Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T08:51:55.940Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Social Typology and the Tropical Forest Civilizations 1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 June 2009

Michael D. Coe
Michael D. Coe
Affiliation:
Yale University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. The Classic Khmer and the Classic Maya civilizations had cult centers but not true cities. They both arose in areas which were regionally undifferentiated.

2. Easy transportation and heavy trade were lacking because of the areawide uniformity of crops and the difficult terrain. Consequently, urban centers were not and could not be supported.

3. Both areas did produce a surplus and therefore could support civilized life. The social orders of each were so set up that through religious sanctions this surplus, which included labor, could be utilized for the creation and support of huge cult centers. Such a kind of organization might be considered as unilateral (mechanical) in the Durkheimian sense.

4. In contrast, true cities arose in productive agricultural areas which were regionally specialized, with symbiotic interdependence of a Maussian nature. Trade and trade routes were highly developed so that commodity prices were sufficiently low to enable large groups of persons engaged in commerce to live together and yet make a profit on their activities. Internally specialized civilizations of this sort have been termed organic.

5. It is suggested that among the organic civilizations, the state may have had its origin in the regulation of trade; among the unilateral civilizations, in the compulsion of tribute and corvee labor.

Type
Research Article
Information
Comparative Studies in Society and History , Volume 4 , Issue 1 , November 1961 , pp. 65 - 85
Copyright
Copyright © Society for the Comparative Study of Society and History 1961

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

2 Durkheim, Emile, The Division of Labor in Society (Glencoe, III., 1949). An English Translation.Google Scholar

3 Mauss, Marcel, The Gift; Forms and Functions of Exchange in Archaic Societies (Glencoe, Ill., 1954).Google Scholar

4 Mauss, The Gift, p. 80.

5 Lévi-Strauss, “The Family”, Men, Culture, and Society, ed. Harry L. Shapiro (New York, 1956).

6 See discussion in Chi1de, C, Gordon., Social Evolution (New York, 1951, pp. 23–29).Google Scholar

7 Sanders, William T., “The Central Mexican Symbiotic Region, a Study in Prehistoric Settlement Patterns”, Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in the New World, ed. Willey, Gordon R. (= Viking Fund Publications in Anthropology No. 23) (New York, 1956), pp. 115–127.Google Scholar

8 Durkheim, ibid., p. 180.

9 Ekholm, Gordon F., “A Possible Focus of Asiatic Influence in the Late Classic Cultures of Mesoamerica”, Asia and North America, Transpacific Contacts, ed. Smith, Marian W. (= Society for American Archaeology Memoir, 9) (Salt Lake City, 1953).Google Scholar

10 Briggs, Lawrence P., “The Ancient Khmer Empire”, Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, 41, Pt. 1 (Philadelphia, 1951).Google Scholar

11 Briggs, “The Ancient Khmer Empire”, p. 49.

12 Briggs, loc. cit., p. 124.

15 I am indebted to Robert M. Adams for calling my attention to the peculiar exception of Samarra. In 836 A.D. the Caliph Mu'tasim began construction of a vast royal city, apparently urban in every sense of the word, moving the capital to this location from Baghdad, 60 miles away. After an occupation of only 45 years, the city was abandoned and the court returned once more to Baghdad. The whole history of Samarra sounds very much like a noble experiment in town planning which could have gone astray because of the poor mercantile possibilities of this site as compared with Baghdad; ex post facto one might say that the Caliph had tried to impose unilateral, mechanical structure on a population of traders and shopkeepers, and failed. The wonder is that he was able to move them in such a manner.

14 Coedés, George, Pour mieux comprendre Angkor (Paris, 1947), p. 84.Google Scholar

15 Briggs, “The Ancient Khmer Empire”, p. 125.

16 Coedés, Pour mieux comprendre Angkor.

17 Paul, Pelliot, Mémoires sur les coutumes du Cambodge de Tcheou Ta-kouan (Paris, 1951).Google Scholar

18 Briggs, “The Ancient Khmer Empire”, p. 109.

19 Coedès, Pour mieux comprendre Angkor.

20 Briggs, “The Ancient Khmer Empire”, pp. 163, 166.

21 Morley, Sylvanus G., The Ancient Maya, 3rd ed., revised by George W. Brainerd (Stanford, 1956), Table VII.

22 Coe, D, Michael., “The Funerary Temple among the Classic Maya”, Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, 12, No. 4 (1956), 387–394.Google Scholar

23 Morley, Sylvanus G., The Ancient Maya, 1st ed. (Stanford, 1946).Google Scholar

24 G., Ricketson O Jr, and Uaxactun, E. B., Guatemala, , Group E—1926–31 (= Carnegie Institution of Washington Publication, No. 477) (Washington, D. C., 1937).Google Scholar

25 Willey, Gordon R., “Problems Concerning Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in the Maya Lowlands”, Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in the New World, ed. Willey, Gordon R. (= Viking Fund Publications in Anthropology, No. 23) (New York, 1956), pp. 107–114.Google Scholar

26 Brainerd, George W., “Changing Living Patterns of the Yucatan Maya”, American Antiquity, XXII, No. 2, Pt. I (1956), p. 162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

27 Ricketson and Ricketson, Uaxactun, Guatemala, Group E—1926–1931, p. 162.

28 Willey, “Problems Concerning Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in the Maya Lowlands”, p. 110.

29 R, Bullard William., J., “Maya Settlement Pattern in Northeastern Peten, Guatemala”, American Antiquity, 25, No. 3 (Salt Lake City, 1960), p. 355–372.Google Scholar

30 W, Schufeldt P., “Reminiscences of a Chiclero”, Morleyana (Sante Fe, 1950), pp. 224h–229.Google Scholar

31 Briggs, “The Ancient Khmer Empire”, p. 117.

32 Canada, Department of Mines and Technical Surveys, Geographical Branch, “Indo-China, a Geographical Appreciation”, Foreign Geographical Information Series, No. 6 (Ottawa, 1953).Google Scholar

33 C, Dobby E. H.., Southeast Asia (London, 1951).Google Scholar

34 Canada, Dep't. of Mines, “Indo-China”, p. 49.

35 Ibid., p. 59.

36 Groslier, George, Recherches sur les Cambodgiens (Paris, 1921), pp. 21–23.Google Scholar

37 Ibid., p. 23.

38 Ibid., p. 23.

39 Ibid., p. 23.

40 Morley, Sylvanus G., The Inscription of Peten (- Carnegie Institution of Washington Publication, No. 437), 5 vols. (Washington, D. C., 1937–1938), I, p. 7.Google Scholar

41 Morley, The Ancient Maya, 3rd ed., revised by Brainerd, p. 129.

42 Roys, Ralph L., The Indian Background of Colonial Yucatan (= Carnegie Institution of Washington Publication, No. 548) (Washington, D. C., 1943), p. 3.Google Scholar

43 Palerm, Angel, “The Agricultural Basis of Urban Civilization in Mesoamerica”, Irrigation Civilizations, a Comparative Survey (= Pan American Union Social Science Monographs, No. 1) (Washington, D. C., 1955), pp. 32–34.Google Scholar

44 Ibid., p. 34.

45 Sanders, “The Central Mexican Symbiotic Region”, p. 126.

46 Ibid., pp. 120–121.

47 Ibid., p. 125. Rene Milion feels that Teotihuacan may have been urban as early as the Late Formative (ca. 300 B.C.-300 A.D.). (Information from G. R. Willey.)

48 Canada, Dep't of Mines, “Indo-China”, fig. 19.

49 Morley, The Ancient Maya, 3rd ed., revised by Brainerd, p. 140.

50 Durkheim, The Division of Labor, pp. 148–152.

51 Briggs, “The Ancient Khmer Empire”, pp. 258–261.

52 H, Steward Julian., “Some Implications of the Symposium”, Irrigation Civilizations, a Comparative Survey (= Pan American Union Social Science Monographs, No. 1) (Washington, D. C., 1955), p. 70.Google Scholar

53 Milton Altschuler, in his article “On the Environmental Limitations of Mayan Cultural Development”, Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, 14, No. 2, pp. 189–198, has proposed a dichotomy of societies based upon economic and political means of livelihood, following Oppenheimer. The first is based on the division of labor and the exchange of goods, and therefore would correspond to my “organic” category; the second is clearly the same as my “unilateral”. However, Altschuler's assignment of the Classic Maya to the former runs counter to my argument and is certainly not in accordance with the known facts about this admittedly little known society.