Thanks, Andrei, for your intriguing description of early Arabian history.
I have one suggestion concerning its theoretical conceptualization.
You wrote:
> From: "Korotaev A." <andrei@rsuh.ru>
>
> However, the Arabs did not only destroyed most of those rigid
> political supra-communal structures allienating the tribal
> sovereignty, but also developed their alternatives - soft
> structures not posing any threat to the sovereignty of tribes.
> Most noticeable of them seems to be the development of the
> system of sacred enclaves, regular pilgrimages to them and
> accompaning this regular pilgrim fairs (mawa:sim).
>...>
If I understood correctly a rather new social practice (with institutions,
relations,structures,etc) evolved and replaced previous emperial structures
of Arabian province.
> [Incidentally, this type of cultural-political entities
> seems to be ignored (without any reasonable justification) by
> practically all the "classical" theories of social evolution
> (e.g. Claessen, Skalnik 1978; Claessen et al. 1985; Fried 1967;
> Hallpike 1986; Lenski 1987; Parsons 1977; Sanderson 1990;
> Service 1971 [1962]) and does not seem to fit in all these
> essentially unilineal evolutionist schemes, especially in their
> most popular "band - tribe - chiefdom - state" version (with
> all its modifications).
OK, the majority of these paradigms imply 'structural' or 'substational'
approach. Why not to remember functionalist tradition and to see in this case
a rather rich complex of social functions (you gave in this msg the
representative list of them) which were accomplished not by state but by this
'alternative soft inter-tribe network'.
My more general suggestion is not to repeat multiple variations of
'structural' series but to take into account the dynamics of both poles:
development (including degradation) of social functions and development of
social modes (my generalization of Marx's 'mode of production').
F.e. states, empires, core-periphery structures can be conceptualized as
social modes with multiple and changing in history social functions.
Keeping in mind that each social function can be realized by VARIOUS
modes (f.e. not only by state institutions) and that each mode 'is pregnant'
by new limitations, problems, deficiences which require NEW social functions
with their modes, etc. we get the promising way for rather strict and
flexible conceptualization of social-historical dynamics.
I'll be grateful for your and other members' feedback.
Thanks, best from Siberia, Nikolai Rozov
***********************************************************
Nikolai S. Rozov # Address:Dept. of Philosophy
Prof.of Philosophy # Novosibirsk State University
rozov@cnit.nsu.ru # 630090, Novosibirsk
Fax: (3832) 355237 # Pirogova 2, RUSSIA
Moderator of the mailing list PHILOFHI
(PHILosophy OF HIstory and theoretical history)
http://darwin.clas.virginia.edu/~dew7e/anthronet/subscribe
/philofhi.html
************************************************************