The premise of Modes of Production and Archaeology is that Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels’ theory of historical materialism remains directly relevant to archaeological research today. For some, this may be preaching to the choir, but Rosenswig and Cunningham make a convincing argument that, after decades of controversy and criticism, a new generation of archaeologists may judge the relevance of historical materialism from second-hand knowledge rather than the original texts. The historical materialism that Rosenswig, Cunningham and the other contributors to this volume espouse manages to be broadly comparative and non-reductive at the same time. Within a holistic framework that unites technology, social organization and politics, modes of production are, in Rosenswig and Cunningham's words, ‘the social relations that permit the existing technology, environmental conditions, etc. to generate surplus that is then employed to perpetuate, reproduce, or alter existing social and political relations (and associated forms of social consciousness)’ (p. 5). Surplus production, and its material traces, anchor archaeological applications of modes of production; but their explanatory power lies in the notion that internal contradictions within modes of production can drive the transformation of social and political systems. If one is inclined toward historical materialism, the book will be a refreshing contribution to the field. If one is less so inclined, the book's many examples of archaeologists who productively use modes of production should convince readers to take a second, and closer, look at the primary sources.
Rather than providing a template for how to research modes of production, the book presents a sample of top-notch research in which authors adapt modes of production to a variety of archaeological problems. These studies are guided by views of social reproduction that are anti-functionalist and of social transformations that avoid narratives of preordained growth, complexity and success. Rosenswig and Cunningham's introductory chapter aptly sets the book's agenda and tone by zeroing in on the key benefits of modes of production while clearing away the clutter of past criticism. Returning to the roots of Marx and Engels’ original formulation, they show how modes of production (and historical materialism in general) challenged the prevailing view in German idealism of the time that consciousness determined behaviour. The introduction briefly summarizes the contributions of anthropologists who improved on Marx and Engels’ treatment of non-hierarchical and precapitalist societies, with emphasis on Eric Wolf's ‘streamlined trilogy’ of kin-ordered, tributary and capitalist modes. Several other players take on minor roles in the introduction and other chapters (notably Wittfogel, Sahlins, Meillassoux, Trigger and Graeber), but the spotlight is on Marx and Wolf.
The book's 12 case studies span about 6000 years, from Archaic to colonial contexts, with socio-political scales ranging from households to empires. The geographical focus is on the Americas, with chapters on the Pacific Coast of North America (Patterson, Angelbeck), the Mississippi Valley (Ensor), the Greater Southwest (Cunningham, Ensor), the Caribbean (Orser, Delle), Mesoamerica (Acosta Ochoa, Ensor, Feinman & Nicholas) and Tierra del Fuego (Álvarez & Briz Godino). Two chapters expand the coverage to include Scandinavia (Ling, Cornell & Kristiansen) and a cross-cultural comparison based on data from the Human Relations Area Files (Rosenswig). Most contributions rely on a mix of material and documentary sources, the latter both as evidence and as sources of analogy. Archaeological evidence ranges from the micro-scale of lithic use-wear to the macro-scale of settlement patterns and landscapes. The chapters strike a balance between reconfigurations of previous studies and analyses of new evidence. The range of times, places, kinds of evidence and socio-political contexts helps to reveal the broad (though not easy) applicability of modes of production in archaeology.
The book is divided into sections on hunter-gatherer studies, pre-state agriculturalists, ancient states and modern states. These divisions may serve as a helpful guide for readers who are looking to make comparisons based on subsistence strategy and political context, but these divisions run the risk of reifying the same kinds of classificatory schemes that have been central to critiques of modes of production. Rosenswig and Cunningham establish early on that, although modes of production recognize regular patterns and shared logics, these are abstractions that unfold under the various historical circumstances of real societies. Nevertheless, forays into typologies and reclassification seem unavoidable when archaeologists get involved. Examples include the mode of reproduction (Acosta Ochoa), mode of consumption (Álvarez & Briz Godino), the ritual mode of production (Cunningham), the maritime mode of production (Ling, Cornell & Kristiansen), and the plantation mode of production (Delle). Making a case for reclassification should not be off-limits; especially because the authors support Wolf's introduction of kin-ordered and tributary modes of production as an improvement on the work of Marx and Engels. Such reclassifications are most successful, however, in the context of broadly comparative studies such as the one presented in Rosenswig's chapter on cosmology (which supports rather than revises Wolf's scheme) and Ensor's chapter on kinship systems.
I encourage readers to look closely at all chapters, rather than the particular section that seems most directly to pertain to their research, because there are several valuable themes that emerge across the volume's contributions. For example, of the two papers that look at how disparate modes of production articulate, one (Patterson) is grouped with the papers on hunter-gatherer economies because it focuses on the Chumash, while the other (Orser) is grouped with modern states because it explores pre- and post-slavery waves of colonization on a Caribbean island. Together, these two chapters provide a complementary approach to studying economic transitions that is not evident in the book's organization. Other cross-cutting themes include: (1) evidence that modes of production can be constructively applied to non-hierarchical societies; (2) how archaeological studies of changing material patterns are well suited to modes of production analysis; (3) how there can be a great variety of modes of production over time and across space, and how this variety can itself serve as a basis for change; and (4) how modes of production can drive resistance to change. The evidence presented for local or short-term variability is exemplified by Angelbeck's study of seasonal cycles of hunting arrangements, Delle's investigation of divisions of labour on plantations, and Feinman and Nicholas's application of collective action theory to the study of state formation. Other chapters reinforce these themes with attention to local and regional scales in which multiple modes of production co-exist (Acosta Ochoa; Álvarez & Briz Godino; Cunningham; Ensor; Ling, Cornell & Kristiansen) or clash (Patterson; Orser).
The contributions also vary in how they address the processes and products of historical change. For example, several authors emphasize material evidence of the outcomes of changes to modes of production in terms of the scale of control and political signalling, rather than technological change (Cunningham; Ensor; Feinman & Nicholas; and Rosenswig). In terms of the processes of change, Patterson and Orser each focus on the micro-histories of their particular cases to explore contingency at local levels. In contrast, while no author suggests that specific modes of production uniformly determine specific outcomes, Ensor points out that modes of production do involve a kind of path dependency; certain kinds of change are more probable if not inevitable. Other contributions follow suit by balancing cultural specificity, variation in the kinds of agency available to different members of society, and probable trajectories in their accounts of changing modes of production (especially Cunningham; Delle; Feinman & Nicholas; and Ling, Cornell & Kristiansen).
Whatever one's stance on comparisons and generalization, a question of central interest is whether the application of modes of production explains what happened in the past more accurately or completely than other approaches. Answering that question requires the presentation and evaluation of alternatives. Contributions by Patterson, Angelbeck and Cunningham are noteworthy among those that explicitly compare explanations of social change based on modes of production to alternatives such as population growth, ecological change and driverless evolutionary imperatives. In these three chapters, especially, the value of applying modes of production as an analytical tool are readily apparent.
As a final note, there is unrealized potential in Modes of Production and Archaeology. Its assortment of case studies marks a productive path for archaeologists to adapt and apply modes of production, as originally conceived by Marx and Engels and fine-tuned by Wolf, to social and historical contexts ranging from the earliest foragers to the emergence of capitalism. If the book's goals are to demonstrate the relevance of modes of production to archaeologists, and in fact to improve the archaeological study of the reproduction and transformation of societies, then it achieves these goals readily. Reversing these goals reveals its unrealized potential. Archaeology is relevant to a broader understanding of modes of production. In fact, the effort to adapt modes of production to archaeological cases make the theory more limber and better able to address a wider range of times, places and social contexts than as originally conceived. Although the book is by and for archaeologists, it should be of benefit to anyone who takes a dialectical approach to history.
