Wittfogel's Neglected Hydraulic/Hydroagricultural Distinction

David H. Price

Journal of Anthropological Research, Vol. 50, No. 2. (Summer, 1994), pp. 187-204.

Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0091-7710%28199422%2950%3A2%3C187%3AWNHD%3E2.0.CO%3B2-J

Journal of Anthropological Research is currently published by University of New Mexico.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained
prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in
the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/journals/unm.html.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

The JSTOR Archive is a trusted digital repository providing for long-term preservation and access to leading academic
journals and scholarly literature from around the world. The Archive is supported by libraries, scholarly societies, publishers,
and foundations. It is an initiative of JSTOR, a not-for-profit organization with a mission to help the scholarly community take
advantage of advances in technology. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

http://www.jstor.org
Wed Sep 5 20:39:40 2007
 WITTFOGEL'S NEGLECTED HYDRAULIC1

HYDROAGRICULTURAL DISTINCTION

David H. Price

St. Martin's College, Lacey, WA 98503

Karl Wigfogel's writings on the evolution of irrigation systems are examined in light of
his distinction between hydraulic and hydroagricultural systems. Wigfogelrecognized that
drfferenthydraulic conditions allowed for the development of differenttypes of irrigation
systems: hydraulic societies have tended to develop in massive riverine environments, while
hydroagricultural societies have tended to develop along smaller water sources in regions
where geogr@hical f a r e s hydraulically con@arlnzentalizedthe counhysrde. Robert Hunt's
recent refutation of WitYbgelS model is examined in light of WiYogelS oum writings about
the size and h i t y of hydraulic and hydroagricultural societies. It is argued that Hunts
critique of Wigfogeh model fails because it ignores the specific variables which Wigfogel
postulated as primarily influencing the administrative character of irrigation societies.

ISSUESOF IRRIGATION and power have played an important role in the devel-
opment of materialist cross-cultural theory building ever since Marx and Engels
first recognized that the irrigation-based economies of Asia had evolved dif-
ferently from those of the feudal and capitalist West (Krader 1975). In the late
1950s and 1960s' Karl Witffogel's "hydraulic" theory strongly influenced an-
thropological theories of state formation. Though Wittfogel's theory of the
hydraulic state and "Oriental despotism" were partly derived from Marx and
Engels's writings, Wittfogel's theories must be seen as having distinct epis-
temological and political roots.
In the last few decades, Wittfogel's theories have been summarily dismissed
by critics who claim that small-scale irrigation societies have evolved around
the world without developing into the hydraulic states purportedly predicted
by Wittfogel. I believe that Wittfogel's critics have unfairly ignored much of
his thought by not addressing his distinction between hydraulic and hydroag-
ricultural societies. ' This paper reexamines the theoretical basis of Wittfogel's
model and tries to clanfy exactly what Wittfogel claimed about the determinative
role of inigation in social formation. Robert Hunt's (1988) critique of Wittfogel's
model is examined in light of Wittfogel's writings on hydraulic density and his
distinction between hydraulic and hydroagricultural economies. Specifically, it
is shown that Hunt's dismissal of Wittfogel's theory due to the localized man-
agement exhibited by many contemporary irrigation systems is premature.

THE DEVELOPMENT OF WITTFOGEL'S THEORIES

Wittfogel expanded upon Marx and Engels's scant writings on the subject
of the Asiatic mode of production to account for the formation of pristine and

(JournalofAnthropological Research, vol. 50, 1994)

188 JOURNAL OF ANTHROPOLOGICAL RESEARCH
secondary, nonfeudal, despotic states throughout the world. Unfortunately,
Wittfogel's later writings are so mired in his personal anticommunist crusade
that it is hard to disentangle his antitokhtarian vehemence from his theoretical
contributions. Untanghg Wittfogel's valid contributions to anthropological the-
ory is my present concern.
Wittfogel's writings covered many aspects of social evolution, but his most
famous and most misunderstood body of work involved the evolution of the
"despotic" hydraulic state, which he described as follows:

If irrigation farming depends on the effective handling of a major supply

of water, the distinctive quahty of water-its tendency to gather in bulk-
becomes institutionally decisive. A large quantity of water can be chan-
neled and kept w i t h bounds only by the use of mass labor; and this
mass labor must be coordinated, disciplined, and led. (Wittfogel1957: 18)

Wittfogel's critics ignore his distinction between hydraulic and hydroagn-

cultural societies. Indeed, Wittfogel's failure consistently to maintain this dis-
tinction muddled a number of his analyses. Wittfogel's critics generally represent
his theoretical position as static and unchanging. However, Wittfogel's view of
hydraulic societies changed throughout the years preceding and following the
publication of Oriental Despotism (Wittfogel1957). Many aspects of his theory
remained constant, but some important details and terminological distinctions
changed through time.
In his 1929 essay "Geopolitik, geographischer Materialismus und Marxis-
mus, "'Wittfogel separated irrigation societies into three categories: the Egyp-
tian type, the Japanese type, and the Indian type (Wittfogel1985:5&57). The
distinguishing attributes of this typology were both ecological and social. His
major premise was that the ecological, geographical, technological, and hy-
drauhc conditions of irrigation societies either do or do not allow for the de-
velopment of "centralized waterworks. " If conditions favoring centralized irrigation
exist, then both the mechanical and social features of an "Egyptian" system
d develop. If conditions favor decentralized irrigation, then the Japanese and
Indian types of decentralized irrigation societies will develop.
In the 1929 typology, the Egyptian type was the classic hydraulic state with
a political/religious centralized power base. Besides Egypt, Wittfogel recog-
nized Ancient Babylon and Imperial China as fitting the Egyptian typology. The
state was seen as the dominant coordinating force necessary for the organi-
zation involved in the construction and maintenance of huge canals, d i e s ,
dams, and other waterworks. Wittfogel never claimed that the social structure
of each of these societies was identical, only that they shared many of the
same adrmnistrative concerns and produced slmilar hierarchical structures.
The historic and prehistoric development of the world's pristine states along
the banks of rivers in arid and semiarid environments suggested the presence
of sirmlar causes and effects to Wittfogel. He saw a pattern in the evolution
 WITTFOGEL'S NEGLECTED DISTINCTION 189

of these riverine states wherein each developed centralized, despotic govern-

ments to cope with the managerial necessities of massive hydraulic enterprises
(Wittfogel 1957). Wittfogel postulated that strong, centralized states evolved
in riverine environments because the coordinated intensification of irrigation
agriculture allowed higher levels of agricultural returns and population and
territorial expansions that were not possible without such centralized ~ o n t r o l . ~
The crucial condition favoring the development of centralized irrigation sys-
tems was the presence of a riverine floodplain that was ecologically circumscript
yet provided an ample supply of irrigation water on an annual basis. If irrigation
farming depends on the effective handling of a major supply of water, the
distinctive quality of water-its tendency to gather in bulk-becomes institu-
tionally decisive. A large quantity of water can be channeled and kept within
bounds only by the use of mass labor, and this mass labor must be coordinated,
disciplined, and led. (Wittfogel 1957:
The Japanese type of irrigation society was a nonintensifiable system char-
acterized by geographically isolated production centers without a centralized
power base. Because of the high degree of geographic isolation and limited
hydraulic resources, the imposition of a centralized state responsible for co-
ordinating and intenslfymg agriculture would not have led to increased pro-
ductivity. As Wittfogel put it,

The Japanese Type lacks "extensive spatial sphere" of irrigation and

drainage construction; the river areas could be handled locally. Thus one
finds many isolated centers of production with military superstructures,
many classical examples of military-feudal forms. (Wittfogel 1985:56)

Finally, the Indian type falls somewhere between the Egyptian and Japanese
types. The Indian type has decentralized irrigation networks that function
independently yet occasionally rely on a unified moderate-to-large-scale labor
force to construct and maintain irrigation infrastructure. Periodic demands are
also made upon villages by supralocal authorities, though there are no per-
manent mechanisms or institutions for these activities at the village level.
Though these systems are "fragmented, they simultaneously exhibit the large
tasks of waterworks as well as all conceivable military feudal tasks" (Wittfogel
1985:57).

HYDRAULIC VERSUS HYDROAGRICULTURAL SYSTEMS

In Oriental Despotism (published twenty-eight years later), Wittfogel dropped

the typological nomenclature of "Egyptian," "Japanese," and "Indian" and in-
stead adopted the terms hydraulic and hydroagricultural (Wittfogel 1957:18,
197). This distinction is essential if we are to evaluate correctly Wittfogel's
theories of state formation. Wittfogel's distinction between hydraulic and hy-
droagricultural societies accounts for the formation of societies that are rooted
in irrigation agriculture but lack a despotic form of centralized government.
190 JOURNAL OF ANTHROPOLOGICAL RESEARCH
Too little or too much water does not necessarily lead to governmental
water control; nor does governmental water control necessarily imply
despotic methods of statecraft. It is only above the level of an extractive
subsistence economy, beyond the influence of strong centers of rainfall
agriculture, and below the level of a property-based industrial civilization
that man, reacting specifically to the water-deficient landscape, moves
toward a specific hydraulic order of life. (Wittfogel 1957:14)'

The worst caricatures of Wittfogel's theory represent his argument as one

in which all irrigation systems lead to a system of centralized decision making.
Nothing could be further from the truth. His definition of hydroagricultural
societies clearly precludes such misunderstandings:

Hydroagriculture, farming based on small scale irrigation, increases the

food supply, but it does not involve the patterns of organization and social
control that characterize hydraulic agriculture and Oriental Despotism.
(Wittfogel 1957:18)

The question of how Wittfogel applied the distinction between hydraulic and
hydroagricultural societies is a different matter altogether. There are instances
where Wittfogel obviously misclassified hydroagricultural societies as hydraulic
societies. Bali and Sri Lanka appear to be two examples of hydroagricultural
societies that Wittfogel misclassified as hydraulic. Edmund Leach (1959:9)
correctly argued that in Ceylon (modem Sri Lanka) there was "no evidence
that the ancient central state authorities ever concerned themselves with the
details of village tank management." Unlike hydraulic infrastructure, the irri-
gation system of Sri Lanka is not expandable beyond the local community.

While it is true that permanent agriculture is impossible without irrigation

engineering, and while major government controlled irrigation works
undoubtedly improve the efficiency of agriculture, it cannot be maintained
that large scale administrative action [in Sri Lanka] is essential for the
working of the system. (Leach 1959:8)

While Leach was correct to argue the points of Wittfogel's misclassification,

he was premature in disposing of the hydraulic model in general.

HYLlROAGRICULTURE: PREINDUSTRIAL JAPAN

For Wittfogel, the classic example of a hydroagncultural society was pre-

industrial Japan. Throughout the feudal age, Japan's countryside was inhabited
by farmers worlung irrigated land who were only margmally "captured" by
anythmg representing despotic control. But for Wittfogel (1957: 116), "tradi-
tional Japan was more than Western feudalism with wet-feet." Irrigation was
managed locally by lords who took a share of harvests, but there was nothing
 WITTFOGEL'S NEGLECTED DISTINCTION 191

resembling a centralized state-run e ~ o n o m yThe

. ~ reasons for the evolution of
this formation were clear in Wittfogel's model:

Why did Japan's rice economy not depend on large and government-
directed water works? Any competent economic geographer can answer
this question. The peculiarities of the country's water supply neither
necessitated nor favored substantial governrnent-directed works. Innu-
merable mountain ranges compartmentalized the great Far Eastern is-
lands; and their broken relief encouraged a fragmented (hydroagricultural)
rather than a coordinated (hydraulic) pattern of irrigation farming and
flood control. . . . Japan's irrigation agriculture was managed by local
rather than by regional or national leaders; and hydraulic trends were
conspicuous only on a local scale and during the first phase of the country's
documented history. (Wittfogel 1957:197)

It was not that the rulers of preindustrial Japan did not try to install centralized
hydraulic governments, it is simply that these efforts were all doomed to fail.
The proliferation of rural "castle towns" at the height of the Tokugawa
Shoganate (1603-1868) illustrates the limits of power faced by any potential
centralized administration wishing to control vast regions of the countryside.
The 250 fiefs of the late Tokugawa were separate, small, self-containedregional
bureaucracies that demanded taxes and provided little in the way of services:

Each was a more or less extensive temtory held by a lord (daimyo) who
lived in a castle town surrounded by armed retainers through whom he
administered his lands. The administration consisted essentially of two
echelons of officials: those who manned the central bureaus located in
the castle or nearby in the town, and the district magistrates who were
scattered about the fief. . . . What made possible this extraordinary
economy of force and officialdom was the competence and reliability of
local government. Nowhere, for instance, did the lord undertake to levy
taxes on individual peasants; rather, he laid taxes on villages as units,
leaving each to allocate and collect its own, and to make up any deficit
that might occur in the payment of individual families. This was but one
of many administrative functions performed by villages in all parts of the
country. Villages muintained their own roads and irrigation works, fioliced
their temmtories,administered common land and irrigation rights. (Smith
1959:202, emphasis added)

The Tokugawa was a period of relative evolutionary stasis, when the balance
between local and supralocal management approached an efficient equilibrium.
Though various "lords" expanded temtorial holdings, none could centrally
manage broad domains. Ironically, the close of the Tokugawa was brought
about by processes that were not primarily concerned with managerial "cap-
ture" of the rural villages. Instead of the administrative powers of cities moving
192 JOURNAL OF ANTHROPOLOGICAL RESEARCH
to villages, villagers moved to cities. The huge urbanized power bases that
developed in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries were largely coastal and
relied on the agriculture and raw products from rural villages without interfering
with the coordination of agriculture and inigation (Smith 1959:67-123; cf. Eyre
1955).
The case of Japan illustrates that the size of a hydrauhc system is one of
the most important variables determining its a h s t r a t i v e character. Boserup
(1981:170-71) reports that in the early 1970s "the imgated and multicropped
area per inhabitant in China was as large as the whole agricultural area per
Inhabitant in Japan." She suggests that preindustrial Japan was underdeveloped
in comparison to China primarily because of the nonexpansive nature of its
resource base and its reliance on maritime resources. "There seems to be no
doubt that what distinguishes Japan, is that Japan utilized poor resources ef-
ficiently and India and China utilized better resources poorly" (Boserup 1981:171).
The world is full of examples of slrnilar geographically limited, nonexpansive,
hydroagncultural systems. Barbara Price (1981:226) described just such a
hydroagricultural system in Late Postclassic Mexico as having "the multiplicity
of individually limited water sources [with] localized distribution [that] effec-
tively barred the development of a unified and centralized basinwide single
system. " Scholars' general neglect of Wittfogel's distinctions between hydraulic
and hydroagricultural systems has resulted in a number of erroneous critiques
of his theories. some of which are discussed below.

WITTFOGEL'S CRITICS

Critics of Wittfogel include those who disagree with the premise that the
hydraulic state developed prior to the bureaucracy (e.g., Adams 1966; Adams
and Nissen 1972; Butzer 1976, 19801, those who maintain that large inigation
works can operate without centralized control (Leach 1959, 1961; Hunt 1989;
Pfaffenberger 1989, 1990), and those who believe Wittfogel hysterically saw
hydraulic states everywhere he looked (Worsley 1984:106-7; Dunn 1982).
Common to all these criticisms of Wittfogel is the argument that his region of
expertise is confined to China and Southeast Asia, while the data used in
Oriental Despotism is drawn from the Old and New Worlds.
I do not wish to be placed in a position of defending everything that Wittfogel
wrote or said. I want only to salvage some basic principles of his theory from
peremptory dismissal and to untangle a general hydraulic theory from the
personal idiosyncrasies and political conflicts of Wittfogel the man. Wittfogel
was a prolific writer, and there is much to disagree with. After his disillusion-
ment with Communism and the American political Left, he became obsessed
with applying the model of despotism-ripally developed for explaining the
rise of riverine early states-to the fascism and totalitarianism he saw in
twentieth-century nations that were not even hydroagricultural societies.
In his blind political crusade, Wittfogel found hydraulic ghosts in every des-
pot's closet. He was not capable of distinguislung between different forms of
 WITTFOGEL'S NEGLECTED DISTINCTION 193

restrictive governments. All oppressive states became expressions of the same

forces that gave rise to the hydraulically based ancient states of the Middle
and Far East. The despotism of the Stalinist Soviet state was explainable to
Wittfogel only in terms of Oriental despotism and imagined M s to the hydraulic
states of history. His model for understanding the peculiarities of a particular
mode of production became his litmus test for interpreting all of sociocultural
life. The tragic result of this obsession was his testimony before the McCarran
Subcommittee against scholars and former friends who were reported to be
sympathetic to Communism and Marxist teachings. As Donald Worster (1985:28)
notes, "What had begun in the twenties as a search for scientific truth and
positive laws of society had by the fifties become an elaborate web of incon-
sistencies, demonology, and ethnocentrism. "
If Wittfogel's greatest error was his insistence on calling all hydraulic societies
despotisms, then a close second was his muddled classification of all despots
as Oriental despots regardless of their reliance on any particular form of irri-
gation. These were grave errors, but it is a mistake to disregard the whole
of his basic theoretical contribution because of his ideological obsessions, as
many social scientists have done. People with "bad politics" are capable of
making valuable contributions to knowledge. The common contemporary dis-
missal of Wittfogel is exemplified by Varisco's (1982:ll) comment that the
"ideological nature of Wittfogel's writings serves to obfuscate the issue of
irrigation and its political consequences. By dividing the world into East and
West, Orient and Occident, capitalist vs. Marxist, it is impossible to understand
what is involved in the process of water allocation." Anthropologists studying
irrigation no longer even bother to discuss Wittfogel's work or merely cite it
to dismiss it instantly as "reductionistic," "simplistic," or "mechanical." Most
of the recent attacks against Oriental despotism come more from caricatures
of Wittfogel than from close attention to his actual writings. One example of
this is the widespread notion that Robert Netting's (1974) study of Swiss
irrigation communities somehow demolishes Wittfogel's (nonexistent) position
that all irrigation societies are despotic empires. The Swiss case does not
represent an intensifiable network of canals but is, instead, a small, noncon-
nected valley system fitting into Wittfogel's category of hydroagriculture.

HUNT'S CRITIQUE

Robert Hunt is typical of contemporary critics of Wittfogel's theories in that

he fails to discuss Wittfogel's model of hydraulic society in terms of the con-
straints and variables that Wittfogel himself recognized. This comment applies
more to Hunt's more recent views, for his earlier writings found more to favor
in Wittfogel's theories. Hunt has recently published several articles criticizing
the idea that large-scale irrigation systems necessitate the presence of state
bureaucracies (Hunt 1988, 1989). Hunt's work suffers from two important
mistakes: first, he does not utilize the hydraulic/hydroagricultural distinction,
and second, he ignores differences in technology when comparing irrigation
194 JOURNAL OF ANTHROPOLOGICAL RESEARCH
systems. He is not concerned with the role of irrigation in the formation of
the state. Instead, he attempts simply to demonstrate that something as basic
as the size of an irrigation system does not determine if it is locally or nationally
administered. Hunt's 1988 study examines the relationship between irrigation
system size and administrative structure in fifteen systems, but he unfortu-
nately rejects Wittfogel's model without establishing what it is. He does not
even cite direct quotes or page references to any of Wittfogel's writings.
Instead of discussing features of hydraulic density or distinguishing between
hydraulic and hydroagricultural societies, Hunt uses the categories of "size"
and "character." But these are not the analytic categories found within Witt-
fogel's work. Reliance on "size" and "character" is particularly unfortunate
given his previous cautions that Wittfogel's model must be examined in its own
terms (Hunt and Hunt 1974). Using this approach, Hunt creates a straw man
representation of a Wittfogel who is supposed to have denied that small irri-
gation communities could be regulated at national levels or that large nation-
states could have small, regionally independent irrigation systems. Hunt's study
is built on the premise that Wittfogel thoughtlessly postulated a direct me-
chanical linkage between some scale of irrigation and despotism.
Hunt also does not attempt to control for variations in the technology available
to build and coordmate irrigation systems. This is an important consideration.
Wittfogel's theories on the development of early hydradc states were premised
on the existence of state-level bureaucracies because the long-distance coor-
dination of waterworks could not then be accomplished by any other available
means. Today, however, the existence of heavy machinery, telephones, com-
puter-based flow regulation programs, massive road networks, and other tech-
nological aids make other forms of organization and coorhtion possible (though
not always cost effective). AU of the ethnographic examples cited by Hunt are
found within nation-states whose governments greatly influence the organi-
zation and the massive engineering projects required for the system's very
existence.
Wittfogel (1957: 166) differentiated among four levels of "hydraulic density"
based upon the degrees to which agricultural societies differ in their reliance
on hydraulic agriculture. He never claimed that the level of a state's control
would covary with an irrigation system's size, but he did claim that "the bu-
reaucratic density of an agromanagerial society varies with its hydraulic density"
(Wittfogel 1957:167, emphasis added). The meaning of Hunt's data as they
relate to Wittfogel's model is very different when levels of hydraulic density
are considered instead of Hunt's categories of "size" and "structure. " Wittfogel
(1957: 166) defined hydraulic density as follows:

The core areas of the hydraulic world manifest at least two major types
of hydraulic density. Some are hydraulically compact, whereas others are
hydraulically loose. A hydraulic society may be considered "compact"
when its hydraulic agriculture occupies a position of absolute or relative
economic hegemony. It may be considered "loose" when its hydraulic
 WITTFOGEL'S NEGLECTED DISTINCTION 195
agriculture, while lacking economic superiority is sufficient to assure its
leaders absolute organizational and political hegemony.

Wittfogel(1957: 166) further clarified his levels of hydraulic density by providing

historical and ethnographic examples of each of his four categories:

Compact 1: Most Rio Grande Pueblos, the small city states of ancient
coastal Peru, Pharaonic Egypt.
Compact 2: The city states of ancient Lower Mesopotamia, probably the
state of Ch'in on the eve of the Chinese empire.
Loose 1: The Chagga tribes, ancient Assyria, the old Chinese state of
Ch'i and perhaps Ch'u.
Loose 2: Tribal civilizations: the Suk of East Africa, the Zuni of New
Mexico; state centered civilizations: indigenous Hawaii, many territorial
states of ancient Mexico.

By disregarding technology and factors of hydraulic density, Hunt (1988)

misrepresents Wittfogel's model. He does not discuss the state-owned and
state-operated technology (e. g., dams, federal canal projects, massive road-
works, etc.) of all fifteen of the irrigation systems he examined as constituting
an important variable. A fifth of the examples used by Hunt are located in the
United States and were classified as being locally administered (King's River,
Fresno, New Cache). All of these projects were built under the auspices and
with the funding of the federal government. Each of the areas has a history of
receiving federal operating funds. While infractions of water rights are indeed
mediated primarily at a local level, the state's authority is absolute. All of these
factors beg the question, At what point is it useful to characterize an irrigation
system as "national" or "community"?
Another determinative variable used by Wittfogel (and ignored by Hunt) is
called "the pattern of proprietary complexity." Wittfogel devoted over seventy
pages of Oriental Despotism to this topic because "an institutional analysis of
hydraulic society should deal not only with the density of its agromanagerial
apparatus but also with the complexity of its proprietary development" (Witt-
fogel 1957:229). Proprietary complexity is a measure of an irrigation society's
control over land and other pertinent property wttfogel 1957:228-300). These
property relations are divided into the categories of "simple, " "semicomplex,"
and "complex," with each category denoting varying degrees of centralized
control over property (Wittfogel 1957:230). The conception of proprietary
complexity negates Hunt's claim that Wittfogel simply correlated size Y t h
despotism. With the principle of proprietary complexity, Wittfogel clearly rec-
ognized that the particular circumstances of a given irrigation environment
influence the degree or nature of centralized control.
Though Wittfogel does not adequately operationalizehis variables of hydraulic
and bureaucratic density, I believe these terms can usefully be defined in the
following way: Hydraulically compact societies occur when over half of the
196 JOURNAL OF ANTHROPOLOGICAL RESEARCH
households earn their economic sustenance from hydraulically coordinated ag-
ricultural activities, whereas hydraulically loose societies occur when under half
of the households earn their economic sustenance from such activities. Witt-
fogel's subsets 1and 2 are defined by the degree to which parts of a hydraulic
society are spatially continuous, with subset 1 being more spatially contiguous
than subset 2 (Wittfogel 1957: 165-67). The density of hydraulic bureaucracy,
likewise, "varies with [a society's] hydraulic density" (Wittfogel 1957: 167).
Table 1 compares Wittfogel's (1957:166) classification of societies into cat-
egories of hydraulic density with Hunt's generalizations. Wittfogel's variables
of hydraulic density (where applicable) are matched with Hunt's "local" and
"national" designations. The designation "hydroag" is entered to denote a
hydroagricultural society.
TABLE 1

Comparison of Hunt's 1988 Classification of Fifteen Irrigation Systems

with Wittfogel's Hydraulic Density Factor

Name of System Hunt Wittfogel" Hectares

San Juan, Mexico, 1964 local L1 600
Tayuban, Java, 1983 national C1 700
Zanjera Danurn, Philippines, 1970 local L1 1,500
Vicente Guerrero, Mexico, 1982 local L1 1,575
Moncada, Valencia, Spain, 1968 local L1 5,500
Morelia, Mexico, 1982 national C2 7,000
Go, Japan, 1950b local hydroag 8,000
New Cache, Colo., USA, 196gb local L1 15,400
Angat River, Luzon, Philippines,
1964 national C1 26,890
Rio Mayo, Mexico, 1983 national C2 95,973
Fresno, Calif., USA, 196gb local L1 97,000
Chia-nan, Taiwan, 1968b local L1 150,000
Hindiyah, Iraq, 1957 national C2 209,000
King's River, Calif., USA, 196gb local L1 458,000
Gezira, Sudan, 1964 national C2 730,300

a. Wittfogel's hydraulic density variables: C1= Compact 1, C2 = Compact 2, L1-Loose 1, L2 = Loose

2.
b. Groups whose "local" classification is questioned.

As discussed above, in order accurately to characterize irrigation societies

using Wittfogel's model, two important variables must be considered. First,
the society must be classified as either a hydraulic society or a hydroagncultural
society. Secondly, if the society is a hydraulic society, its level of hydraulic
density may further be distinguished as loose or compact. Nowhere does Hunt
consider these variables. It is Hunt's neglect of these key variables which
allows him to create a Wittfogelian straw man which can be so easily demol-
ished.
 WITTFOGEL'S NEGLECTED DISTINCTION 197

A small system managed nationally is less of a challenge to Wittfogel's model

than is a large system administered locally. The five largest (each over 5,500
ha) of Hunt's so-called local irrigation groups are examined below. The cases
where areas over 6,000 hectares were managed at a national level require no
further explanation because Hunt does not think these examples run counter
to Wittfogel's theory. The examples discussed below are the cases Hunt be-
lieves disprove Wittfogel's theory.

Go, Japan
This system is a hydroagricultural, not a hydraulic, system. As discussed
above, the nonexpansive, geographically limited ridge and valley systems of
Japan have historically constricted the economic returns and levels of efficiency
to be gained by state-level water management.

New Cache, Colorado

The "local" designation for the water management activities of the South
Platte-Cache La Poudre system is not accurate. Hunt is referring to the "ir-
rigator-owned cooperatives" that oversee the local "operating rules and reg-
ulations" (Maass and Anderson 1978:289). True, this is a local charter, but its
power is not local, and its role in the process of providing water is minuscule
compared to that of state and national administrative bodies and programs.
State engineers are "charged with administering the distribution of the water"
(Maass and Anderson 1978:294). The state, not the local charter, regulates
the South Platte River through its reservoir, and the state, not the local charter,
has the real authority to reprimand irrigation violators. Hunt's line of reasoning
begs the question of whether federal agents need to get their hands wet in
every irrigation task before he is willing to concede that this is a federally
operated program.

Fresno, California
The formation of Public Imgation Districts in Fresno suggests to Hunt that
the system's authority base is local rather than federal. The primary purpose
of Public Irrigation Districts is to issue bonds and collect taxes for the "annual
costs of operating and maintaining the irrigation system" (Maass and Anderson
1978:174). But do the Public Imgation Districts really control the irrigation
system? By no means. As with the New Cache, Colorado, system, they largely
function as local brokers for federal interests. As such, they enter "into co-
operative and contractual arrangements with agencies of the federal and State
government" (Maass and Anderson 1978:174). Indeed, this "local" system
would be high and dry without federal management and the federally funded
construction of the Pine Flat Dam and Reservoir. As noted by Maass and
Anderson (1978:375), "Local control does not necessarily mean control by the
least advantaged or control for their benefit."
198 JOURNALOF ANTHROPOLOGICAL RESEARCH

Chi-nan, Taiwan
The construction and development of Taiwan's irrigation systems resulted
from projects designed and implemented by centralized authorities, not local-
ized autonomous groups (see Goddard 1966:14, 96). The contemporary irri-
gation networks of Taiwan are difficult to classify as simply locally administered.
Though the individuals making up the Imgation Associations come from local
settings, the supervision and allocation of irrigation waters are clearly supralocal
matters. The national president of these irrigation associations wields enough
centralized power that candidates for this post spend well in excess of U.S.
$1 million to campaign for office and are able to reap "considerable political
spoils" of a national, rather than local, character (see Tien 1989:48-49).

King's River, California

The King's River community is so propped up by federal programs that it
is odd for Hunt to class@ it as an "irrigation community." While the a h -
istrators of the King's River system do live in the local area, it is a mistake
to claim that their power is local power. Clearly, the federally bulk and ad-
ministered aqueducts, maintenance roads, and dams demonstrate the supra-
local nature of the system.
In the past Hunt has contributed much to the cross-cultural study of irrigation,
but his work contrasting locally and federally administered projects presents
a stunted view of the role of many federal programs. He treats many massive
reservoirlcanal projects as local entities without addressing the sigmficant fed-
eral contributions to their construction or maintenance. Hunt's inappropriate
expectation that state-controlled irrigation systems should display some sort
of absolutist control over all aspects of irrigation leads him to misclass@ many
state-coordinated systems as locally administered. This sort of "straw man"
argument is employed by many irrigation researchers who believe that the high
levels of inefficiency found in large irrigation projects around the world are
evidence of the managerial state's lack of power. Unfortunately, Hunt is not
alone in his expectation that to q u w as a national, centralized irrigation
system, all aspects of irrigation must be controlled by state-level institutions.

REMODELING HYDRAULIC THEORY

Hunt is also not alone in his dismissal of Wittfogel. In the past few decades,
anthropologists, archaeologists, and other social theorists examining questions
relating to the structure and function of centralized hydraulic states have, for
the most part, rejected hydraulic models derived from Wittfogel. Many of
Wittfogel's critics have confused the presence of local operatives with decen-
tralized irrigation systems. When looking at hydroagricultural societies, these
analysts have (wrongly) rejected hydraulic models because of the absence of
despotism. Similarly, when looking at hydraulic societies, they have unfairly
rejected hydraulic models because local administrators are seen to have some
power over local irrigation matters. I have tried to clanfy that these sorts of
 WITTFOGEL'S NEGLECTED DISTINCTION 199

rejections are based more on caricatures of Wittfogel's writings than on his

actual work--caricatures that lead one ridiculously to expect dark, shadowy,
hydraulic lords enslaving limp peasant automatons throughout the countryside,
never allowing them a solitary moment of nonirrigation-related life.
Unfortunately, Wittfogel did much to further this confusion. His "comparative
study of total power" wanders through history looking for examples that would
assist him in his personal crusade against Marxism-Leninism. Wittfogel does
his own argument a disservice by confusing state access to and reliance on
terror and totalitarianism with the Asiatic mode of production. Despite Witt-
fogel's excesses in the dramatic, a thorough reading of his work should preclude
these most common misrepresentations. Aside from its shortcomings, Witt-
fogel's work clarifies the role of centralized states in the rise of riverine cultures
and in coordinating massive irrigation works, and it clarifies the powers which
states derive from such centralized control. It seems hard to deny (though
many have) the simple observation that in the paths of cultural evolution throughout
the world, "large scale control of irrigation and drainage in the big river valleys
led to the hypertrophy of agro-managerial function" (Harris 1979:104).
The past failure of Wittfogel's critics to differentiate between hydraulic and
hydroagricultural societies, compact and loose hydraulic densities, and various
types of bureaucracies has contributed to an unfair dismissal of his theory of
hydraulic societies. Wittfogel's writings make clear that the consequences of
irrigation are not monolithic or unilinear; when these distinctions are not ne-
glected, particular forms of irrigation can account for many aspects of political
economies. But other areas of Wittfogel's writings do not adequately delineate
the variables responsible for the administrative character of irrigation systems.
I share with Hunt the belief that Wittfogel didn't quite get it right, though,
unlike Hunt, I conclude that Wittfogel erred by not fully examining the full
range of infrastructural variables determining the exact character of various
irrigation societies. Wittfogel's description of the forces determining the for-
mation of hydraulic and hydroagricultural societies is correct, but he ignored
important details influencing these formations. Specifically, Wittfogel did not
adequately address the important roles of demographic pressure and available
technologies in determining the managerial nature of irrigation systems. I be-
lieve that consideration of these variables complements and strengthens Witt-
fogel's basic model of irrigation societies.
Wittfogel (1957:226) recognized "hydraulic density" as a dynamic process
and theorized that the degree of "compactness" of a hydraulic society tends
to decrease with time. The compactness of hydraulic systems is instrumental
to the formation of governing managerial bureaucracies, but as hydraulic econ-
omies are established, the degree of compactness diminishes. The irrigation
systems of "developed" or "industrialized" societies are characteristically loose
due to the less central position of agriculture in their economies. Likewise,
societies tend to be hydraulically compact where agrarian activities assume a
preeminent position and the infrastructural conditions lead to hydraulic (as
opposed to hydroagricultural) formations. However, Wittfogel's model stops
200 JOURNAL OF ANTHROPOLOGICAL RESEARCH

short of recognizing the important relationship between demographic pressure

and technology, a dynamic under which attempts at intensification without
technological change are futile. With this additional consideration, the decision
of many hydroagricultural societies not to expand beyond locally managed
irrigation systems is made more intelligible. Wittfogel's basic model can be
improved by considering a number of factors beyond those of a system's "size"
and "density." If the full range of lnfrastructural variables is considered in
relation to the formation and management of irrigation societies, a more testable
model (derived from Wittfogel's basic concepts) emerges. Figure 1 outhes
the workings of one such model based largely on Wittfogel's writings.
Available Water Supply

/' A\
intensifiable terrain
nonintensifiable terrain
limited water andlor
high population density
limited technology

I
relative centrality of agnculture in economy
I
less than 112 greater than '12
I
I
compact
I
spatial cbntinuity spatial cbntinuity
/ \ / \
"k"
L1 ' L2
Or "r
C1 lC2
or

Hydraulic ~~droa&culture

Figure 1. Flow Chart Augmenting Wittfogel's Hydraulic and Hydroagricultural

Distinction and Variables Relating to Hydraulic Density

If an irrigation society's available water source is " h t e d V 8and the terrain,

population levels, or avadable technology do not allow for widespread inten-
sification, then a hydroagricultural society should be expected to evolve.
(Hydroagncultural societies can have either high or low population densities.
Hydraulic societies usually have high population densities in terms of habitable
lands.) If there are high population densities, a reliable supply of water, adequate
water management technologies, and landforms suitable for agricultural inten-
sification, then some form of a hydraulic society should be anticipated. The
degree to which agricultural subsistence is preeminent in the economy deter-
mines if the society is hydraulically loose or compact, and the relative spatial
 WITTFOGEL'S NEGLECTED DISTINCTION 201

continuity, as well as the available management technologies, determines a

society's specific compactness or looseness (i.e., C1, C2, L1, or L2). Pristine
or new hydraulic societies or hydraulic states are generally more compact than
are administrative forms which follow them in time.
The specific managerial forms of irrigation societies are selected through
calculations of, and experimentations with, costs and benefits for the individual
irrigation society (though the costs and benefits are not the same for all mem-
bers of the society). The selection process occurs through the mechanisms of
chance and necessity, and in the long run, the energetics of each system largely
determine its success or failure. Small localized inigation systems can be
managed by highly centralized state structures, though the costs of such ven-
tures clearly outweigh the benefits for all concerned. Likewise, massive riv-
erine systems can be run as decentralized separate systems, though the reduced
returns for the taxing governmental agencies involved make such arrangements
unlikely. The costs of centralized bureaucratic managerial systems are steep,
ranging from the on-the-ground costs associated with water allotments and
policing to the organization and financing of massive hydraulic construction and
maintenance projects. For irrigation farmers in centralized systems, the high
potential for centralized mismanagement and overtaxation can easily threaten
the collapse of centrally managed systems.
Wittfogel's writings provide us with a basic model for understanding the
similarities and d8erences among irrigation societies. Though there are in-
stances where his model skims over salient features of irrigation societies,
there is no reason these features cannot be incorporated into it for a fuller
understanding of cultural evolution.
NOTES

1. Others with more sympathetic views of irrigation societies have recognized the
crucial distinction between hydraulic sources. For example:
Witffogel's theory can also be turned around to illuminate the nature of state systems with
rainfall agricultural infrastructures. Such states possess evolutionary potentials entirely
different from hydraulic systems. Rainfall agriculture leads to dispersed, multicentered
forms of production. (Hams 1979:104-5)
See also Fried (1967:210, 1978).
2. This article has been translated into English by G.L. Uhen under the title "Ge-
opolitics, Geographical Materialism, and Marxism" and published with an introductory
essay by Richard Peet (Peet 1985).
3. Some aspects of Wittfogel's hydraulic theory are muddled with contradictory
statements on the determinative powers of infrastructure and structure. At different
times and places, he vacillates between crediting structural and infrastructural forces
with the ability to create hydraulic societies. In a number of instances, Wittfogel claims
that "cultural conditions" (read "cultural beliefs and values") determined the formation
of hydraulic societies. Consider his statement that
hydraulic society cannot be explained by reference to geographical, technological and ec-
onomic factors alone. Whik response to the natural setting k a keyfeature, itplays a formative
hydraulic role only under vety specjic cultural c o n d i ~ And. it involves organizational
rather than technological changes. (Witffogel 1957:161, emphasis added)
202 JOURNAL OF ANTHROPOLOGICAL RESEARCH
Witffogel's claim that Oriental despotism evolved in regions without hydraulic resources
is the most obvious result of this theoretical stance that dismisses the absolute irn-
portance of inkastructure. Wittfogel leaves us with no hope of understanding the genesis
of "cultural conditions" beyond the assumption of primordial atavistic roots (see also
Wittfogel 1955, 1967, 1971).
4. In contrast, Teotihuacan, for example, was a somewhat decentralized system that
never became a classic hydraulic state, though it did achieve a greater degree of control
over the periphery than occurred in, for example, the spring-fed regions of Yemen.
5. There are numerous other instances where Wittfogel makes this same point. For
example:
[Imgation farming] requires radical social and political adjustments only in a special geo-
historical setting. Strictly local tasks of digging, damming and water distribution can be
performed by a single husbandman, a single family, or a small group of neighbors, and in
this case no far-reaching organizational step is necessary. Hydroagriculture, farming based
on small-scale irrigation, increases the food supply, but it does not involve the patterns of
organization and social control that characterize hydraulic agriculture and Oriental despot-
ism. (Wittfogel 1957:18, emphasis added)
6. Perry Anderson's (1974) analysis of the formation and scope of Japanese feudalism
unfortunately puts the structural cart before the evolutionary infrastructural horse. For
example, he writes, "The lack of anything like a mandarinate proper within the bu-
reaucracy rendered it prone to noble privatization from the start" (Anderson 1974:435).
This mistake of lumping a culture's structure with its infrastructure unfortunately is not
peculiar to Anderson.
7. These coastal-urban centers of power included some of the world's largest cities
for their era. Smith (1959:67-68) noted that
Edo, no more than a fishing village in 1590, grew into a vast and crowded city of more
than half a rmllion by 1751, when it was perhaps the world's largest city. Osaka and Kyoto
grew less rapidly, but both had populations of 400,000 or more by 1800; together with
neighboring Sakai and Fushimi they comprised an urban center of nearly a d o n people.
8. Falkenrnark (1986) believes there is a definable "water barrier" somewhere be-
tween 1,000 and 2,000 people per every available million cubic meters of water per
year. This seems a reasonable starting point for such calculations.

REFERENCES CITED
Adams, R.McC., 1966, The Evolution of Urban Society. Chicago: Aldine.
Adams, R.McC., and H.J. Nissen, 1972, The Uruk Countryside: The Natural Setting
of Urban Societies. Chicago: University of Chcago Press.
Anderson, P., 1974, Lineages of the Absolutist State. London: NLB.
Boserup, E., 1981, Population and Technological Change: A Study of Long-Term
Trends. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Butzer, K., 1976, Early Hydraulic Civilization in Egypt: A Study in Cultural Ecology.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Butzer, K., 1980, Civilizations: Organisms or Systems? American Scientist 68:517-
23.
Dunn, S.P., 1982, The Fall and Rise of the Asiatic Mode of Production. London:
Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Eyre, J.D., 1955, Water Control inJapanese Irrigation Systems. Geographcal Review
45:97-1 16.
 WITTFOGEL'S NEGLECTED DISTINCTION 203
Falkenrnark, M., 1986, Fresh Water-Time for a Modified Approach. Ambio 15(4):194-
200.
Fried, M.H., 1967, The Evolution of Political Society: An Essay in Political Anthro-
pology. New York: Random House.
Fried, M. H., 1978, Reconsiderations: Oriental Despotism. Human Nature l(12):90-
93.
Goddard, W. G., 1966, Formosa: A Study in Chinese History. East Lansing: Michigan
State University Press.
Harris, M., 1979, Cultural Materialism: The Struggle for a Science of Culture. New
York: Random House.
Hunt, R.C., 1988, Size and Structure of Authority in Canal Irrigation Systems. Journal
of Anthropological Research 44(4):335-55.
Hunt, R. C., 1989, Appropriate Social Organization? Water User Associations in Bu-
reaucratic Canal Irrigation Systems. Human Organization 48(1):79-90.
Hunt, R.C., and E. Hunt, 1974, Irrigation, Conflict and Politics: A Mexican Case.
Pp. 127-58 in Irrigation's Impact on Society (ed. by T. Downing and M. Gibson).
Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Krader, L., 1975, The Asiatic Mode of Production: Sources, Development and Cri-
tique in the Writing of Karl Marx. Assen, The Netherlands: Van Gorcum.
Leach, E., 1959, Hydrauhc Society in Ceylon. Past and Present 15:2-26.
Leach, E., 1961, Pul Eliya. Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press.
Maass, A., and R.L. Anderson, 1978, . . . And the Desert Shall Rejoice: Conflict,
Growth and Justice in Arid Environments. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Netting, R.McC., 1974, The System Nobody Knows: Village Irrigation in the Swiss
Alps. Pp. 48-62 in Irrigation's Impact on Society (ed. by T. Downing and M. Gibson).
Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Peet, R., 1985, Introduction to the Lie and Thought of Karl Wittfogel (with an
Appendix on the Asiatic Mode of Production). Antipode 17(1):3-20. Boston.
Pfaffenberger, B., 1989, Fetished Objects and Humanized Nature: Toward an An-
thropology of Technology. Man 23: 236-52.
Pfaffenberger, B., 1990, The Harsh Facts of Hydraulics: Technology and Society in
Sri Lanka's Colonialization Schemes. Technology and Culture 31(3):361-97.
Price, B., 1981, Irrigation: Sociopolitical Dynamics and the Growth of Civilization.
Pp. 216-32 in The Asiatic Mode of Production: Science and Politics (ed. by A. Bailey
and J. Llobera). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Smith, T. C., 1959, The Agrarian Origins of Modem Japan. Palo Alto, Calif. : Stanford
University Press.
Tien, H., 1989, The Great Transition: Political and Social Change in the Republic of
China. Stanford, Calif.: Hoover Institution Press.
Varisco, D., 1982, The Adaptive Dynamics of Water Allocation in Al-Ahjur, Yemen
Arab Republic. Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Wittfogel, K., 1955, Developmental Aspects of Hydraulic Societies. Pp. 43-56 in
Irrigation Civilizations: A Comparative Study (ed. by J.H. Steward). Washington, D.C.:
Pan American Union.
Wittfogel, K., 1957, Oriental Despotism. New Haven, Conn. : Yale University Press.
Wittfogel, K., 1967, Review of Robert McC. Adams's TheEvolutim of UrbanSociety.
American Anthropologist 69(1):90-92.
Wittfogel, K., 1971, Developmental Aspects of Hydraulic Societies. Pp. 557-71 in
204 JOURNAL OF ANTHROPOLOGICAL RESEARCH
Prehistoric Agriculture (ed. by S. Struever). Garden City, N.Y.: The Natural History
Press.
Wittfogel, K., 1985 [19291, Geopolitics, Geographical Materialism, and Marxism
(trans. by G.L. ULmen). Antipode 17(1):21-72. Boston.
Worsley, P., 1984, The Three Worlds: Culture and World Development. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Worster, D., 1985, Rivers of Empire: Water, Aridity and the Growth of the American
West. New York: Pantheon Books.