Showing papers on "Expansionism published in 1981"

Cultural Materialism, Split Inheritance, and the Expansion of Ancient Peruvian Empires

Abstract: Archaeological and ethnohistoric data on the Chimu and Inca empires, two prehistoric Peruvian states that shared a number of organizational features, are used to test the theory of cultural materialism. Materialist explanations of Inca expansionism are evaluated; they are shown to be unconvincing in the Inca case and inapplicable to the Chimu. An alternative model is proposed that emphasizes the role of a particular legal principle, split inheritance. The presence of split inheritance in the two empires is documented. It is argued that in both cases split inheritance originated through manipulation of traditional elements of Andean ideology, was the driving force behind imperial expansion, and generated administrative and economic stresses eventually leading to imperial collapse. This model avoids the flaws of the materialist explanations it is intended to replace, and the theory of cultural materialism is rejected. IN HIS LIST OF SEVEN TENETS of the New Archaeology, Bruce Trigger (1978:12-13) awards seventh place to cultural materialism. This ranking strikes me as an accurate assessment of the importance of cultural materialist theory in archaeology today. No one can realistically assert that all archaeologists are cultural materialists, but equally realistically, no one can deny that cultural materialism provides the theoretical framework for much current archaeological research. It does seem fair to say that while cultural materialism is not a universal credo of archaeologists, it is nevertheless one of the most widely held theoretical positions in the field. There is something disturbing in this situation. To nonmaterialists, and I hope to unbiased observers, it is beginning to seem as if far too many archaeologists are willing to discourse lengthily on arguments, sometimes of quite minor significance, that are ultimately derived from cultural materialism, while leaving unposed the far more important question: Is cultural materialist dogma true? Yet surely one of the most valuable uses of archaeological data is to ask such questions, to test the validity of major theoretical positions like cultural materialism. What I propose to do here is to use archaeological and ethnohistoric data for just that purpose. I intend to assess cultural materialism by examining two prehistoric Peruvian states, the Chimu and Inca empires. In brief, I will argue that cultural materialism does not provide an adequate explanation for the expansion of these two empires. Instead, the true cause of Chimu and Inca expansionism is to be sought in a series of social, political, economic, and ideological factors that converge in one legal principle, that law of split inheritance. To achieve these aims I will begin with some necessary background information and then proceed to criticize recent materialist models purporting to explain Inca imperialism. Next, I will present the archaeological and ethnohistoric evidence for split inheritance in the Chimu and Inca empires. I will then offer an alternative model for both the Chimu and Inca expansions that emphasizes the origins and consequences, both short- and long-term, of split inheritance. Finally, I will consider the implications of these arguments for the theory of cultural materialism.

Nostalgia for Empire

Abstract: It was only to be expected that when Margaret Thatcher visited Washington she would congratulate President Reagan on his plans for the U.S. economy, say predictable things about resisting Soviet expansionism in El Salvador and elsewhere, and declare Britain to be America's staunch ally. What was a bit of a surprise was that she should offer British participation in an American-led multinational Rapid Deployment Force for dealing with trouble spots around the globe, especially in the Persian/ Atabian GulfThis article can also be found at the Monthly Review website, where most recent articles are published in full.Click here to purchase a PDF version of this article at the Monthly Review website.

Soviet-American relations, a new Cold War?

Abstract: : The conduct of relations with the Soviet Union has been the natural focal point for American foreign policy since World War II. In the formulation of that policy, two major questions have bedeviled policy-makers: What are Soviet intentions? What are the prospects for a favorable evolution inside the USSR? These were the two issues around which the original policy of containment was constructed in the early 1950s. At that time it was believed that Soviet policy reflected a combination of traditional Russian expansionism and Marxist-Leninist revolutionary aspirations. But it was also argued that if contained over a sufficiently long period, the failure of the Soviet Union to achieve its expansionist goals would induce a benevolent evolutionary process.