Did you actually read it?
No I'm considering to buy it.
Did you actually read it?
Kievan Rus, Ancient Mesopotamia? Doesn´t seem that rare to me.Ancient Greece was quite unique in the ancient world (and by this, I understand ancient China and India too), because
1) it developed a culture of independent, self-governing city states with a multitude of constitutions ranging from oligarchy to democracy; AFAIK, besides Greece, Rome and Carthage, no major ancient civilization developed strong republican structures: instead, Persia, Mesopotamia, Egypt, China and Central Asia were ruled by monarchs, often backed by priestly caste
and
2) Greece never really united under one leading power. Egypt was united pretty fast, China had large kingdoms fighting each other before being conquered by Qin, Mesopotamia was subject to different empires, as was Persia. Greece however stayed a mass of poleis, hostile to each other, resisted against Macedonian domination and only came to rest after Rome formed the province of Achaia.
So we have to quite unique features of Greece: its political diversity and its fragmentation. How do we explain these features? Sure, the fragmentation certainly influenced the diversity, and the diversity strengthened the fragmentation. However, that doesn't explain why Greece stayed disunited while Italy was unified under Rome, even if both Italy and Greece consisted mainly of city states.
I'm interested in how you explain both phenomena.
I'd advise it : as you said, it's still partially made of maps (it is an atlas, after all), but a good half is made of explicative text on a given topic (more coherent than the, still good, Kinder-Hilgemann-Menze Atlas). If you bought other Autrement atlases, you'd see what I meant.No I'm considering to buy it.
I'm a marxist and even I find this part of his historical theories barely worth mention. I specified quasi-marxist because Marx had at least the pretention to pull a class analysis on this, not just go full cultural as a good part of contemporary or even current tenents of this theory.
Not saying that, but it's a matter of fact that an influential culture of democracy emerged in Athens whereas Persia and other oriental (since they are east of Greece) states nearly always prefered some form of monarchy, at least in classical times. That's a reality and my question you all helped me to answer was that why Greece lacked such a monarchy.
Marx didn't really bother to explain what happened in ancient times, and if he did, his explanations were flawed.
Indeed, but Marx and Engels tried to rationalize it into their economical historical model, especially when it came to British colonial policy. British Rule in India, for instance (IIRC) insits that such a production mode leads to a caste society and economical stagnation, with a relative absence of landed property and individual status.IIRC, Marx inherited the "oriental despotism" notion from Hegel (who indeed elaborated it, but was hardly its inventor - the concept has fairly deep roots in Western European historiographical tradition, with its basis likely to be found in Machiavelli and harking back to a rethinking of Herodotus' contrastive depiction of Greece and Persia).
The Igbo did, but to be fair, not that many people know about Ancient Igboland and its various city states. You get similar case studies with the city states of the Sahel, such as Jenne-Jeno.besides Greece, Rome and Carthage, no major ancient civilization developed strong republican structures:
Indeed, but Marx and Engels tried to rationalize it into their economical historical model, especially when it came to British colonial policy. British Rule in India, for instance (IIRC) insits that such a production mode leads to a caste society and economical stagnation, with a relative absence of landed property and individual status.
Another issue, which isn't Marx's but rather some interpretators, is to completly forget about economic-social formation, which is a pretty much important concept : mode of productions, for Marx, doesn't exist in a vaacum but arrenged differently depending on situations : a bit like XIXth France preserved a lot of domanial structures and mode of production in countryside, while the dynamis and dominating MP was capitalism.
I tend, with others, to consider it as a particularily flawed (and semi-intuitive) view on a palatial mode of production you could possibly find in most part of Ancient history, such as in Mesopotamia or China, but as well in Mycenean Greece. I'm certain it's a pretty minoritary view, but giving that Marxist schools tend to have not filled the gap between historical and anthropological studies and core philosophical tenents since decades, I'm still pretty confident that it's not totally bollocks : I particularily like, for instance, Darmangeat's Le Communisme Primitif n'est plus ce qu'il était (Primitive Communism isn't what it used to be)
So the whole concept isn't useless (I'd rather agree with Godelier when he talks about a stimulating concept, but relatively useless for analysis), but it doesn't needs so much to be updated, that being wholly replaced while acknowledging some inspiration. AMP tends to be, IMO, the extreme exemple of confusing legality and social reality (but after all, Marx and Engels didn't benefitted from the terashitload of archeological and litterrary analysis we have*) that can be seen (altough on a relatively less important way) with Slavery and Feudal MP**
You know that a marxist concept is flawed when even Soviet historians and politics said "nope, that's dumb".
*And, giving Engels'preface to the Origin, I'd think he would have more or less gladly conceded that his own analyisis should have been changed
** I'd be more comfortable with a new arrangment trough the lines of Palatial and Domanial mode of production which would overlap both, personally, until a "Merchant-Domanial" variant that would characterize, for instance, european Middle-Ages from XIIth onwards overlapping with early Capitalism.
It seems that I've digressed a bit there. Sorry about that.
Regarding palatial economy, are you familiar with Liverani's approach to Ancient Oriental temple/palace systems? I found it rather enlightening.
Mario Liverani is an Italian archaeologist. I think he has an English Wikipedia article but not sure about that.I can only find a chef?
The Igbo did
It's not as informing as a good ol' historical study, but I really think it's giving a good insight on the period (III BC - VIth AD). Enough, at least, for it get referenced on studies of the periods.
Not that I remember : would you be so kind as giving me the sources? So far, I mostly dealt with Collins and such.Regarding palatial economy, are you familiar with Liverani's approach to Ancient Oriental temple/palace systems? I found it rather enlightening.
It's always hard to not too generalizing of course, but if you search for some insight (which is generally sourced), I think you'd find Autrement's atlases deserving of their reputation of quality (they don't go for a province by province case, for instance, but rather point at general outcomes in western or easter Romania before getting exemples on Gaul or Egypt as they are specific exemples, rather than exemplary ones).I don't know, such atlasses tend to take a few examples for important phenomena, for example, they'll say: "Province so-and-so: An example for romanization in the 2nd century". That is always interesting, but I prefer rather thick books (forgot the technical term) dealing with all (geographical) aspects of one subject
It's never a bad idea to look at a legal approach, but it can be misleading as there's always the temptation to confuse a legal situation and the social situation. For instance, it's where the idea of serves as a social class comes from.(you see, I prefer a legal approach to history)
Liverani, Mario (2014). The Ancient Near East: history, society and economy. London: Routledge.Not that I remember : would you be so kind as giving me the sources? So far, I mostly dealt with Collins and such.