: Наука.

Kubbel' 1988b – Куббель Л. Е. 1988. Очерки потестарно-политической этнографии. М.: Наука.

Leljukhin 2001 – Лелюхин Д. Н. 2001. Концепция идеального царства в «Артхашастре» Каутильи и проблема структуры древнеиндийского государства. Государство в истории общества. К проблеме критериев государственности / Ред. Д. Н. Лелюхин, Ю. В. Любимов, с. 9–148. М.: Ин-т востоковедения РАН.

Leljukhin 2004 – Лелюхин Д. Н. 2004. Проблема формирования социально-поли­тической структуры раннего общества и государства по сведениям эпиграфики. Непал периода Личчхави. Государство на Древнем Востоке / Ред. Э. А. Грантовский, Т. В. Степугина, с. 319–341. М.: Вост. лит-ра.

Levy J. E. 1995. Heterarchy in Bronze Age Denmark: Settlement Pattern, Gender, and Ritual. In Ehrenreiсh et al. 1995: 41–53.

Lewis H. S. 1981. Warfare and the Origin of the State: Another Formulation. The Study of the State / Ed. by H. J. M. Claessen and P. Skalník, pp. 201–221. The Hague: Mouton.

Lopatin 1922 – Лопатин И. А. 1922. Гольды амурские, уссурийские, сунгарские. Опыт этнографического исследования. Владивосток: Общ-во изучения Амурского края.

Lozny L. 2000. Social Complexity: Necessity or Chance? In Bondarenko and Sledzevski 2000: 79–80.

Lyman R. L. 2006. Cultural Traits and Cultural Integration. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 29: 357–358.

Lynsha V. 1998. From Chiefdom to Tribe: Svealand in AD 400–1100. In Butovskaya, Korotayev, and Khristoforova 1998: 99–100.

Mann M. 1986. The Sources of Social Power. Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Maretina 1995 – Маретина С. А. 1995. К проблеме универсальности вождеств: о природе вождей у нага (Индия). Ранние формы политической организации: от первобытности к государственности / Ред. В. А. Попов, с. 79–103. М.: Вост. лит-ра.

Martin S., and Grube, N. 2000. Chronicle of Maya Kings and Queens (Deciphering the Dynasties of the Ancient Maya). London: Thames and Hudson.

McIntosh S. K. 1999. Pathways to Complexity: An African Perspective. Beyond Chiefdoms. Pathways to Complexity in Africa / Ed. by S. K. McIntosh, pp. 1–30. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Mende W., and Wermke K. 2006. A Long Way to Understanding Cultural Evolution. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 29: 358–359.

Meshkov 1982 – Мешков К. Ю. 1982. Филиппины. Малые народы Индонезии, Малайзии и Филиппин / Ред. Н. Н. Чебоксаров, А. И. Кузнецов, с. 175–226. М.: Наука.

Mesoudi A., Whiten A., and Laland K. 2006. Towards a Unified Science of Cultural Evolution. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 29: 329–383.

Mudar K. M. 1999. How Many Dvaravati Kingdoms? Locational Analysis of First Millennium AD Moated Settlements in Central Thailand. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 18: 1–28.

Mulder M. B., McElreath R., Schroeder K. B. 2006. Analogies are Powerful and Dangerous Things. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 29: 350–351.

Mulvaney J., and Kamminga J. 1999. Prehistory of Australia. Sydney: Allen and Udwin.

Nefedov 2007 – Нефедов С. А. 2007. Концепция демографических циклов. Екатеринбург: УГГУ.

Nikitin 1987 – Никитин Н. И. 1987. О формационной природе ранних казачьих сообществ (к постановке вопроса). Феодализм в России / Ред. В. Л. Янин, с. 236–245. М.: Наука.

O'Brien M. J. 2006. Archaeology and Cultural Macroevolution. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 29: 359–360.

Ol'geirsson 1957 – Ольгейрссон Э. 1957. Из прошлого исландского народа. Родовой строй и государство в Исландии / пер. с исл. М.: ИЛ.

Orlova 1984 – Орлова А. С. 1984. Мадагаскар. История Африки в XIX – начале XX в. / Ред. В. А. Субботин, с. 178–186. М.: Наука.

Orlova 1999 – Орлова Е. П. 1999. Ительмены: историко-этнографический очерк. СПб.: Наука.

Pagel M. 2006. Darwinian Cultural Evolution Rivals Genetic Evolution. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 29: 360.

Palat R. A. 1987. The Vijayanagara Empire. Re-Integration of the Agrarian Order of Medieval South India, 1336–1565. In Claessen and van de Velde 1987: 170–186.

Patterson Th. С., and Gailey С. W. (Eds.) 1987. Power Relations and State Formation. Washington, D.C.: American Anthropological Association.

Pavlenko 1996 – Павленко Ю. В. 1996. Iсторiя свiтовоi цивiлiзацii. Киiв: Либiдь.

Pavlenko 2000 – Павленко Ю. В. 2000. Происхождение цивилизации: альтернативные пути. Альтернативные пути к цивилизации / Ред. Н. Н. Крадин, А. В. Коротаев, Д. М. Бондаренко, В. А. Лынша, с. 115–129. М.: Логос.

Pomper P., and Shaw D. C. 2002. (Eds.) The Return of Science. Evolution, History, and Theory. Boulder, CO: Rowman & Littlefield.

Popov 1995a – Попов В. А. 1995. Политогенетическая контроверза, параполитейность и феномен вторичной государственности. Ранние формы политической организации: от первобытности к государственности / Ред. В. А. Попов, с. 188–204. М.: Вост. лит-ра.

Popov 1995b – Попов В. А. 1995. (Ред.) Ранние формы политической организации: от первобытности к государственности. М.: Вост. лит-ра.

Popov 2000 – Попов В. А. 2000. (Ред.) Ранние формы социальной организации. Генезис, функционирование, историческая динамика. СПб.: Музей антропологии и этнографии им. Петра Великого (Кунсткамера) РАН.

Possehl G. L. 1998. Social-Cultural Complexity without the State: The Indus Civilization. Archaic States / Ed. by G. M. Feinman and J. Marcus, pp. 261–292. Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press.

Quigley D. 1999. The Interpretation of Caste. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Ratzel' 1902 – Ратцель Ф. 1902. Народоведение. Т. 1. СПб.: Просвещение.

Read D. W. 2006. Cultural Evolution is not Equivalent to Darwinian Evolution. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 29: 361.

Reader S. M. 2006. Evo-devo, Modularity, and Evolvability: Insights for Cultural Evolution. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 29: 361–362.

Rebrikova 1987 – Ребрикова Н. В. 1987. Государство, община, класс в буддийских обществах Центрального Индокитая (V–XV вв.). Государство в докапиталистических обществах Азии / Ред. Г. Ф. Ким, К. З. Ашрафян, с. 158–180. М.: Наука.

Ritter E. A. 1955. Shaka Zulu: The Rise of the Zulu Empire. London: Longmans, Green.

Rozner 1970 – Рознер И. Г. 1970. Антифеодальные государственные образования в России и на Украине в XVI–XVIII вв. Вопросы истории 8: 42–56.

Sahlins M. D. 1960. Evolution: Specific and General. Evolution and Culture / Ed. by M. D. Sahlins and E. R. Service, p. 12. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Sahlins M. D. 1972 [1958]. Social Stratification in Polynesia. Seattle – London: University of Washington Press.

Samozvantsev 2001 – Самозванцев А. М. 2001. Социально-правовая организация индийского общества в конце I тыс. до н. э. – первой половине I тыс. н. э. Государство в истории общества. К проблеме критериев государственности / Ред. Д. Н. Лелюхин, Ю. В. Любимов, с. 259–292. М.: Ин-т востоковедения РАН.

Schaedel R. 1995. The Temporal Variants of Proto-State Societies. Alternative Pathways to Early State. In Kradin and Lynsha 1995: 47–53.

Seaton L. 1978. The Early State in Hawaii. In Claessen and Skalník 1978: 269–287.

Sem 1959 – Сем Ю. А. 1959. Родовая организация нанайцев и ее разложение. Владивосток: Изд-во Дальневосточной секции Сибирского отд-я АН СССР.

Service E. R. 1971 [1962]. Primitive Social Organization. An Evolutionary Perspective. 2^nd ed. New York: Random House.

Shnirel'man 1993 – Шнирельман В. А. 1993. Рыболовы Камчатки: экономический потенциал и особенности социальных отношений. Ранние формы социальной стратификации: генезис, историческая динамика, потестарно-политические функции / Ред. В. А. Попов, с. 98–121. М.: Наука.

Shnirel'man V. A. 1994. Cerchez le Chien: Perspectives on the Economy of the Traditional Fishing-Oriented People of Kamchatka. Key Issues in Hunter-Gatherer Research / Ed. by E. S. Jr. Burch and L. J. Ellanna, pp. 169–188. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Shtaerman 1989 – Штаерман Е. М. 1989. К проблеме возникновения государства в Риме. Вестник древней истории 2: 76–94.

Shtyrbul 2006 – Штырбул А. А. 2006. Безгосударственные общества в эпоху государственности (III тыс. до н. э. – II тыс. н. э.). Омск: Изд-во Омского гос. пед. ун-та.

Skalník 1991 – Скальник П. 1991. Понятие «политическая система» в западной социальной антропологии. СЭ 3: 144–146.

Smith R. S. 1988. Kingdoms of the Yoruba. London: James Currey.

Smolyak 1970 – Смоляк А. В. 1970. Социальная организация народов Нижнего Амура. Общественный строй народов Северной Сибири (XVII – начало ХХ в.) / Ред. И. С. Гурвич, Б. О. Долгих, с. 114–133. М.: Наука.

Sopher B. 2006. A Unified Science of Cultural Evolution should Incorporate Choice. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 29: 362–363.

Spencer H. 1972 [1862]. On Social Evolution. Chicago: Aldine.

Steblin-Kamenskiy 1984 – Стеблин-Каменский М. И. 1984. Мир саги. Л.: ЛГУ.

Tainter J. A. 1990. The Collapse of Complex Societies. Cambridge: Cambridge Universtiy Press.

Tambiah S. J. 1977. The Galactic Polity: The Structure of Traditional Kingdoms in Southeast Asia. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 293: 69–97.

Tambiah S. J. 1985. Culture, Thought, and Social Action: An Anthropological Perspective. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Tardits C. 1980. Le royaume Bamoum. Paris: Colin.

Tehrani J. 2006. The Uses of Ethnography in the Science of Cultural Evolution. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 29: 363–364.

Thierry B. 1990. Feedback Loop between Kinship and Dominance: The Macaque Model. Journal of Theoretical Biology 145: 511–521.

Townsend J. B. 1985. The Autonomous Village and the Development of Chiefdoms. Development and Decline. The Evolution of Social-Political Organization / Ed. by H. J. M. Claessen, P. van de Velde, and M. E. Smith, pp. 141–155. South Hadley, MA: Bergin and Garvey.

Tuden A., and Marshall С. 1972. Political Organization: Cross-Cultural Codes 4. Ethnology 11: 436–464.

Turchin 2007 – Турчин П. В. 2007. Историческая динамика. На пути к теоретической истории. М.: ЛКИ/URSS.

Vavilov 1921 – Вавилов Н. И. 1921. Закон гомологических рядов в наследственной изменчивости. Сельское и лесное хозяйство 1: 27–39.

Vavilov 1927 – Вавилов Н. И. 1927. Географические закономерности в распределении генов культурных растений. Природа 10: 41–56.

Vavilov 1967 – Вавилов Н. И. 1967. Избранные произведения. Т. 1–2. Л.: АН СССР.

van der Vliet E. Ch. L. 1987. Tyranny and Democracy. The Evolution of Politics in Ancient Greece. In Claessen and van de Velde 1987: 70–90.

van der Vliet E. Ch. L. 2005. Polis. The Problem of Statehood. Social Evolution & History 4(2): 120–150.

Volodin 2003 – Володин А. П. 2003. Ительмены. СПб.: Дрофа.

Wallerstein I. 1974. The Modern World-System: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century. New York: Academic Press.

Wallerstein I. 1979. The Capitalist World Economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wallerstein I. 1987. World-Systems Analysis. Social Theory Today / Ed. by A. Giddens and J. H. Turner, pp. 309–324. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Whyte M. K. 1978. The Status of Women in Preindustrial Societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Wimsatt W. S. 2006. Generative Entrenchment and an Evolutionary Developmental Biology for Culture. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 29: 364–366.

Woodburn J. С. 1972. The Local Group among Hunters and Gatherers: An East African Example and its Implications. Man, Settlement and Urbanism / Ed. by P. J. Ucko, R. Tringham, and G. W. Dimbleby, pp. 193–206. Lon­don: Duckworth.

Woodburn J. С. 1979. Minimal Politics: The Political Organization of the Hadza of North Tanzania. Politics in Leadership: A Comparative Perspective / Ed. by W. A. Shack and P. S. Cohen, pp. 244–266. Oxford: Claren­don Press.

Woodburn J. С. 1980. Hunters and Gatherers Today and Reconstruction of the Past. Soviet and Western Anthropology / Ed. by E. Gellner, pp. 95–117. London: Duckworth.

Woodburn J. С. 1982. Egalitarian Societies. Man 17: 431–451.

Woodburn J. С. 1988a. African Hunter-Gatherer Social Organization. Is it Best Understood as a Product of Encapsulation. Hunters and Gatherers. History, Evolution and Social Change / Ed. by Т. Ingold, D. Riches, and J. Woodburn. Vol. 1, pp. 31–64. Oxford: Berg Publishers.

Woodburn J. С. 1988b. Some Connections between Property, Power and Ideology. Hunters and Gatherers. Property, Power and Ideology / Ed. by Т. Ingold, D. Riches, and J. Woodburn. Vol. 2, pp. 10–31. Oxford: Berg Publishers.

Yoffee N. 1993. Too Many Chiefs? (Or, Safe Texts for the '90s). Archaeological Theory: Who Sets the Agenda? / Ed. by N. Yoffee and A. Sherratt, pp. 60–78. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Zubov 1991 – Зубов А. Б. 1991. «Вестминстерская модель» и общественное бытие Востока. Ретроспективная и сравнительная политология. Публикации и исследования / Ред. А. Б. Зубов, А. М. Салмин, Л. Л. Тайван. Т. 1, с. 50–75. М.: Наука.

[1] See e.g., Hallpike 1986; Pomper and Shaw 2002; Mesoudi et al. 2006; Aunger 2006; Barkow 2006; Blackmore 2006; Mulder et al. 2006; Borsboom 2006; Bridgeman 2006; Cronk 2006; Dennett and McKay 2006; Fuentes 2006; Kelly et al. 2006; Kincaid 2006; Knudsen and Hodgson 2006; Lyman 2006; Mende and Wermke 2006; O'Brien 2006; Pagel 2006; Read 2006; Reader 2006; Sopher 2006; Tehrani 2006; Wimsatt 2006; on such comparisons, as well as our own ideas about similarities and differences between social and biological evolution, in more details see Grinin and Korotayev 2007а, 2009b; Grinin, Markov, and Korotayev 2008: 145–152; 2009. Note, however, that in fact frequently this was essentially Spencerian vision which was implied in such cases; that is the evolution was perceived as ‘a change from an incoherent homogeneity to a coherent heterogeneity’ (Spencer 1972 [1862]: 71).

[2] This can also be called the rule of suddicient variability (see Grinin, Markov, and Korotayev 2008: 68–71).

[3] Throughout the present article the state is understood as ‘...a sufficiently stable political unit characterized by the organization of power and administration which is separated from the population, and claims a supreme right to govern certain territory and population, i.e. to demand from it certain actions irrespective of its agreement or disagreement to do this, and possessing resources and forces to achieve these claims’ (Grinin 1997: 20; see also Grinin 2000c: 190).

[4] See also its fundamental criticism by Mann (1986), the most radically negative attitude to this scheme expressed in categories of social evolu­tion ‘trajectories alternativity’ by Yoffee (1993), several collective works of recent years (Patterson and Gailey 1987; Ehrenreich et al. 1995; Kradin and Lynsha 1995; Kradin et al. 2000; Bondarenko and Korotayev 2000a), proceedings of recent international conferences (Butovskaya et al. 1998; Bondareko and Sledzevski 2000).

[5] James Woodburn and Olga Artemova deal almost exclusively with examples of ‘non-egalitarian’ Australian Aborigenes and ‘egalitarian’ peoples of Africa (the Hadza, San, Pygmies), analogous to them by the socio-cultural complexity level. However, the evidence from other continents' societies confirm that organization of cultures of the same complexity level along either heterarchic or homoarchic lines is characteristic of the humankind from the typologically earliest ones (Bondarenko 2006). The examples of the peoples leaving in the same cultural area and basing their subsistence on similar means, like fishers of the Far East – the ‘egalitarian’ Itelmens and ‘non-egalitarian’ Nanais, are especially instructive (Krasheninnikov 1949; Lopatin 1922; see also Sem 1959; Smolyak 1970; Кrushanov 1990; Shnirel'man 1993; 1994; Orlova 1999; Bulgakova 2001, 2002; Bereznitsky 2003; Volodin 2003).

[6] It should be noted that contrary to the first and third authors of the present article, its second author regards the majority of Greek poleis and the Roman polity as early state of a specific type (see Bondarenko 1998b, 2000b, 2004b, 2006; Korotayev 1995b, 1995e, 1995f vs. Grinin 2004a, 2004b, 2006b, 2007g); however, we clearly deal with an alternative of social evolution in this case too: even if these polities are considered as early states, they definitely were early states of a very specific type (see also, however, note 14). Bouzek (1990: 172) is right both in his irony about endless academic debates and in representation of the Greeks' own distinction between their polis and other peoples' states: ‘The Greeks had fewer problems than we have with the definition of the state. They saw kingdoms and kings in all parts of the world where they met one ruler, and not the council of a polis or ethnos’.

[7] For our understanding of the World-System and the world-system approach see, e.g., Bondarenko 2009; Grinin and Korotayev 2009b.

[8] As well as ‘world-ideologies’, ‘world-politics’ (see Grinin and Korotayev 2009b: 19) and similar formations that we have designated as ‘spatial-and-temporal societies groupings’ (Grinin 1997–2001, 1998; Grinin and Korotayev 2009b: 190).

[9] It was furthermore so, as not only intercultural communication but also primitive economic specialization and exchange could be observed within it (see, e.g., Butinov 1960: 113, 119; Mulvaney and Kamminga 1999: 28–31; see also Christian 2004: 197).

[10] This appears to be especially relevant for those societies where extended families are dominated not by groups of brothers, but by individual ‘fathers’ (see, e.g., Bromley 1981: 202–210).

[11] Note that among not only humans but other primates too the role of kin relations is greater in homoarchically organized associations (Thierry 1990; Butovskaya and Feinberg 1993: 25–90; Butovskaya 1993, 2000; Butovskaya, Korotayev, and Kazankov 2000).

[12] Such capacious notions as complex society, sociocultural complexity and so forth, however, do not solve the problem completely. The lack of such division is rather strange, as far as the notion of political system has firmly established itself in the English-language literature at least after publication of African Political Systems in 1940 (Fortes and Evans-Pritchard 1987 [1940]). The very conception of political system and classification of political system types are well-elaborated (for details see Skalnik 1991). Probably it is explainable by the fact that, as Skalnik and others (see Ibid.) point out, basically the whole variety of political systems was rigidly, mechanically and non-dialectically divided into two major ideal types: stateless (acephalous) and state, what has resulted in complete ignorance of the possibility of distinguishing complex systems evolution without state formation.

[13] However, such transformations could only happen when certain conditions were present. For example, this could happen as a result of the influence of neighboring state systems.

[14] Note, however, that even for those who recognize the polis socio-political model as a form of the early state the attribution as states of these or those historical incarnations of the polis model remains discussable (see, e.g., Berent 2000c; Grinin 2007f: 67–118; Korotayev, Kradin, and Lynsha 2000; see also the discussion in Social Evolution & History journal in 2004–2006, vide stricto: van der Vliet 1987, 2005; Grinin 2004a, Berent 2006). See also note 6.

[15] Probably this is just what happened to the Zulu who in a short time created (first under Dingiswayo and than under his successor Shaka) in the south of Africa in the early 19^th century a very large power out of separate small chiefdoms. Note, by the way, that high degree of supracommunity institutions hierarchization and significant degree of the institutionalized hierarchy's stability were characteristic of this mighty polity (see, e.g., Gluckman 1987 [1940]; Ritter 1955).