Toward a Locational Definition of State Systems of Settlement

CAROLE L. CRUMLEY
University o f Missouri, Columbia

Recent information indicates that urbanism is only one o f several options providing the means t o consolidate, concentrate, and organize the coercive p o w e r necessary for state formation. Central Place Theory (CPT) is a model o f urban settlement frequently chosen t o approach the broader problem o f state formation, but its universal applicability is in d o u b t . In this paper, spatial and functional definitions of urbanism and other concepts (functional center, functional lattice) related to state systems o f settlement are derived using locational analytic approaches other than CPT, and their implications are discussed. A typology o f state-level settlements is introduced. Advantages o f a locational approach t o the investigation o f settlement systems are suggested.

ATTEMPTS TO EXPLAIN the emergence of the state and the appearance of urbanism have for some years met with little success for two reasons: (1) lack of detailed settlement data and lack of close chronological control for periods critical to the development of the state, and (2) an inability to reach agreement on the definitional criteria for urbanism and the state. Adams (1969, 1972), Adams and Nissen (1972), Culbert (1973, 1974), Kemp (1972), OConnor (1972), Smith (1972), and others have recently reported advances in the understanding of both chronology and settlement in some areas of the world where key shifts in population distribution first occurred. It is obvious that although much progress has been made, the need for a general model appropriate to the new data is critical. Scholars engaged in formulating definitions of the state and of urbanism represent a variety of disciplines and bring widely divergent types of data to bear on the question. I propose a model for organizing the presently available data pertaining to urban genesis and I suggest a spatial definition for urbanism that offers the initial point of agreement necessary for deriving a more satisfactory understanding both of urbanism and of other systems of settlement associated with the state. Although a universally acceptable definition of the state has not yet appeared, Service (1971:498-499) and Krader (1968:13) provide definitions which include the features most workers think critical. One of the shortcomings of these definitions is that there are no spatial parameters. Although states continue to come into existence, and thereby afford us considerable information, they are quite obviously in the sphere of influence (economic, social, political) of extant states. The emergence of the first states, however, can only be investigated archaeologically. The ability to recognize the state archaeologically necessitates intimate understanding of the mode(s) of settlement that allow the state to function as a powerful coordinating institution. The transition period between settlement characterized by autonomous village communities and settlement characterized by the symbiotic interrelationships of communities
Submitted f o r publication Match 4 . 1 9 7 4 Accepted f o r publication September 3. 1 9 7 5

59

60

A M E R I C A N ANTHROPOLOGIST

[ 78,1976

has remained relatively unknown, despite considerable recent interest. In attempts to explain the shift, archaeologists have emphasized relationships between nomadic peoples and sedentary agriculturalists, o r shifts in population, climate, or trade. However, none of these potential explanations has been accompanied by a satisfying spatial representation. There has remained a large and unclosed gap between innumerable flow diagrams of state formation models (which in themselves seem logical enough) and the stubborn resistance of actual settlement data to fit those models. A substantial portion of the more recent literature which deals with population distributions and their functional relationships in early states is linked by a recurrent anomaly: Numerous authors (Adams 1969, 1972; Adams and Nissen 1972; OConnor 1972; Kemp 1972; Culbert 1973, 1974) report strong evidence for the emergence of a state level of organization, but deny that coeval population distributions could be termed urban. Adams (1972:738) doubts that any single term would apply: In the classic heartland of southern Sumer, for example, what is known of the histories of Uruk, Ur, Umma, all within a days foot journey of one another seems presently to defy the application of a single paradigm of urban growth. He reports at least four distinctive Settlement agglomerations. The first is represented by the ceremonial center of Uruk, which (at ca. 3500 B.C.) was surrounded by a large number of small towns and villages, unimodally distributed in size. Around 3000 B.C. Uruk expanded rapidly in size, apparently as a result of the transferral of the rural population into a new, urban setting. A similar pattern occurs for Nippur. A second distinctive pattern is that of Ur, which was surrounded by dense agricultural settlement but which attained only a fraction of the size of Uruk. The district around Umma went rapidly from almost no occupation to dense clustering of large towns, and represents a third distinctive pattern. Adams indicates that a fourth pattern is present in the north Mesopotamian plain, where he notes that towns offered many of the same functions as did urban centers farther south. Adams summarizes thus (1972:743):

. . . the greater part of the population was tied t o the city only under varying degrees of duress; was only marginally affected by many of the most characteristically urban institutions; and can be described only with some risk of hyperbole as having been significantly urbanized in outlook.
OConnor (1972) implicitly defines cities on the basis of area and population, but both he and Kemp (1972) present ample evidence that there was no clear functional distinction in Dynastic Egypt between urban and nonurban populations. The absence of zoning (Kemp 1972:670), the intermixture by many individuals of agricultural and pastoral pursuits with civic endeavors (Kemp 1972:671ff.; OConnor 1972:693ff.), and other functional aspects of Egyptian centers make quite understandable OConnors wish to apply the term urbanism broadly. Using the same criteria of area and population density, Culbert (1974:60-61) rejects the notion that the classic Maya were urban, despite the impressive temple centers such as Tikal. The difficulty is, of course, that high population density alone is not a sufficient criterion for urbanism. Many African populations are densely agglomerated, but d o not function in the interrelated fashion characteristic of urban populations; neither are they necessarily at a state level of organization. On the subject of Yoruba urbanism, Wheatley (1970:423) considers the traditional Yoruban city not as a functionally defective and therefore anomalous agglomeration of folk and urban elements in some way incompatible with the generally received tenets of urban theory, but rather as representing a relatively early developmental phase of city evolution.

It does not seem unwarranted to assume a similar role for many of the patterns of agglomeration described by Adams and others.

Crumley ]

S T A T E S Y S T E M S OF S E T T L E M E N T

61

Implicit in all these researchers discussions of population distributions in early states is this: The functional and spatial relationship between a center and the area immediately surrounding it is crucial to any understanding of state genesis and growth. Not only is the percentage of the population which supports, relative to the percentage which is supported, and the spatial distribution of those groups the core of an operative definition of urbanism, but these must also form the basis of our understanding of nonurban state-level society.
A BRIEF INTRODUCTION T O CENTRAL PLACE THEORY (CPT)

Geographers have explored at some length the economic and spatial relationship between one type of functional center (the central place) and the area surrounding it. Although he was neither the first to use the term central place (Jefferson 1931:453) nor the first to recognize the geometric spatial relationship between competing entrepreneurs (Galpin 1915; see also Dawson 1969), Walter Christaller made the first attempt to demonstrate an empirical relationship between the geography of urban settlements and the appropriate laws of economics. His Central Places in Southern Germany (1933; English translation 1966) is still influential after four decades of subsequent research. Christallers underlying assumptions are these:

(1) Entrepreneurs locate their businesses to maximize the number of customers and to minimize costs to the business (transport, etc.). (2) The attempt to locate most favorably results in the clustering in areas of high population density of a number of entrepreneurs. (3) Purchasing patterns of the population reflect the fact that customers patronize the nearest center satisfying a particular need. (4) A central place is defined as an urban center serving both its own population and a surrounding, less densely populated area termed a complementary region. (5) The economic relationship between a central place and its complementary region is one of mutual dependence: The central place supplies specialized services and manufactured items to the complementary region, the inhabitants of which in turn produce the agricultural surplus needed to support the population of the central place. (6) The spatial expression inherent in the above assumptions is a nested hexagonal lattice of hierarchically ordered central places associated with interlocking complementary regions.
Christaller tested his theories on data collected from an urbanized area of southern Germany. In many respects, the degree of fit of the data to Christallers theoretical scheme is the weakest portion of the work. Reflecting the strength of Christallers economic assumption^,^ the bulk of subsequent research has concentrated on the modification of his data-gathering techniques. August Losch, in The Economics of Location (1954), provides explicit confirmation, drawn from economic data, of the orderly arrangement of market areas. He does this, however, under the assumption of uniform population densities on an unbounded plain (Berry 1967:72). The major problem for anthropologists with both Christallers and Loschs models is their predication upon the economy of modern urban settlements. Researchers in CPT have devoted a great deal of effort to providing empirical confirmation of the hierarchical nature of central place^.^ Clear-cut distinctions among cities, towns, and villages on the basis of population or numbers and types of functions have not been found; Dacey (1960) and Vining (1955) have been especially critical of attempts to identify hierarchies within actual urban data. Like pool, pond, and lake, the terms hamlet, village, and town [or village, town, and city] are convenient modes of expression; but they d o not refer to structurally distinct natural entities (Vining 1955: 169). However, Marshall

62

AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST

[ 78,1976

(1969:50ff.) has recently pointed out a weakness in Vinings argument: There is every indication that the researchers consistently failed to define the CP settlement system in which they then attempted to recognize a hierarchy of central places. Although surprisingly late in its appearance in the literature of CPT, Marshalls contention that the settlement system must be defined before analysis can begin is fundamental to the successful application of the theory. Another serious criticism of classic CPT is that it is in every sense a static formulation. This is not to say that it must remain so; Christaller himself was aware of the theorys dynamic possibilities. However, the literature contains very little about the means by which CPT might be transformed into a predictive model. Although Godlund (1956a, 1956b) deals with the dynamic process of change in central places, Morrill (1962) was the first to develop a probabilistic simulation of CP patterns with temporal as well as spatial dimensions, and to test it (1968) against the historical development of a CP pattern in Sweden. Morrill uses a Monte Carlo method for simulating the increase of population densities in urban centers over time (and concomitant population decline in outlying areas). Morrills use of the Monte Carlo technique underscores his intentional reliance on previous decisions and their results to derive a predictive model. Morrill begins with the assumption that the site location is stable, but that population and the related number of functions of any given center might be rising or falling. He points out that this condition of static location and dynamic population size leads t o a normal disequilibrium in the system. Morrill has marked success using his method t o predict the central place hierarchy for the study area between 1860 and 1960. Morrills use (1968) of modified conditions t o predict each successive settlement pattern provides a possible means of empirical justification for the reformulation of CPT as a dynamic model. Many workers have made explicit reference to CPT as a component of general systems research.6 Berry (1967:76) points out that the rank-size rule (Zipf 1941), which states that the growth of one central place is a constant fraction of the growth of the entire system, provides the equilibrium or steady state of the growth process of an urban system. A major conclusion of general systems theorists is that the steady state in an open system is one which obeys the principle of equifinality, i.e., attains a time-independent state that is not a function of initial conditions but is determined only by the system parameters. In contrast, equilibrium states in closed systems are determined solely by initial conditions (von Bertalanffy 1962:8). The aforementioned studies underscore the applicability of a modified CPT in which the operation of an open system is postulated, and presage its importance in the wider scope of general systems research.
THE USE O F CPT IN THE ANTHROPOLOGY OF SETTLEMENTS

To date, the most successful application of CPT in any discipline has been the work of an a n t h r o p ~ l o g i s t .G. ~ William Skinner (1964, 1965) has given an elegant demonstration of the existence of a central place hierarchy in the Szechwan basin of China, based on data collected for a study of rural marketing. His exceptionally well-behaved data forestall some of the problems of classic CFT, yet his analysis does not lead alone to the discovery of the perfect lattice. His perceptive distinction between economic and administrative centers not only raises provocative questions about the number of networks or lattices necessary to explain location, but also provides the mechanism of change for the entire system. Skinners understated solution to many problems in the application of CFT has profound implications for anthropological archaeology. He successfully locates the boundaries of the system, identifies elements which produce change in the system, and distinguishes independent, functional subsystems. Once identified, such subsystems might conceivably account for a higher percentage of observed variance in the whole system than does the

Crumley ]

STATE SYSTEMS OF SETTLEMENT

63

urban network alone, which combines administrative and economic functions. Early central place theorists attempted to explain the development of a mature urban settlement system which does combine these functions, but the assumption of such combined functions is not justified for pre-urban or nonurban contexts. Although there has been much discussion about the possible use of CPT in anthropological archaeology (Adams 1972; Blouet 1972; Renfrew 1969; and others), few attempts have been made to test the model on real data or, even more important, to identify problem areas of special concern to archaeology. The development of a modified CP model of utility to archaeology depends upon the successful response to three unanswered criticisms which can be made of classic CPT and of much subsequent CPT research: (1)The identification and bounding of the system itself has proved difficult. (2) It is difficult to identify urban hierarchies within a system. (3) Central place refers only to functional centers designated urban on the basis of specific economic and demographic relationships with their surrounding areas characteristic of modern states. Despite these methodological and theoretical problems, CPT has emerged in the past decade as the leading model in the geography and anthropology of urban location. The objections to the classic model are serious, and successful application of CPT to the problem of urban genesis must satisfactorily answer all these objections. The most fundamental component of an archaeological model of central places must be a strong delineation of the system boundaries. This can be effected in three ways: (1) in the traditional manner of defining archaeological cultures according to similarity of artifactual types, (2) by use of the methods of locational analysis, or (3) on the basis of natural physiography. The typological approach is relatively familiar to most anthropologists and need not be discussed here. An example of the locational approach is the work of Tobler and Wineburg (1971), who have used the frequency of citation of town names on cuneiform tablets from Bronze Age Anatolia to develop a model of the towns spatial locations relative to one another. Recent archaeological work with data from protoliterate Gaul (Crumley 1974) supports the cultural and spatial (and, for the purposes of study, systemic) delimitation made by classical writers on the basis of ethnic identity. A third strategy of system definition is the use of natural physiography. The data requirements need involve little previous archaeological research in the area, and there are great practical advantages in using natural boundaries (mountain ranges, bodies of water, etc.). It is for these reasons that the definition of a study area has, since Wissler (1917), been initially a question of natural boundaries. Willeys Viru Valley work (1953) and MacNeishs Tehuacan investigations (Byers 1967) are studies in which it is implicitly assumed that systemic and topographic boundaries are synonymous. Most desirable for system definition is a combination of three lines of evidence: archaeological, literary (primary or secondary), and physiographic. Another serious concern for the archaeologist who wants to develop models of state-level settlement using CPT is the fact that CPT was formulated for the study of modern, urban society. It is clear that the economies of early states (see especially Adams 1974:246) cannot be characterized easily; CFT assumes a free enterprise system which may or may not be representative of the commerce of an early state. A related and equally difficult problem is identifying hierarchies of settlement archaeologically. One of the first and perhaps the best-known archaeological applications of CPT (Johnson 1972) exemplifies both these problems; the work of Berry (1961) may provide a solution. It should be noted that Johnson intended his application fo serve as a first level generative hypothesis. He did not intend to make a definitive statement about Early Dynastic settlement in the Diyala Plains of Iraq. He cautions that (1972:769) The application of a central-place model to these data will be considered useful if it leads to the formulation of

64

AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST

[78,1976

new, potentially important, and archeologically testable hypotheses relative to the operation of processes resulting in the observed settlement pattern. Perhaps the most serious difficulty in Johnsons application of CPT t o the Diyala settlement data is the failure to distinguish a convincing urban hierarchy. Johnson accepts uncritically the applicability of Christallers ranked hierarchy of central places, and divides his rather small sample (39 sites) even further into five size classes. These are large towns, towns, large villages, villages, and hamlets. They are apparently defined on the basis of classical, tripartite, central place divisions and on locational grounds [encountered] in the course of analysis (1972:772). It is unclear whether Johnson means that the distinction between hamlets and villages was made on the basis of some aspect of their physical location or through the application of locational analysis. Reference has been made above to numerous attempts to provide empirical confirmation for the hierarchical nature of central places. One of the reasons this has been a formidable task is aptly demonstrated by Berry (1961). He notes that: Students of urbanization have recognized two kinds of city size distributions: rank -size, according to which the distribution of cities by population size class within countries is truncated lognormal; and primate, whereby a stratum of small towns and cities is dominated by one or more very large cities and there are deficiencies in numbers of cities of intermediate sizes [1961:573-5741. Utilizing modem data on urbanization (as measured by the percentage of the population living in cities of 20,000 or more) from the Atlas of Economic Development (Ginsburg 1961), Berry tests data from 37 countries against an index of primacy which yields a ratio of the population of the largest city in a country to the combined population of the first four cities (1961:579). He also notes (1961:582) that countries with low degrees of primacy are heavily industrialized and/or have long urban traditions and histories of urbanization. Berry then proposes a graphic model of city size distributions that places several types of these distributions on a scale between the limiting cases of primacy and lognormality (Fig. 1).His rationale is based on the work of Simon (1955), who demonstrates that lognormal distributions are produced as limiting cases by stochastic growth processes. As a limiting case, a lognormal distribution is a condition of entropy, defined by Berry and Garrison (1958) as a circumstance in which the forces affecting the distribution are many and act randomly. Lognormal distributions can be contrasted with distributions that are simpler in that the latter are produced by fewer forces (Berry 1961:584). Corollaries are that fewer forces will affect the urban structure of a country the smaller the country, the shorter that countrys history of urbanization, and the simpler the economic and political life of that country. All of these instances might logically be applied in the case of early states. Let us now return to Johnsons treatment of the Diyala Plain settlement data. Based on the classic model of central places which he modifies slightly, he compares the deviation of observed from predicted site size for 39 cases. He predicts site size correctly in only 1 5 (less than 40%) of the cases. In addition, his application to ordinal data of Pearsons product-moment correlation coefficient to test goodness-of-fit obscures rather than illuminates the substantive aspects of those data. Figure 2 is a simple graph of Johnsons data. Dashed lines show where his size classes intersect what is seen to be a primate curve. The major difficulty is the application of CPT t o data drawn from a period of early state formation which, in the light of Berrys work (1961), might more reasonably be expected to exhibit not a rank-size but a primate city size distribution. Application of Berrys model t o Johnsons data yields a possible solution t o the following two major problems in the use of CT by archaeologists: (1) classic CFT is rigidly based upon the economy of modem, already urbanized society; and (2) it is difficult to identify archaeologically (or at all) ranked hierarchies of settlement. Rather than attempting to

Crumley ]

S T A T E S Y S T E M S OF S E T T L E M E N T

65

l i
More small cities

Pff/MAT E

I J
More medium cities

More large cities

Intermediate progression

P r i m a t e - Rank-size

RANK-S/Z

Fig. 1. A developmental model for city size distributions (after Berry 1961:583).

identify statistically meaningful breaks in the distribution curve of a systems population centers, one can view the curue itself as a reflection of that systems degree of urbanization. Berry has shown convincingly that increasing urban complexity may be regarded as a stochastic growth process where primate population distribution curves occur as the system reaches maturity.

66

fIMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST

[78,1976

301
n

c
W

I I I I

I I

I I

I I I I I

N -

w 1 0 m 0 ALL
1972:770).

SITES, RANKED BY SIZE

Fig. 2. Graph of Early Dynastic site sizes for the Diyala Plains, Iraq (source: Johnson Strangely enough, the power of stochastic growth models in CPT has been noted only in passing (Olsson 1966), and the implications of Berrys study for the analysis of early state formation have been overlooked. In addition, Berrys work points out the conditions under which CFT will be applicable to state systems of settlement: The central places in question must be centers which serve both their own population and a surrounding complementary region. It should be stressed that any application of CFT to settlement archaeology necessitates extensive modification of the classic model. Many shortcomings inherent in the classic formulation are reparable on a methodological level and pose no major barriers to the use of a modified scheme in the archaeological investigation of urban and proto-urban settlement. The classic CP model constitutes the idealized description of a system of rural/urban interaction; the utility of the formulation per se is most seriously in doubt as a result of its purely descriptive nature. It is apparent that the environmental, economic, social, spatial, and political complexities of such a system are legion, and that there is great potential for significant systemic change. The inability of the classic formulation to account for change within such a system severeiy limits its utility to archaeologists and others interested in the dynamics of change. I suggest, however, that Berrys (1961) model of contemporary urban growth satisfies the need for a dynamic model of wide utility which can be applied effectively to the urban settlement data of all states, ancient and modern, and preindustrial as well as industrial. The stochastic growth process inherent in the change of urban growth curves from primate to rank-size offers a viable alternative to the rejection of CPT by archaeologists on grounds that it is merely static and descriptive.
TOWARD A TYPOLOGY O F STATE-LEVEL SETTLEMENT

In the preceding section I present a model of an early state settlement system comprising a primate city and numerous villages. Inherent in that formulation are (1) the necessity for the appearance of a t least one urban center in a system which operates at a state level of organization, (2) an implicit definition of urban and city in spatial and economic terms, and (3) the notion that the primate to rank-size growth model approximates the process of urbanization. Three definitions must be made explicit before further discussion of state-level settlement systems: the city, the functional center, and the functional lattice.

Crumley ]

STATE SYSTEMS OF SETTLEMENT

67

Rather than dwelling on points of disagreement about the attributes and functions of the true city, I suggest that accord might be reached if the economic and locational definition for the city implicit in classic CFT were employed. The implicit definition of a city in CFT is a higher order central place located in an economically interconnected relationship with neighboring central places. In this definition, the central place has a resident population comprising members of all classes whose subsistence requirements are furnished by the population of the surrounding complementary region, or hinterland. Such a definition is in accord with Redfields folk-urban distinction and offers the operational advantage that a city can be empiricaily identified by archaeological investigation. Archaeologists have long been accustomed to making generalized identification of functional areas within sites, and to inferring functional relationships between sites. The ways in which functional relationships are spatially expressed are also familiar areas of study for the archaeologist. Thus, the archaeological evidence for a city as defined above would be (1) the presence of separate areas of the site which quartered the wealthy, artisans, merchants, and various groups of skilled and unskilled laborers, and (2) artifactual and/or textual evidence of the active exchange of urban products for the agricultural products and raw materials produced by a surrounding population. The mode of exchange (tribute, redistribution, open markets) would, of course, be important to further study, but not to the identification of the site in question as a city. A second important definition is that of the functional center, any spot/place/site/ location which serves a function or functions not equally available elsewhere, i.e., that has a hinterland for which it provides a function or functions. The term does not imply any particular residential pattern or numerical relationship between the inhabitants of functional centers and those of the centers hinterland; the term is intentionally general so as to be of use in the description of all systems of settlement, urban and nonurban, state and nonstate, although this discussion is limited to state-level societies. Villages are ubiquitous functional centers which provide services for farmers. The poleis of classical Greece were simply groups of such villages that could easily separate back into individual villages (Pounds 1971:26). Ehrenberg (1960:30) points out that the polis never ceased to rest on an agrarian basis, yet to Aristotle it was the first settlement type to stand in contrast to rurality. In his Politics (I, 1 , 9) he defines a polis as constituted by the association of families and villages in a perfect and self-sufficing existence. Platos ideal city is almost exclusively agricultural, and it is required that commerce be reduced to a minimum within its walls (1970:IV, 704). Pounds (1971:24) carefully distinguishes polis from city, because city implies functions such as commerce and industry which not all poleis supplied. How can the better-known cities of the classic Greek world, Athens and Sparta, be poleis? What seems to have distinguished these early primate cities from poleis, aside from obvious differences in size, was their ability to exact tribute from lesser settlements. Thus, while other poleis were essentially self-sufficient, Athens broadened its subsistence base by taxing the surrounding countryside. It is outside the scope of this paper to investigate the causes for Athens primacy, but it is worth noting that the addition to an extant center of a single function (for example, as a port of trade or break-in-bulk point for long-distance commerce or as an important cult center) might have proved a sufficient kick to begin the shift from self-sufficiency to symbiosis. Functions vary with each example of centers associated with primary state formation, and may or may not be initially agrarian. Functional centers in the settlement systems of the Lowland Maya were predominantly religious, but perhaps served redistributive/agricultural functions as well. In the case of Egypt, the center of control shifted from one religious capital to another with successive dynasties, yet there was apparently little need for hierarchically interrelated urban centers for the differentiation of a rural from an urban population. Dynastic Egypt, the Maya Lowlands, and north Mesopotamia offer examples of

68

AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST

[ 78,1976

the stability and efficacy of nonurban, state-level settlement. Their historical debt to the Neolithic village is clear. An important question t o be answered is why such systems develop in particular areas of settlement and not in others. A concept related to the functional center is that of the functional lattice. It is the spatial expression of relationships (economic, social, religious, or administrative) between functional centers. Any given system of settlement might have many overlapping functional lattices. The more complex the system of settlement (and the higher the level of sociocultural integration), the more likely it is that the systems functional lattices overlap. Many researchers have distinguished between two commercial functional lattices: (1) the market, which functions as a local exchange point for short-range goods, and (2) the fair, which functions as a temporary depot for long-range goods. Berry (1967:95) and Bohannan and Dalton (1965) confirm with numerous examples the worldwide presence of such dual economic lattices. The spatial component of the market is the market place, possibly periodic, but always at a fixed location within the settlement. In functional terms, the redistribution system directed by the Mesopotamian temple administrators within its walls served the same end as do periodic local markets in town squares throughout the world: the distribution of local goods to local people. It is the system of markets which expands, becomes increasingly integrated with other aspects of the economy, and eventually gives rise to modern national economies with nested hierarchical lattices of goods-and-services centers. The demonstrable functional and spatial equivalency of fairs and ports of trade (Polanyi 1971; Allix 1922) bears directly upon the origin, formation, and function of primate cities. There is evidence for an international lattice of fairs or ports of trade spatially independent of a lattice of population centers interrelated on the basis of local economy. The evolution of the primate city might conceivably be seen as the increasing overlap of two or more such functional lattices. Based o n the above definitions, I suggest that the settlement systems of state-level societies be distinguished on the basis of spatial relationships (residential patterns) between segments of the population engaged in full-time non-agricultural pursuits, part-time non-agricultural pursuits, and full-time agricultural pursuits. At base it is people who provide services, and services determine a centers function; increasing numbers of functions imply the presence of an increasing number of people in roles other than that of the self-sufficient agriculturalist. Although much more work must be done in this area, it is necessary for both heuristic and provocative reasons to begin construction of a typology of state-level settlement systems. Rowe (1963) offers a framework t o describe the presence (synchorism) or absence (achorism) of rural populations associated with agglomerated, state level settlements. In essence, the terms define the residential pattern of a functional center and a complementary region or hinterland. An example of achorism would be a settlement where all farmers live in town and the hinterland is essentially vacant. I make a further distinction and use synchorism with reference to settlements where the population of the functional center (in this case a central place) is supported by the surplus produced by a rural population, and epichorism with reference t o areas of settlement whose centers are all but deserted except for a few specialists (priests, civil officials), but whose outlying area supports a sizable rural population. The three terms can be applied to some of the nonurban, state-level settlements discussed above: Early Classic Tikal (and perhaps earliest Uruk) is termed epichoritic, while earliest Umma and most Greek poleis are termed achoritic. Functional centers associated with a synchoritic settlement system, whatever their size, fit the definition of city used here. Although there is some evidence that achoritic and epichoritic systems of settlement have become synchoritic over time (Athens and environs provides such evidence in the former case and the Tikal region in the latter), for the present I intend n o explicitly evolutionary relationship among these three types of population distributions associated with early states.

Crumley ]

S T A T E SYSTEMS OF SETTLEMENT

69

In fact, some settlement systems (e.g., towns in the north Mesopotamian plain and in Dynastic Egypt which have both synchoritic and achoritic aspects) seem to have maintained considerable stability short of a complete distinction between urban and rural elements. Synchorism, achorism, and epichorism are only three of many possible residential patterns associated with state systems of settlement. They are intended to stimulate further interest in the formulation of a typology of settlements. Such a typology may ultimately aid in answering the truly provocative question: What environmental, economic, social, or religious pressures affect the isolation of certain functions in multiple centers (many distinct lattices), or the consolidation of multiple functions in a single center (a single, integrated lattice in which many functional lattices overlap)? It is clear that both options provide the means to consolidate, concentrate, and organize the coercive power necessary for state formation. CONCLUSIONS The implications of the foregoing analysis of pre-urban, urban, and nonurban settlement are as follows: (1) Various types of settlement systems (e.g., achoritic, synchoritic, epichoritic) function well enough to support the state level of organization. In only one of these is the systems functional center the city. (2) In systems where the functional center is the city, it is suggested that a stochastic growth model explains increasing urban complexity, while the increasing overlap of functional centers accounts spatially for increasing urbanization. (3) Although Central Place Theory has been shown to be of limited utility, the more general principles of locational analysis (the spatial and functional analysis of location) are useful in distinguishing systems of settlement at state and non-state levels of society. (4) Fruitful future investigation might focus on systemic questions concerning (a) the type of settlement system as a reflection of the natural resources, environment, social organization, management techniques, land tenure, etc., and (b) the particular functions of the centers in that system. Distinctive functional lattices might be identified. (5) Spatial and functional definitions of settlement types in pre-urban, urban, or nonurban states have numerous practical advantages over previous definitions based upon trait lists or upon area and population estimates alone. (6) Such an approach to the investigation of settlement systems associated with the state has the advantage of expression in general systems terms, and it may provide a dynamic model for change in both state and nonstate contexts. NOTES
Acknowledgments. Christina Harrison, William H. Marquardt, Dennis K. McDaniel, Patty Jo Watson, Richard A. Watson, and H. Clyde Wilson read earlier versions of this paper and

offered constructive criticism. The term Central Place Theory is widely used in the literature of locational geography to refer to what is more correctly termed a model. There is an extensive literature in geography on locational analysis and CPT (see Berry and Pred 1965; Chorley and Haggett 1967; Haggett 1965; Marshall 1969). However, n o comprehensive synthesis and critique of analytical techniques employed in CPT has yet appeared, nor has there been an attempt to explore the ramifications of the application of the Central Place model to anthropology. Various books, one of which is my own, are in preparation which will treat this subject. Meanwhile, at the risk of discussing neither CFT nor state formation thoroughly, my intention in this paper is to apply Central Place concepts to a problem familiar to many anthropologists (that of the formation of the state), and to critique CPT in general and its appropriateness in the study of early states in particular. It is clear that, although the CP model is the best known in locational analysis, its utility is considerably overrated. Much of the data from ancient and modern states necessitates a further search for more appropriate models. *Hinterland and complementary region are used here interchangeably.

70

AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST

[ 78,1976

3Christaller also considers his theory to be one of location of urban trades and institutions which would complement von Thunens (1826) theory of the location of agricultural production, and the theory of location of industries developed by Weber (1909, in Berry and Pred 1968). 4See Smailes (1944, 1946), Brush (1953), Berry and Garrison (1958), and Berry, Barnum, and Tennant (1962). Work by Berry and Barnum (1962) and by Berry, Barnum, and Tennant (1962) shows that a rank-order hierarchy can be inferred by using spatial as well as demographic and functional data about central places. They effect a theoretical reconciliation between data that suggest a smooth continuum of urban importance from the smallest to the largest centers, and data that conform to the rank-size rule on the basis of differential functions. They demonstrate that slight functional variance within the CP system as a whole accounts for the smooth function/size curve, while the tripartite distribution holds true f o r numerous discrete areas within the system. King (1969) reviews the literature pertaining to probability models, and Olson (1966) explores the spatial applications of stochastic growth models. O l s o n hints that the concept of entropy might lead t o a dynamic model of settlement (1966:32). 6See Woldenberg (1968), and Woldenberg and Berry (1967). Woldenberg and Berry suggest that rivers and central places are analogous systems. Both are characterized as open in systems terminology. Both seek maintenance of a state of equilibrium, and change as a result of increase or decrease in the flow of energy moving through the system. The use of locational models, especially CP models, has a lengthy history in many disciplines other than geography, and geographers themselves have contributed significantly t o other disciplines (see Berry and Pred 1965; Chorley and Haggett 1967). Pounds (1971) contribution to the study of ancient history is a notable example. Biologists Clark and Evans (1954) pioneered work in population biology using distance t o nearest neighbor as a measure of spatial relationships; Cavalli-Sforza (1962) continues the use of locational analysis in genetics. The work of Davie (1937), Ullman (1941), and Mark and Schwirain (1967) is indicative of long-standing interest in CPT by sociologists. A further test of the hypothesis that early urban systems exhibit a primate distribution curve is made by Pounds (1971). Assuming that city size in 5th century Attica is related to the amount of tribute Atticans paid to the city of Athens, Pounds finds that the resulting graph is strongly primate. Adams (1972:744) notes that the pattern of settlement on the Mesopotamian plain around the city of Uruk shifted from a large number of small settlements with a unimodal size distribution centering on a mean of 2 hectares. . . in the late Uruk period . . .[to] a much smaller number of settlements distributed more or less evenly between small hamlets and towns of widely varying size in the Early Dynastic. Thus Uruk and the surrounding villages were apparently distributed in the form of a primate curve in the late Uruk period (ca. 3300 B.C.) and would more nearly approximate a rank-size distribution by the Early Dynastic period (ca. 2800 B.C.). REFERENCES CITED Adams, Robert McC. 1969 The Study of Ancient Mesopotamian Settlement Patterns and the Problem of 24. Urban Origins. Sumer 25 :111-1 1972 Patterns of Urbanization in Early Southern Mesopotamia. In Man, Settlement, and Urbanism. Peter J. Ucko et a]., eds. Pp. 735-749. London: Gerald Duckworth. 19 74 Anthropological Perspectives o n Ancient Trade. Current Anthropology 15:239-258. Adams, Robert McC., and Hans Nisen 1972 The Uruk Countryside. London & Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Allix, A. 1922 The Geography of Fairs: Illustrated by Old World Examples. Geographical Review 12:53 2-569. Aristotle 1932 The Politics. H. Rackham, trans. Loeb Classical Library. New York: G. P. Putnams Sons. Berry, Brian J. L. 1961 City Size Distributions and Economic Development. Economic Development and

Crumley ]

S T A T E SYSTEMS OF S E T T L E M E N T

71

Cultural Change 9:573-588. 1967 Geography of Market Centers and Retail Distribution. Englewood Cliffs: PrenticeHall. Berry, Brian J. L., and H. Gardiner Barnum 1962 Aggregate Relations and Elemental Components of Central Place Systems. Journal of Regional Science 4( 1):35-68. Berry, Brian J. L., H. Gardiner Barnum, and Robert J. Tennant 1962 Retail Location and Consumer Behavior. Papers and Proceedings of the Regional Science Association 9:65-106. Berry, Brian J. L., and William L. Garrison 1958 Alternative Explanations of Urban Rank-Size Relationships. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 48 :83-91. Berry, Brian, J. L., and Allen Pred, eds. 1965 Central Place Studies: A Bibliography of Theory and Applications. Bibliographic Series No. 1 (with supplement), Regional Science Research Institute. Philadelphia: Regional Science Research Institute. Bertalanffy, Ludwig von 1962 General Systems Theory: A Critical Review. General Systems 7:l-20. Blouet, Brian W. 1972 Factors Influencing the Evolution of Settlement Patterns. In Man, Settlement, and Urbanism. Peter J. Ucko et al., eds. Pp. 3-15. London: Gerald Duckworth. Bohannan, Paul, and George Dalton 1965 Markets in Africa. Garden City, New York: Natural History Press. Brush, John E. 1953 The Hierarchy of Central Places in Southwestern Wisconsin. Geographical Review 43:380-402. Byers, Douglas S., ed. 1967 Environment and Subsistence. The Prehistory of the Tehuacan Valley. Vol. 1. Austin: University of Texas Press (published for the Robert S. Peabody Foundation, Phillips Academy, Andover). Cavalli-Sforza, L. 1962 The Distribution of Migration Distances: Models and Applications to Genetics. Entretiens de Monaco en Sciences Humaines, premiere session. Chorley, Richard J., and Peter Haggett 1967 Socio-Economic Models in Geography. London: Methuen. Christaller, Walter 1966 Central Places in Southern Germany. C. W. Baskin, trans. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. (First published in 1933.) Clark, Philip J., and Francis C. Evans 1954 Distance to Nearest Neighbor as a Measure of Spatial Relationships in Populations. Ecology 35 :445-453. Crumley, Carole L. 1974 Celtic Social Structure: The Generation of Archaeologically Testable Hypotheses f Michigan Museum of from Literary Evidence. Anthropological Papers, University o Anthropology, No. 54. Culbert, T. Patrick 1974 The Lost Civilization: The Story of the Classic Maya, New York: Harper and Row. Culbert T. Patrick, ed. 1973 The Classic Maya Collapse. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Dacey, Michael F. 1960 The Spacing of River Towns. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 56 550-568. Davie, M. R. 1937 The Pattern of Urban Growth. I n Studies in the Science of Society. George P. Murdock, ed. Pp. 133-161. New Haven: Yale University Press. Dawson, John A. 1969 Some Early Theories of Settlement and Size. Town Planning Institute Journal 55~444-448. Ehrenberg, Victor 1960 The Greek State. New York: W. W. Norton. Galpin, C. J. 1915 The Social Anatomy of an Agricultural Community. Bulletin, University of

72

AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST

[78,1976

Wisconsin Agricultural Experiment Station, No. 34. Ginsburg, Norton 1961 Atlas of Economic Development. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Godlund, S. 1956a Bus Service in Sweden. Lund Studies in Geography, Series B, No. 17. 1956b The Function and Growth of Bus Traffic Within the Sphere of Urban Influence. Lund Studies in Geography, Series B, No. 18. Haggett, Peter 1965 Locational Analysis in Human Geography. London: Edward Arnold. Jefferson, Mark 1931 Distribution of t.he Worlds City Folks: A Study in Comparative Civilization. Geographical Review 21 :446-465. Johnson, Gregory A. 1972 A Test of the Utility of Central Place Theory in Archaeology. I n Man, Settlement, and Urbanism. Peter J. Ucko et al., eds. Pp. 769-785. London: Gerald Duckworth. Kemp, Barry 1972 Temple and Town in Ancient Egypt. I n Man, Settlement, and Urbanism. Peter J. Ucko e t al., eds. Pp. 657-680. London: Gerald Duckworth. King, Leslie J. 1969 Statistical Analysis in Geography. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. Krader, Lawrence 1968 Formation of the State. Foundations of Modern Anthropology Series. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. Losch, August 1954 The Economics of Location. W. H. Woglom and W. F. Stolper, trans. New Haven: Yale University Press. (First published in 1943.) Mark, H., and Kent P. Schwirain 1967 Ecological Position, Urban Central Place Function, and Community Population Growth. American Journal of Sociology 73:30-41. Marshall, John Urquhart 1969 The Location of Service Towns. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Morrill, Richard L. 1962 Simulation of Central Place Patterns over Time. Lund Studies in Geography 24:109-120. 1968 The Development of Spatial Distributions of Towns in Sweden: An HistoricalPredictive Approach. In Readings in Economic Geography. R. H. Smith et al., eds. Pp. 385-398. Chicago: Rand-McNally. OConnor, David 1972 The Geography of Settlement in Ancient Egypt. In Man, Settlement, and Urbanism. Peter J. Ucko et al., eds. Pp. 681-698. London: Gerald Duckworth. Olson, Gunnar 1966 Central Place Systems, Spatial Interaction, and Stochastic Growth Processes. Science Association 18:13-45. Papers of the Regional Plato 1970 The Laws. T. J. Saunders, trans. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Polanyi, Karl 1971 Ports of Trade in Early Societies. I n Primitive, Archaic, and Modern Economies: Essays of Karl Polanyi. George Dalton, ed. Pp. 238-260. Boston: Beacon Press. (First published in 1963.) Pounds, G. Norman 1971 The Urbanization of the Classical World. Ekistics 182:22-35. Renfrew, Colin 1969 Trade and Culture Process in European Prehistory. Current Anthropology 1 0 :151-160. Rowe, John H. 1963 Urban Settlements in Ancient Peru. Nawpa Pacha 1:l-27. Service, Elman R. 1 9 7 1 Profiles in Ethnology. 3rd edition. New York: Harper and Row. Simon, Herbert A. 1955 On a Class of Skew Distribution Functions. Biometrica 42:425-440. Skinner, G. William 1964 Marketing and Social Structure in Rural China. Journal of Asian Studies 24:3-43

Crumley ]

STATE SYSTEMS OF SETTLEMENT

73

(Part 1, November). 1965 Marketing and Social Structure in Rural China. Journal of Asian Studies 24:195-228, 363-399 (Part 2, February; Part 3, May). Smailes, A. E. 1944 The Urban Hierarchy in England and Wales. Geography 29:41-51. 1946 The Urban Mesh of England and Wales. Transactions and Papers, Institute of British Geographers, 1946. Pp. 85-101. Smith, H. S. 1972 Society and Settlement in Ancient Egypt. In Man, Settlement, and Urbanism. Peter J. Ucko et al., eds. Pp. 705-719. London: Gerald Duckworth. Thunen, Johann Heinrich von 1966 Von Thiinens Isolated State, An English Translation of Der Isolierte Staat [1826]. Carla M. Wartenburg, trans. Oxford: Pergamon. Tobler, W., and S. Wineburg 1971 A CaDDadocian Speculation. Nature 231 (May . - 7):39-41. , Ullman, E. L. 1941 A Theory of Location for Cities. American Journal of Sociology 46:853-864. Vining, Rutledge 1955 A Description of Certain Spatial Aspects of an Economic System. Economic Development and Cultural Change 3:147-195. Weber, A. ,, 1909 Uber den Standort der Industrien. Tubingen Wheatley, Paul 1970 The Significance of Traditional Yoruba Urbanism. Comparative Studies in Society and History 12(4):393-423. Willey, Gordon R. 1953 Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in the Viru Valley, Peru. Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 155. Wissler, Clark 1917 The American Indian: An Introduction to the Anthropology of the New World. New York: D. C. McMurtrie. Woldenberg, Michael J. 1968 Hierarchical Systems: Cities, Rivers, Alpine Glaciers, Bovine Livers, and Trees. Harvard Papers in Theoretical Geography, Laboratory for Computer Graphics and Spatial Analysis. Technical Report No. 19. Woldenberg, Michael J., and Brian J. L. Berry 1967 Rivers and Central Places: Analogous Systems? Journal of Regional Science 7 :129-139. Zipf, G. K. 1941 National Unity and Disunity. Bloomington: Principia Press.

_-