the reader should note the avoidance of economic topics in recent comparativecollections on early states (Feinman & Marcus 1998, Manzanilla 1997). Conse-quently, most anthropological archaeologists today have an impoverished view of economic variation in ancient states.Thetimeisripeforanewsynthesisofancientstateeconomies.Thischapteraskswhat archaeology can contribute to such a synthesis. My category of ancient statesincludes complex societies prior to the industrial revolution. I focus primarily onthe early states studied by anthropological archaeologists (Trigger 2003), and onthe Bronze Age, Greek and Roman states studied by Classical archaeologists andOld World prehistorians; nevertheless, the roster of relevant states extends to theMedieval period and other late preindustrial states throughout the world.
I adoptthe“substantivedeﬁnition”oftheeconomyastheprovisioningofsociety(entailingproduction, exchange, and consumption) rather than the “formal deﬁnition” of theeconomy as the allocation of scarce resources among alternative ends (Polanyi1957). Although not without its ambiguities and difﬁculties (Wilk 1996, pp. 28–34), the substantive deﬁnition has greater applicability in cross-cultural analyses.Greene’s (1986) book,
The Archaeology of the Roman Economy
, the best ar-chaeological study of an ancient state economy yet published, is a good startingpoint. Greene situates his work within the long-standing debate between the prim-itivistandthemodernistviewsoftheRomaneconomy(seebelow).Hebeginswithhistorian Keith Hopkins’ (1983) model of economic growth during the Late Re-public and Early Empire periods. Hopkins expressed his model in terms of sevenpropositions, and Greene (1986) shows that “archaeology has a major part to playin the analysis of at least ﬁve out of Hopkins’ seven clauses” (pp. 14–15) (in-creases in agricultural production; population growth; expansion of craft produc-tion; increased regional exchange; and a series of changes resulting from taxationin money, including intensiﬁed long-distance commerce, expansion of coinage,and urbanization). To these traditional archaeological strengths in production andexchange, anthropological archaeology adds another dimension: the analysis of domestic contexts as loci of consumption. Archaeology also expands the roster of ancient state economies far beyond those documented in the historical record.
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKS“Same or Other?” Polanyi, Finley, and the Ancient Economy
Some of the longest-running debates about ancient economies involve polarizingtendencies “to see the past as Same (a primitive version of our present, which
Given the wide scope of this article, I cannot cite all of the relevant literature. I makean effort to cite syntheses, review articles, and important collections of papers in whichthe reader can ﬁnd citations to the literature. I have prepared supplemental bibliographiesorganized by topic. Follow the Supplemental Material link from the Annual Reviews homepage at http://www.annualreviews.org.
A n n u . R e v . A n t h r o p o l . 2 0 0 4 . 3 3 : 7 3 - 1 0 2 . D o w n l o a d e d f r o m a r j o u r n a l s . a n n u a l r e v i e w s . o r g b y U n i v e r s i t y o f T u l s a o n 1 2 / 2 3 / 0 9 . F o r p e r s o n a l u s e o n l y .