The
EARLY ~- ~
STATE, ~*~ 

ITS..ALTERNATIVES

aou
ANALOGUES
Edited by
Leonid E. Grinin
Robert L. Carneiro
Dmitri M. Bondarenko
Nikolay N. Kradin
Andrey V. Korotayev
o 
'Uchitel'
Publishing House
12
The Transition to Statehood
in Central Europe*
Ludomir R. Lozny
University Center ofthe City University ofNew York
The traditional European approach to the origin of states involves questions
relating to the appearance of nation states during the Middle Ages. Historians
and archaeologists alike support this approach by quoting dates of historical
events to emphasize the 'birth' of a state.
I undertake a different approach. The main focus is on the state formation
process as a universally linked sequence of socio-economic and political
events. This process should be identifiable by a distinctive pattern of
episodes displayed in archaeological data through a certain set of features.
INTRODUCTION
Following Wright's (1984: 41) remark that specialized and hierarchically
organized agencies of control did not arise abruptly from a context of small
independent egalitarian communities, I will try to point out to some key
elements of the state formation process in Central Europe that could be observed
in archaeological records. The empirical basis for this presentation is
supported by the information published in Poland (cf. Leciejewicz 1989;
Gassowski 1985, 1993; Kurnatowska and Kurnatowski 1983). I am fully
aware of the epistemological limitations of my database, that I have assembled
relaying on records collected and published by different scholars.
However, my presentation neither aims to fully elaborate on the state formation
process in Central Europe, nor its chronological context (some difficulties
in chronological assessments of the Middle Ages in European Plains
have been recently reported by Gassowski 1994 and by Dulinicz 1994). A
detailed study on the subject is still under preparation (Lozny forthcoming).
Lozny / The Transition to Statehood in Central Europe, pp. 278-287
278
Lozny / The Transition to Statehood in Central Europe 279
My intention is to emphasize the unique role of archaeology in studying the
origin of states. I consider a state as a dynamic formation regulated by a set
of specific laws and rules. Its structure includes definable elements interacting
with each other through time and space. Elements of such a structure
should be identifiable through the archaeological record. Therefore, archaeologists
may supply significant data to study the origin of states.
As usual, though, it is all in what questions we, ask and how can we answer
them. In my presentation I shall focus on a settlement hierarchy and its
pattern as the prime indicators of the state formation process. The assumption
is that a settlement pattern of an area resembles social complexity of
the time.
Therefore, different settlement patterns will be managed by populations
of socially and economically diverse complexity. Less complex settlement
structures comprise one category of sites or a small group of sites most distinguishable
from the others because of their size. More complex settlement
patterns will be represented by three or more groups of sites of different
size. As demonstrated by Gregory A. Johnson (cf. 1980, 1981, 1987), when
plotted on graphs, these patterns show different rank-size distributions:
(1) bimodal for prestate (chiefdom) stage, and (2) trimodal (or more complex)
for state structures. The approach I am presenting was deeply influenced
by Gregory A. Johnson's concept of hierarchization in the decisionmaking
process and the rank-size rule method he applied to study the
Susiana complexity (Johnson 1980, 1981, 1987). .
Two groups of questions concerning the state formation process in the
Western Slavia have recently been presented by Leciejewicz (1989:' 124):
(1) the premises and conditions of transformation, and (2) the extent to
which the state formation process was based on local tradition and what
elements were adapted from the other European states of the time. I shall
focus on the first group of questions, and discuss the possible conditions
.and their archaeological manifestations, under which the state formative
10
th
process occurred in Central Europe between the 8
th
- centuries A.D.
THE PRIMARY ELEMENTS
OF THE STATE FORMATIVE PROCESS
My perspective concerns the structural characteristics of the state formation
process that remain within archaeological insight. If states always occur
under certain circumstances, the state formation process should be identifiable
by a distinctive pattern of archaeological records. A set of features
such as economic structure, social status, occupational specialization, dif­
281280 The Early State, Its Alternatives and Analogues
ferences in health and mortality, mortuary practices, and changes in a settlement
pattern should be archaeologically recognizable when compared to
the previous status quo. No single feature indicates a change of such magnitude
(Patterson and Gailey 1987: 12). The aim is to simply recognize
structural parts of the process of changes through time, which means those
remaining within archaeological penetration. A state could also be defined
by other, non structural features (Jones and Kautz 1981: 14-15). The more
speculative questions, however, cannot be answered without in - depth
analysis, which I do not plan to undertake now. Among them are questions
such as: (1) Do states have to emerge? (2) To what extent is the appearance
of a state the random outcome of historical process? (cf. Cohen 1981). The.
recognition of archaeological examples of such socio-political entities relies
on the material consequences of the emergence of the upper class or nobility,
members of which control generalized, polity-wide decision-making
processes. The following three features of spatial organization are useful in
identifying past complex social structures: (1) settlement hierarchy,
(2) residential segregation, (3) mortuary segregation. The last category is
not always clearly identified in some societies, nor does it necessarily suggest
the existence of social stratification (Hodder 1986: 2-3; Patterson and
Gailey 1987: 13).
Earle (1978: 12) recognizes the following features of a complex chiefdom:
(1) discontinuity in rank between chiefs and commoners, (2) specialization
in leadership roles, (3) increased centrality in the regional hierarchy.
A complex chiefdom, is characterized by one or two levels of control hierarchy
above the level of the local community (Wright 1977: 381; Feinman
and Neitzel 1984: 640), while a state consists of three or more levels of
control (Johnson 1982; 1987). The basic distinction between a complex
chiefdom and a more advanced entity (state) is, therefore, characterized by
a span of control within its decision-making hierarchy.
Johnson (1987: 107) points out to a specific set of features that characterize
a state level structure:
...the Susiana settlement system consisted of a four-tier settlement size
hierarchy with direct evidence of resident administrative activity at its
top and bottom levels. The presence of administrative function at the
intervening levels of hierarchy, and of an overall four-level administrative
organization seemed likely. In combination with evidence for the
centralization of craft production as part of an administered labor system,
these features suggest the operation of the Middle Uruk state.
Archaeological recognition of such a complex structure should be possible
by analysis of the changes in a regional settlement pattern (Johnson
_ Lozny / The Transition to Statehood in Central Europe
1980: 250), primarily the appearance of central places sunounded by clusters
of smaller villages. The largest and most centrally located sites must
have functioned as primary control centers for subsidiary settlements peripheral
to them. These central places would be located in regular intervals.
The presence of this specific spatial arrangement gives an assumption to
show another characteristic feature of state formative level, newly formed
(or forming through aggregated class conflict - see Jones and Kautz 1981:
4), social stratification (Patterson and Gailey 1987: 12-13). In the following
discussion I shall present a Central European complex chiefdom in contrast
with the Slavic state that emerged during the 9th
- lOth centuries A.D. in
Wielkopolska Province in modem day Poland. Although there are probably
better archaeologically recognized early Medieval chiefdoms of Central
Europe, I chose the so called Samon's state as it is commonly identified as
the first Slavic state. The second example, however, represents one of the
:best archaeologically known early Slavic state of the area.
A COMPLEX CHIEFDOM OF CENTRAL EUROPE
In the first half of the i h
century A.D. (probably in 623 - Gassowski 1964),
the Slavic tribes of Bohemia and Moravia united. Samon, an outsider to the
Slavic world, was commissioned the highest post, a function new to the
Slavic world, the chief of the supratribal alliance. How this first Slavic
'state', as it is commonly known, came into existence has not yet been fully
explained. Relying on archaeological data, we may speculate that there
were two major factors behind the success: (1) economic growth, and (2)
internal political stability. However, the alliance remains more as scientific
hypothesis than a historical phenomenon. The
emergence of this political alliance requires further research. The
idea of a supratribal structure of this 'state' was actually new in Central
Europe. Its social structure could be characterized as a clan territorial alliance
with autonomous local chiefs (known as dukes from later written
sources) and one paramount chief (grand duke). It seems that the popular
gathering of all free tribesmen was the highest form in executive and judicial
decision-making hierarchy, and had controlling power over the paramount
chiefs legislation. This internal structure of the alliance resembles a
description of a 'complex chiefdom' structure, and entirely fits within the
classical definition of chiefdom: 'a chiefdom is an autonomous political
unit comprising a number of villages or communities under the permanent
control of a paramount chief' (Carneiro 1981: 45), which, as Earle (1987)
points out: 'was rather loosely defined as a polity that organizes centrally a
regional population in the thousands' .
282 The Early State, Its Alternatives and Analogues
There are two characteristic features of a chiefdom: 1) permanent control
of power by a chieftain, and 2) centrally organized administration and
8th
decision-making hierarchy. Both elements may be noticed among i h
centuries
petty chiefdoms of Central Europe. Therefore, I presume that the
idea of a centralized form of decision-making hierarchy, has been introduced
in Central Europe by that time. But despite the evidence for an alienated
rank status, the power balance in decision-making within the alliance
does not yet resemble a state structure. The lack of institutionalized decision-making
centers and unstable leadership possibly caused failures in a
redistribution system, which is considered one of the fundamental elements
of a chiefdom (Renfrew 1976: 172; for further discussion see Carneiro
1981; Earle 1991; Tolstoy 1989). After Samon's death the 'state' had fallen
into pieces. The internal economic ties were not developed. The alliance
was a fragile supratribal structure that disappeared with the lack of a strong
leadership, hierarchic administrative institutions, and, based on local
sources, economic network.
THE BEGINNINGS OF THE STATE FORMATIVE
PROCESS IN WESTERN SLAVIA
From the 8
th
to 10
th
centuries A.D., there had been enormous growth in the
number of fortified habitations on all lands occupied by the Slavs (Leciejewicz
1983: 49). Possibly all of them represented the local seats of
emerging class of nobility. Some large forts played an important role as
tribal centers that later turned into protourban places. As Leciejewicz
(1989: 143) points out, some of those centers lost their tribal character and
turned into a unique type of settlement - so called 'urban republics'. These
centers could have played major roles in the production - distribution net­
work.
The characteristic spatial feature of these newly emerging towns was
their internal division into: (1) a heavily fortified seat of a local ruler, and,
(2) often also fortified, part where minor knights, merchants, and craftspeople,
were accommodated. This kind of space organization confirms the appearance
of a ranked social structure: (1) alienated groups of nobles/consumers,
and (2) groups of commoners/producers. It also supports
the suggestion (Kurnatowska and Kurnatowski 1983: 92-93) that the first
function of a newly emerging town was to consolidate the power of the
consumers and strengthen their control over expanding groups of producers.
All those changes occurred possibly due to the economic growth and
technological modifications. Archaeological records confirm that agriculture
and husbandry increased during the 9
th
and 10
th
centuries. Also, new
Lozny / The Transition to Statehood in Central Europe 283
agrarian techniques played an important role in those changes. Extensive
progress in local metallurgy, pottery-making, jewelry, and specialized technical
achievement can be noticed. Two innovative features of that period
(Leciejewicz 1989:127-129, 131, 138) must be stressed: (1) new technology
applied to built fortifications, bridges, and houses linked with tremen­
10
dous need for man power, and (2) the origins of a monetary system. Long
distance trade highly intensified economic progress of the area. These
newly emerging urban centers, however, appeared independently from the
state formative process and their existence does not indicate the necessary
occurrence of state societies (Crumley 1976; Kohl and Write 1977; Leciejewicz
1989).
THE POLANIE STATE
th
During the 9 - loth centuries A.D. paramount chiefs of the Polanie tribe
managed to direct the state formation process to the point where one of
them, Mieszko, concluded forming the state by the second half of the lOth
century A.D. The state was formed in the area where more than 400 fortified
habitation places were recorded by the so called 'Bavarian Geographer',
Carolingian source of the 9
th
century A.D. The central place of the
state was at the Goplo Lake in Wielkopolska Province. It is thought to be
the first capital of Poland.
Fortified habitation sites began to appear in this area as early as the 8th
century A.D. Both, geographic and economic factors played a very important
role in this initial stage of the state formation process.
The first, and most significant phenomenon that can be archaeologically
recorded was an increase in density and rank size distribution of the settlement
pattern in Wielkopo)ska during the second half of the 9th and into theth
century A.D. The number of open and fortified habitation sites increased
ca. 50% as compared to the ih - 8th
centuries pattern. Demographic
growth could be assumed too. The rise in number of specially fortified settlements
confirms an enormous labor investment undertaken by the newly
emerging state. This could not have been possible without a strong local
leadership and a sufficient supply of labor. A new pattern of settlement has
been created. Old local centers were abandoned and new ones emerged at
quite regular intervals, with the average distance being ca. 14 km. Structurally
unified and heavily fortified strongholds (2/3 - 4/5 of the entire area
was covered by giant ramparts - see Kurnatowska and Kurnatowski 1983:
94), were associated with several surrounding villages.
Other types of central places, new in that region, were multicomponent
285
284 The Early State, Its Alternatives and Analogues
forts with monumental architecture, surrounded by a number of open habitation
sites. Those places appeared in the lOth century, and were named by
the Medieval chronicles as sedes regni principales - the seats of royal representatives.
These were the provincial capitals, located ca. 25-30 km distances
from each other, usually on the long distance trade trails.
The spatial arrangement of the Wielkopolska Province in the second half
of the lOth century consisted of six fortified capital centers, probably ten
fortified local centers, and numerous open habitation sites. Some of them
were exclusively inhabited by highly specialized artisans. Those villages, so
characteristic of the Slavic area, were the crucial links in the economic
chain of an emerging state (Leciejewicz 1989: 165-166).
This type of settlement pattern, which included equally in rank and
regularly located from each other administrative centers, was necessary for
controlling a flow of information and processing and executing legislative
decisions. Besides their economic functions, larger forts were, primarily,
the centers of decision-making administrative hierarchies (Johnson 1980~
239). Usually, the forts were divided into two parts: (1) the ruler's seat, and
(2) fortified adjacent habitation area. In Wielkopolska's case, it is not clear
which of the capital forts was a permanent seat of the ruler. The likeliest
scenario was that all six of them were in the same rank in accommodating
both the function of a capital and the contribution of taxes. The new spatial
arrangements of the second half of the lOth century represent the final stage
of the state formation process in this part of Europe. This somewhat
gional, spatial integration has been considered a feature of a primary s
formation process (Johnson 1980: 250). At this point secondary features
state developing can be noticed, namely intermarriage between the local
ruler's families, incorporating new ideologies, gaining political recogni .
etc. (cf. Gassowski 1994: 9).
CONCLUSIONS
thArchaeological evidence suggests that probably in the 9 century A.D
there were very strong economic and social foundations for a state
emerge. First we can notice a shift from bimodal (tribal chiefdoms) to
complex settlement size-rank patterns. The newly emerged pattern incl
three categories of sites: (1) capital centers, (2) local centers, and (3)
settlements. Most of the forts from that period show a dual internal s
ture with a separate part for the ruler and nobility, and the other section
merchants, craftspeople, minor knights, and probably skilled captives.
economic power of the state has been built during the 9
th century and
Lozny / The Transition to Statehood in Central Europe
first half of the lOth century A.D. The ruler of the Polanie tIibe incorporated
into his domain, and controlled, all the territories of defeated chiefs. Skilled
craftspeople were settled in close proximity to the centers. This policy
caused the appearance of highly specialized and productive centers. The
profit gain had been used to finance his own military retainers. Old tribal
chiefs were forced to pay tribute, and if they refused, probably killed. For
the first time in the history of that region, the pers~nal interests of the ruling
family were identified with the state's interests and the beginning of a dynasty
has been created. However, to keep the high economic level, it was
necessary to provide a constant growth of labor and keep the positive balance
between the growth of popUlation and food production. Both goals
could have been accomplished by invading neighboring and well-developed
regions (Leciejewicz 1989: 125-126). It is interesting to notice that although
similar processes can be archaeologically recorded in the other
provinces of today Poland (Silesia, Malopolska, Pomerania, and Mazovia)
neither one became a separate state.
Based on limited archaeological data at hand, I could distinguished the
following elements of the state formation process in Western Slavia: (1)
hiprarchical spatial settlement arrangements representing three or more levof
rank-size distribution, and centralized ruling system _ legislative,
've, and judicial, (2) internal arrangements of space within a site,
ting social complexity in form of class alienation, and (3) centralized
ideological system with monumental architecture. This process probablyth
in the 9 century A.D., and ended with the appearance of the first
archies of the 11th century A.D. Central Europe.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I am delighted to have this opportunity to thank Professor Dr. hab. Lech
Leciejewicz for sending me his book on the western Slavs that inspired me
to pay more attention toward the state formation processes in Western
Siavia. I am especially thankful to Professor Dr. hab. Jerzy Gassowski who,
despite the late hours, kindly discussed certain issues pointed out in this
paper during my short visit to Poland in 1995. Dr. Jim Fenton provided, as
ways, valuable comments and suggestion, and Gerard P. Scharfenberger 

ndly read and edited the final draft. 

NOTE
*First published in Kradin, N. N., and Lynsha, V. A. (eds.), Alternative Pathto
Early State, Vladivostok: DaI'nauka, 1995, pp. 84-92.
286 The Early State, Its Alternatives and Analogues
REFERENCES
Carneiro, R.
1981. The Chiefdom: Precursor of the State. In Jones, G. D., and Kautz, R. R.
(eds.), The Transition to Statehood in the New World (pp. 37-79). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Cohen, M. A.
1981. The Ecological Basis for New World State Formation: General and local 

Model Building. In Jones, G. D., and Kautz, R. R. (eds.), The Transition to State­

hood in the New World (pp. 105-122). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

Crumley, C. L. 

1976. Toward a Locational Definition of State System of Settlement. American 

Anthropologist 78: 59-73. 

Dulinicz, M. 

1994. Datowanie absolutne i wzgledne wybranych stanowisk wczesnosredniowiecznych
Slowianszczyzny zachodniej. Swiatowit XXXIX: 14-31. 

Earle, T. K.
1978. Economic and Social Organization ofa Complex Chiefdom: The Halelea 

District, Kauai, Hawaii. Ann Arbor: Museum of Anthropology. 

1987. Chiefdoms in Archaeological and Ethnohistorical Perspective. Annual 

Review ofAnthropology 16: 279-308. 

1991. The Evolution of Chiefdom. In Earle, T. (ed.), Chiefdom: Power, Economy,
and Ideology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

Feinman, G., and Neitzel, J. 

1984 Too Many Types: An Overview of Sedentary Prestate Societies in the 

Americas. Advances in Archaeological Methods and Theory 7: 39-102. 

Gassowski, J.
1964. Dzieje i kultura dawnych Slowian. Warszawa: PZWS.
1985. Kultura pradziejowa na ziemiach Polski. Zarys. Warsaw: PWN.
1993. The Dawn of Medieval European Culture. Swiatowit XXXVII: 17-36.
Warsaw.
1994. Jak datowac wczesne sredniowiecze? Swiatowit XXXIX: 7-13.
Hodder, I.
1986. Reading the Past. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jones, G. D., and Kautz, R. R. (eds.)
1981. The Transition to Statehood in the New World. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press. 

Johnson, G. A. 

1980. Spatial organization of Early Uruk Settlement. In L'Archeologie de l'Iraq,
Colloquess Internationale des Centre de la Recherche Scicentifique (pp. 233-263).
Paris.
Lozny / The Transition to Statehood in Central Europe 287
1981. Monitoring complex system integration and boundary phenomena with
settlement size data. In van der Leeuw, S. E. (ed.), Archaeological Approaches to
the Study ofComplexity (pp. 143-188). Amsterdam: IPP Press.
1982. Organizational structure and scalar stress. In Renfrew, A. c., Rowlands,
M. J., and Segraves, B. A. (eds.), Theory and Explanation in Archaeology:
The Southampton Conference (pp. 389-421). New York: Academic Press.
1987. The Changing Organization of Uruk Administration on the Susiana Plain.
In Hole, F. (ed.), From Prehistory to the Islamic Conquest (pp. 107-140). Washington
DC: Smithsonian Institutions Press.
Kohl, Ph. L., and Wright, R. P.
1977. Stateless Cities: The Differentiation ofSocieties in the Near Eastern Neolithic.
Dialectical Anthropology 2 (4): 271-283.
Kurnatowska, Z., and Kurnatowski, St.
1983. Problemy ksztaltowania sie osiedli wczesnomiejskich w Wielkopolsce. In
Zak, J., and Ostoja-Zagorski, J. (eds.), Studia Z dziejow i kultury zachodniej
Slowians-zczyzny (pp. 89-106). Poznan: Adam Mickiewicz University Press.
Leciejewicz, L.
1983. Niektore problemy Luzyc we wczesnym sredniowieczu. In Zak, J., and
Ostoja-Zagorski, J. (eds), Studia a dziejow i kultury zachodniej Slowianszczymy
(pp. 43-57). Poznan: Adam Mickiewicz University Press.
1989. Slowianie zachodni. Z dziejow tworzenia sie sredniowiecznej Europy.
Wroclaw: Ossolineum Press.
Lozny, L.
n.d. The State Formation Process in Western Slavia. An Analysis'.
Patterson, Th., and Gailey, Ch. W.
1987. Power Relations and State Formation. In Patterson, Th., and Gailey,
Ch. W. (eds.), Power Relations and State Formation (pp. 1-26). Washington
DC: American Anthropological Association Press.
Renfrew, C.
1976. Before Civilization. New Yark: Penguin Books.
Tolstoy, P.
1989. Chiefdoms, States, and Scales of Analysis. Review ofArchaeology 10 (1): 72-78.
Wright, H. T.
1977. Recent Research on the origin of the State. Annual Review of Anthropology
6: 379-397.
1984. Prestate Political Formation. In Earle, T. (ed.), On the Evolution of Complex
Society in Honor of Harry Hoijer, 1982 (pp. 41-77). UCLA Department of
Anthropology, Malibu: Udena Publications.