Skip to main content

How Pre-modern State Rulers Used Marriage to Reduce the Risk of Losing at War: A Comparison of Eight States

Abstract

Approaching warfare in pre-modern states from the perspective of risk reduction, we see that royal marriage was one strategy rulers used to reduce the probability that they would lose a war. Judicious marriage exchanges intensified and prolonged patron-client relations between rulers or between rulers and societal elites. Clientelism could affect the size and composition of their armies. The more warriors and troops one could field, the greater the chance of not losing a war (Otterbein 2004; LeBlanc 2006). Examination of eight pre-modern states suggests that their rulers used the same patterns of wife exchange even though most states developed independently. Marriage secured long-term patron-client relationships, which they used to support their military efforts. When rulers married their kin or married them to rulers outside the system (“foreigners”), they did not gain military support. Analysis of these marriage-military patterns reveals several characteristics of pre-modern states. First, marriage alliances helped rulers form networks of support that helped them win wars. Therefore, marriage—and by extension, royal women—is a key component to the study of warfare and a critical mechanism of network formation, as Blanton et al. (1996) write. Second, alliances were based on a different organizing principle from Levi-Strauss’ tribal societies, for rulers selected main wives (for themselves or their kin) based on relative rank rather than particular kinship ties. Third, marriage alliance reveals an important difference between alliance and patron-client relationships, a distinction that is often blurred in the archaeological literature.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. Smith (2003a: 80–98) provides an excellent history and analysis of various terms that modify “state,” such as early and archaic states. The term “pre-modern” is used here because Protohistoric Hawai’i fits the state-level pattern but is not early in time (Hommon 1976, 2013; Kirch 2010, 2012; Sabloff and Cragg 2015).

  2. I use the term “main wife” rather than “principal wife” because rulers in Old Babylonia, Shang China and Old Kingdom Egypt had more than one main wife. Whichever main wife bore a son became the principal wife. Therefore, main wife seems more generic and accurate than principal wife.

  3. See Johnson and Earle (2000) for social organization terminology such as hunter-gatherer, pastoralist, and tribes.

  4. According to Martin and Grube (2008: 3), the term kaloomte ajaw was “restricted to only the strongest dynasties during the Classic [period] proper.” Marcus (2006: 216) and others use the title k’uhul ajaw for the paramount kings.

  5. Sometimes authors distinguish between royals—close kin to the ruler—and nobles—people whose kinship connection to the ruler is more distant. But sometimes they lump the two together. Following the lead of Patricia McAnany (personal communication, April 2016), I use nobles as a generic category for all people above the commoner class except for the ruler and his immediate family. When the literature separates the two, I follow the literature.

  6. In an exemplary chapter on marriage, Gillespie and Joyce (1997)) use the terms “wife-provider” instead of “wife-giver.” Rosemary kindly e-mailed me (May 20, 2016) that they sought to modify “the obnoxious gender/power implications” of the terms wife-giver and wife-receiver. I revert to the original terms not only because they are the ones used in Levi-Strauss (1969) but also because they seem to describe the situation of the female kin of rulers more honestly.

  7. Smith (1996: 137–138, 141, 147) distinguishes between tributary states, which paid cyclical tribute to their overlords, and client states, which protected the frontiers by housing and supplying fortresses and garrisons of Aztec soldiers.

  8. Hassig (2015: 101–102) writes that few kings had daughters of marriageable age, so they married off their brothers’ daughters.

  9. The Mexica left compliant conquered rulers in place but replaced recalcitrant rulers with their own nobles.

  10. The relationship is a bit more complicated than that. Royals selected the new ruler in council (Smith 2003b: 149; Van Zantwijk 1994: 103), and they advised him (Berdan 2014: 179). But they also received gifts and attended his feasts (Berdan 2014: 152–153).

  11. Scholars are debating the exact boundaries of the Late Shang state (see, for example, Keightley 1983: 532 and Shelach-Lavi 2015: 221).

  12. Egyptians did not specify principal wives until the Thirteenth Dynasty, i.e., well after the Old Kingdom. Before that, there could be several main wives. Whichever produced an heir became the most important woman (Roth 2009: 2).

  13. Because the origins of most main wives were not given on the stelae glyphs, we cannot be certain of the marriage exchange pattern of paramount rulers.

References

  • Akkermans, P., & Schwartz, G. (2003). The archaeology of Syria: from complex hunter-gatherers to early urban societies (c. 16,000–300 BC). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allen, M. W. (2003). Hillforts and the cycling of Maori chiefdoms: do good fences make good neighbors? Department of Geography and Anthropology. Pomona: California State Polytechnic University https://www.academia.edu/26851775/Hillforts_and_the_Cycling_of_Maori_Chiefdoms_Do_Good_Fences_Make_Good_Neighbors. Accessed 26 Sep 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arkush, E. (2006). Collapse, conflict, conquest: warfare strategies and early state development in Oaxaca, Mexico. In E. Arkush & M. Allen (Eds.), The archaeology of warfare: prehistories of raiding and conquest (pp. 286–335). Gainesville FL: University Press of Florida.

  • Arkush, E. (2015). Warfare. In G. Urton & A. Von Hagen (Eds.), Encyclopedia of the Incas (pp. 289–293). Lanham MD: Rowman A Littlefield.

  • Attar-Aram. (2016). Ancient Syro-Mesopotamia ca. 1764 BCE. Map of Syria, using a modified map originally made by Sémhur. http://www.ancient.eu/image/4446/. Accessed 7 Jan 2017.

  • Baines, J. & Yoffee, N. (1998). Order, legitimacy, and wealth in ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia. In G. Feinman & J. Marcus (Eds.), Archaic states (pp. 199–260). Santa Fe: School of American Research Press.

  • Berdan, F. F. (1996). The tributary provinces. In F. F. Berdan, R. Blanton, et al. (Eds.), Aztec imperial strategies (pp. 115–135). Washington D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks.

  • Berdan, F. F. (2014). Aztec archaeology and ethnohistory. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Black, L. T. (1972). Relative status of wife givers and wife takers in Gilyak society. American Anthropologist, 74(5), 1244–1248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blanton, R., Kowaleski, S., Feinman, G., & Finsten, L. (1993). Ancient Mesoamerica: a comparison of change in three regions, 2nd (revised ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blanton, R., Feinman, G., Kowalewski, S., & Peregrine, P. (1996). A dual-processual theory for the evolution of Mesoamerican civilization. Current Anthropology, 17(1), 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bottéro, J. (1992). Everyday life in ancient Mesopotamia. Antonia Nevill (Tr.). Baltimore MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bray, T. L., & Berry, S. (2004). Tradition summary: Inca. New Haven: Conn.: HRAF Retrieved from http://ehrafarchaeology.yale.edu/document?id=se80-000. Accessed Nov 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, R. (2015). Animal, human, god: pathways of Shang animality and divinity. In B. Arbuckle and S. A. McCarty, Animals and inequality in the ancient world (pp. 251–274). Boulder: University Press of Colorado. Posted on Academia.edu; Accessed Jun 2014.

  • Cancian, F. (1972). Change and uncertainty in a peasant economy: the Maya corn farmers of Zinacantan. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cancian, F. (1980). Risk and uncertainty in agricultural decision making. In P. Bartlett (Ed.), Agricultural decision making: anthropological contributions of rural development (pp. 161–176). New York: Academic Press. New York NY.

  • Cancian, F. (1989). Economic behavior in peasant communities. In S. Plattner (Ed.), Economic anthropology (pp. 127–170). Stanford: Stanford University Press.

  • Carneiro, R. (1970). A theory of the origin of the state. Science, 169, 733–738.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carneiro, R. (1981). The chiefdom: precursor of the state. In G. D. Jones & R. R. Kautz. (Eds.), The transition to statehood in the New World (pp. 37–79). New York: Cambridge University Press.

  • Carneiro, R. (1990). Chiefdom level warfare as exemplified in Fiji and the Cauca Valley. In J. Haas (Ed.), The anthropology of warfare (pp. 190–211). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Carrasco, P. (1999). The Tenochca empire of Ancient Mexico: the Triple Alliance of Tenochtitlan, Tetzcoco, and Tlacopan. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cashdan, E. (1985). Coping with risk: reciprocity among the Basarwa of Northern Botswana. Man, 20(3), 454–474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cashdan, E. (1990). Introduction. In E. Cashdan (Ed.), Risk and uncertainty in tribal and peasant economies (pp. 1–16). Boulder: Westview.

    Google Scholar 

  • Childs-Johnson, E. (2007). Fu Zi, the Shang woman warrior. In H. Lee, L. Xiao, & A. Stefanowska (Eds.), Biographical dictionary of Chinese women: antiquity through Sui 1600 B.C.E–618 C.E (pp. 19–25). London: University of Hong Kong Libraries Publications, No. 21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cieza de Leon, P. (1883). The second part of the chronicles of Peru, 1653. C. B. Markham (Tr.). London: Hakluyt Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clendinnen, I. (1991). Aztecs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Connell, S., & Silverstein, J. (2006). From Laos to Mesoamerica: battlegrounds between superpowers. In E. Arkush & M. Allen (Eds.), The archaeology of warfare: prehistories of raiding and conquest (pp. 394–433). Gainesville FL: University Press of Florida.

    Google Scholar 

  • Covey, R. A. (2015). Conquests. In G. Urton & A. Von Hagen (Eds.), Encyclopedia of the Incas (pp. 92–94). Lanham MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

  • D’Altroy, T. (2002). The Incas. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • D’Altroy, T. (2015). Kingship, Divine. In G. Urton & A. Von Hagen (Eds.), Encyclopedia of the Incas (pp. 175–176). Lanham MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diel, L. B. (2007). Till death do us part: unconventional marriages as Aztec political strategy. Ancient Mesoamerica, 18, 259–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dodson, A., & Hilton, D. (2004). The complete royal families of ancient Egypt. London: Thames & Hudson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, M. (1992). Risk and blame: essays in cultural theory. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, M., & Wildavsky, A. (1982). Risk and culture. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Earle, T. (1997). How chiefs come to power. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elston, R., & Brantingham, P. J. (2002). Microlithic technology in northern Asia: a risk-minimizing strategy of the Late Paleolithic and Early Holocene. Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, 12, 103–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ember, C., & Ember, M. (1992). Warfare, aggression, and resource problems: cross-cultural codes. Cross-Cultural Research, 26(1–4), 169–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ember, C., & Ember, M. (1997). Violence in the ethnographic record: results of cross-cultural research on war and aggression. In D. Martin & D. Frayer (Eds.), Troubled times: violence and warfare in the past (pp. 1–20). Boca Raton: Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emory, K. (1999). Warfare. In Ancient Hawaiian civilization: a series of lectures delivered at the Kamehameha schools (pp. 229–236). Honolulu: Mutual Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Englehardt, J., & Nagle, D. (2011). Variations on a theme: dual-processual theory and the foreign impact on Mycenaean and Classic Maya architecture. American Journal of Archaeology, 115(3), 355–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Estrada-Belli, F., & Tokovinine, A. (2016). A king’s apotheosis: iconography, text, and politics from a Classic Maya temple at Holmul. Latin American Antiquity, 27(2), 149–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feinman, G. (1995). The emergence of inequality: a focus on strategies and processes. In T. D. Price and G. Feinman (Eds.), Foundations of social inequality (pp. 255–279). New York: Plenum Press.

  • Feinman, G. (1997). Corporate/network: a new perspective on leadership in the American Southwest. Paper prepared for Hierarchies in action: who benefits? The 14th annual visiting scholar conference, Center for Archaeological Investigations. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University.

  • Feinman, G. (2000). Dual-processual theory and social formations in the Southwest. In (B. J. Mills (Ed.), Alternative leadership strategies in the Prehispanic Southwest. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

  • Feng, L. (2013). Early China: a social and cultural history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ferguson, R. B. (1984). Introduction: studying war. In R. B. Ferguson (Ed.), Warfare, culture, and environment (pp. 1–81). Orlando: Academic Press.

  • Ferguson, R. B., & Whitehead, N. L. (2000). War in the tribal zone: expanding states and indigenous warfare (2nd ed.). Santa Fe: School for Advanced Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flannery, K., & Marcus, J. (2012). The creation of inequality: how our prehistoric ancestors set the stage for monarchy, slavery, and empire. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Frankfort, H. (1978). Kingship and the gods: a study of ancient Near Eastern religion as the integration of society and nature. Chicago: Oriental Institute. http://oi.uchicago.edu/sites/oi.uchicago.edu/files/uploads/shared/docs/kingship.pdf. Accessed 15 Oct 2016.

  • Freidel, D., & Schele, L. (1997). Maya royal women: a lesson in Precolumbian history. In C. B. Brettell & C. Sargent (Eds.), Gender in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 59–63). Upper Saddle River NJ: Prentice Hall.

  • Gillespie, S. (1989). The Aztec kings: the construction of rulership in Mexica history. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gillespie, S., & Joyce, R. (1997). Gendered goods: the symbolism of Maya hierarchical exchange relations. In C. Claassen & R. Joyce (Eds.), Women in prehistory: North America and Mesoamerica (pp. 191–207). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

  • Haas, J. (1982). The evolution of the prehistoric state. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haas, J. (1999). The origins of war and ethnic violence. In J. Carman & A. Harding (Eds.), Ancient warfare: archaeological perspectives (pp. 11–24). Gloucestershire: Sutton Publishing.

  • Haas, J. (2001). Warfare and the evolution of culture. In T. D. Price & G. Feinman (Eds.), Archaeology at the millennium: a sourcebook (pp. 329–350). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

  • Haas, J. (2003). The archaeology of war. Anthropology News 44(5), 7.

  • Handy, E. S. C., (1999). Government and society. In Ancient Hawaiian civilization. A series of lectures delivered at the Kamehameha schools (pp. 31–42). Honolulu: Mutual Publishing.

  • Hassig, R. (1988). Aztec warfare: imperial expansion and political control. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hassig, R. (2015). Polygamy and the rise and demise of the Aztec Empire. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayden, B. (2009). The proof is in the pudding: feasting and origins of domestication. Current Anthropology, 50(5), 597–601.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henrich, J., & McElreath, R. (2002). Are peasants risk-averse decision makers? Current Anthropology, 43(1), 172–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hicks, F. (1994). Alliance and intervention in Aztec imperial expansion. In E. Brumfiel & J. Fox (Eds.), Factional competition and political development in the New World (pp. 111–116). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Hiscock, P. (1994). Technological responses to risk in Holocene Australia. Journal of World Prehistory, 8(3), 267–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodge, M. (1996). Political organization of the central provinces. In F. F. Berdan, R. Blanton, E. H. Boone, et al. (Eds.), Aztec imperial strategies (pp. 17–45). Washington D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks.

  • Hommon, R. J. (1976). The formation of primitive states in pre-contact Hawai’i. Tucson: University of Arizona.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hommon, R. J. (2013). The Ancient Hawaiian state: origins of a political society. Oxford UK: Oxford University Press.

  • Houston, S. D., & Inomata, T. (2009). The Classic Maya. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, A., & Earle, T. (2000). The evolution of human societies: from foraging group to agrarian state (2nd ed.). Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Josserand, J. K. (2002). Women in Classic Maya hieroglyphic texts. In T. Ardren (Ed.), Ancient Maya women (pp. 114–151). Walnut Creek CA: Altamira.

  • Keightley, D. (1979). The Shang state as seen in the oracle-bone inscriptions. Society for the Study of Early China. Early China, 5, 225–234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keightley, D. (1983). The Late Shang state: when, where, and what? In D. Keightley (Ed.), The origins of Chinese civilization. University of California Press, Berkeley CA. http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=4-dP2aZWhUC&oi=fnd&pg=PR14&dq=Keightley,+David+Origins+of+Chinese&ots=tSEZmX6Jcq&sig=04iWaicr02WBRaFzWJSZlGSW8Rw#v=onepage&q=Keightley %2C%20David%20Origins%20of%20Chinese&f=false. Accessed 20 Sept 2013.

  • Keightley, D. (1999a). The Shang: China’s first historical dynasty. In M. Loewe & E. Shaughnessy (Eds.), The Cambridge history of Ancient China: from the origins of civilization to 221 B.C. (pp. 232–291). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Keightley, D. (1999b). At the beginning: the status of women in Neolithic and Shang China. NAN NU, 1(1), 1–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, R. (2000). Warless societies and the origin of war. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kemp, B. J. (1992). Old Kingdom, Middle Kingdom and Second Intermediate Period, c. 2686–1552 BC. In B. G. Trigger, B. J. Kemp, D. O’Connor, & A. B. Lloyd (Eds.), Ancient Egypt: a social history (pp. 71–182). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Kirch, P. (2010). How chiefs became kings: divine kingship and the rise of archaic states in ancient Hawai’i. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kirch, P. (2012). A shark going inland is my chief: the island civilization of ancient Hawai’i. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolata, A. (2013). Ancient Inca: case studies in early societies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuznar, L. (2001). Risk sensitivity and value among Andean pastoralists: measures, models, and empirical tests. Current Anthropology, 42(3), 432–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lafont, B. (1992). The women of the palace at Mari. In J. Bottéro (Ed.), Everyday life in ancient Mesopotamia, A. Nevill (Tr.) (pp. 127–140). Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

  • Leach, E. (1971). Rethinking anthropology. London School of Economics Monographs on Social Anthropology, No. 22. London: Athlone Press.

  • LeBlanc, S. (1999). Prehistoric warfare in the American Southwest. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.

  • LeBlanc, S. (2006). Warfare and the development of social complexity: some demographic and environmental factors. In In E. Arkush & M. Allen (Eds.), The archaeology of warfare: prehistories of raiding and conquest (pp. 437–468). Gainesville FL: University Press of Florida.

  • Levi-Strauss, C. (1969). The elementary structures of kinship (2nd ed.). Boston: Beacon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, M., & Zhu, Z. (1989). Zu Yi Qian Xing Yu Bu Ci Jing Fang. Journal of Zhengzhou University (Philosophy and Social Sciences Edition,) 6, 13–19. 李民, and 朱桢. "祖乙迁邢与卜辞井方." 郑州大学学报: 哲学社会科学. Jinxue Chen (Tr.) 23 May 2016.

  • Linnekin, J. (1990). Sacred queens and women of consequence: rank, gender, and colonialism in the Hawaiian Islands. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Malo, D. (1903). Hawaiian antiquities. Honolulu: Hawaiian Gazette Co..

    Google Scholar 

  • Marcus, J. (1983a). The reconstructed chronology of the later Zapotec rulers, A.D. 1415–1563. In K. Flannery and J. Marcus (Eds.), The cloud people (pp. 301–308). New York NY: Academic Press.

  • Marcus, J. (1983b). Zapotec religion. In K. Flannery and J. Marcus (Eds.), The cloud people (pp. 345–351). New York: Academic Press.

  • Marcus, J. (2001). Breaking the glass ceiling: the strategies of royal women in ancient states. In C. Klein (Ed.), Gender in Pre-Hispanic America (pp. 305–340). Washington D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks.

  • Marcus, J. (2006). Identifying elites and their strategies. In C. Elson & R. Covey (Eds.), Intermediate elites in Pre-Columbian states and empires (pp. 212–246). Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

  • Marcus, J., & Flannery, K. (1996). Zapotec civilization: how urban society evolved in Mexico’s Oaxaca Valley. London: Thames & Hudson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, S. (2003). In line of the founder: a view of dynastic politics at Tikal. In J. Sabloff (Ed.), Tikal: dynasties, foreigners, and affairs of state: advancing Maya archaeology (pp. 3–45). Santa Fe: School for Advanced Research.

  • Martin, S., & Grube, N. (2008). Chronicle of the Maya kings and queens: deciphering the dynasties of the ancient Maya (2nd ed.). London: Thames & Hudson.

    Google Scholar 

  • McAnany, P. (2013). Artisans, Ikatz, and statecraft: provisioning Classic Maya royal courts. In K. Hirth & J. Pillsbury (Eds.), Merchants, markets, and exchange in the Pre-Columbian World (pp. 229–253). Washington D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks.

  • McAnany, P., & Gallareta Negrón, T. (2010). Bellicose rulers and climatological peril? retrofitting twenty-first-century woes on eighth-century Maya society. In P. McAnany and N. Yoffee (Eds.), Questioning collapse: human resilience, ecological vulnerability, and the aftermath of empire (pp. 142–175). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Miller, M. E. (1993). On the eve of the collapse: Maya art of the eighth century. In J. Sabloff and J. Henderson (Eds.), Lowland Maya civilization in the eighth century A.D. (pp. 355–413). Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks.

  • Nelson, S. (2015). Shamans, queens, and figurines. Walnut Creek CA: Left Coast Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nugent, S. (2000). Good risk, bad risk: reflexive modernisation and Amazonia. In P. Caplan (Ed.), Risk revisited (pp. 226–248). London: Pluto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Otterbein, K. (2004). How war began. College Station: Texas A & M University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pantalucci, L. (2012). Coptos. In E. Frood & W. Wendrich (Eds.), UCLA encyclopedia of Egyptology. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/2sx1v5nh#page-2. Accessed 22 May 2016.

  • Pohl, M., & Pohl, J. (1994). Cycles of conflict: political factionalism in the Maya Lowlands. In E. Brumfiel & J. Fox (Eds.), Factional competition and political development in the New World (pp.138–157). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Postgate, J. N. (1994). Early Mesopotamia: society and economy at the dawn of history. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramirez, S. E. (2015). Wars, dynastic. In G. Urton & A. Von Hagen (Eds.), Encyclopedia of the Incas (pp. 293–295). Lanham MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

  • Redmond, E. A. (1994). External warfare and the internal politics of northern South American tribes and chiefdoms. In E. Brumfiel & J. Fox (Eds.), Factional competition and political development in the New World (pp. 44–54). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Rohrmann, B., & Renn, O. (2000). Risk perception in research: an introduction. In O. Renn & B. Rohrmann (Eds.), Cross-cultural risk perception: a survey of empirical studies (pp. 11–53). New York: Springer Science + Business Media.

  • de Rostworowski, M. D. C. (1999). History of the Inca realm. H. B. Iceland (Tr.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roth, S. (2009). Queen. In E. Frood & W. Wendrich (Eds.), UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology. Los Angeles: UCLA. http://digital2.library.ucla.edu/viewItem.do?ark=21198/zz001nf7cg. Accessed 29 Mar 2015 and 25 Jan 2016.

  • Rubin, G. (1975). The traffic in women: notes on the “political economy” of sex. In R. Reiter (Ed.), Toward an anthropology of women (pp. 157–210). New York: Monthly Review Press.

  • Sabloff, P. (2012). Democracy and risk: Mongolians’ perspectives. In J. Dierkes (Ed.), Change in democratic Mongolia; social relations, health, mobile pastoralism, and mining (pp. 55–82). Leiden: Brill.

  • Sabloff, P., & Cragg, S. (2015). Status and role in early states: a comparative analysis. SFI Working Paper 2015-06-018. Santa Fe NM: Santa Fe Institute.

  • Sasson, J. M. (1973). Biographic notices on some royal ladies from Mari. The American Schools of Oriental Research, Journal of Cuneiform Studies, 25(2), 59–78 http://www.jstor.org/stable/1359419. Accessed 29 Jun 2016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sasson, J. M. (1998). The King and I: a Mari king in changing perceptions. Journal of the American Oriental Society, 118(4), 453–470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sasson, J. M. (2015). From the Mari archives: an anthology of Old Babylonian letters. Winona Lake IN: Eisenbrauns.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scarre, C. (2009). The human past: world prehistory and the development of human societies (2nd ed.). London: Thames & Hudson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schele, L., & Freidel, D. (1990). A forest of kings: the untold story of the ancient Maya. New York: William Morrow and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharer, R., & Traxler, L. (2006). The ancient Maya (6th ed.). Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shelach-Lavi, G. (2015). The archaeology of early China: from prehistory to the Han Dynasty. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Silverblatt, I. (1987). Moon, sun, and witches: gender ideologies and class in Inca and colonial Peru. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, A. D. (2010). The Chinese sexagenary cycle and the ritual origins of the calendar. In J. Steele (Ed.), Calendars and years II: astronomy and time in the ancient and medieval world. Oxford: Oxbow Books. http://hdl.handle.net/10022/AC:P:9639. Accessed 17 Jun 2014.

  • Smith, A. T. (2003a). The political landscape: constellations of authority in early complex polities. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, J., & Mandac, A. M. (1995). Subjective vs objective yield distribution as measures of production risk. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 77, 152–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, M. E. (1996). The strategic provinces. In F. F. Berdan, R. Blanton, et al. (Eds.), Aztec imperial strategies (pp. 137–150). Washington D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks.

  • Smith, M. E. (2003b). The Aztecs. Malden MA: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, M. E., & Berdan, F. F. (1996). Introduction to part II. In F. F. Berdan, R. Blanton, et al. (Eds.), Aztec imperial strategies (pp. 109–113). Washington D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks.

  • Smith, W. S. (1962). The Old Kingdom in Egypt (Vol. I). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press http://gizapyramids.org/static/pdf%20library/smith_old_kingdom.pdf. Accessed 25 Jan 2016.

  • Solometo, J. (2006). Conflict and culture change in central Arizona. In E. Arkush & M. Allen (Eds.), The archaeology of warfare: prehistories of raiding and conquest (pp. 23–65). Gainesville FL: University Press of Florida.

  • Soustelle, J. (1961). Daily life of the Aztecs. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spores, R. (1965). The Zapotec and Mixtec at Spanish contact. In G. Willey (Ed.), Handbook of Middle American Indians: archaeology of Southern Mesoamerica, part II (pp. 962–987). Austin: University of Texas Press.

  • Spores, R., & Flannery, K. (1983). Sixteenth-century kinship and social organization. In K. Flannery and J. Marcus (Eds.), The cloud people (pp. 339–342). New York NY: Academic Press.

  • Stol, M. (2016). Women in the ancient Near East. Helen and Mervyn Richardson (Trs.). Boston: Walter de Gruyter Inc.

  • Townsend, R. F. (2000). The Aztecs (revised ed.). London: Thames & Hudson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trigger, B. (2003). Understanding early civilizations: a comparative study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Tyldesley, J. (2006). Chronicle of the queens of Egypt. London: Thames & Hudson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Valeri, V. (1985). Kingship and sacrifice: ritual and society in ancient Hawaii. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Zantwijk, R. (1994). Factional divisions within the Aztec (Colhua) royal family. In E. Brumfiel & J. Fox (Eds.), Factional competition and political development in the New World (pp. 103–110). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Wang, Y. (2004). Rank and power among court ladies at Anyang. In K. Linduff & Y. Sun (Eds.), Gender and Chinese archaeology (pp. 95–114). Lanham MD: Rowman Altamira.

  • Webb, M. C. (1975). The flag follows trade: an essay on the necessary interaction of military and commercial factors in state formation. In J. Sabloff & C. C. Lamberg-Karlovsky (Eds.), Ancient civilization and trade (pp.155–209). Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

  • Webb, M. C. (1984). Review of the early state by Henri J. M. Claessen and Peter Skalnik. Reviews in Anthropology, 11, 270–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wengrow, D. (2009). The voyages of Europa: ritual and trade in the Eastern Mediterranean circa 2300–1850 BC. In W. Parkinson & M. Galaty (Eds.), Archaic state interaction: the eastern Mediterranean in the Bronze Age (pp. 141–160). Santa Fe: School for Advanced Research.

  • Wenke, R. (2009). The ancient Egyptian state: the origins of Egyptian culture (c. 8000–2000 BC). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitecotton, J. W. (1977). The Zapotecs: princes, priests and peasants. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitecotton, J. W. (1992). Culture and exchange in Postclassic Oaxaca: a world-system perspective. In E. Schortman & P. Urban (Eds.), Resources, power and interregional interaction (pp. 51–74). New York: Plenum Press.

  • Wildavsky, A., & Dake, K. (1990). Theories of risk perception: who fears what and why? Daedalus, 119, 41–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winterhalder, B. (1986). Diet choice, risk, and food sharing in a stochastic environment. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 5(4), 369–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winterhalder, B., Lu, F., & Tucker, B. (1999). Risk-sensitive adaptive tactics: models and evidence from subsistence studies in biology and anthropology. Journal of Archaeological Research, 7, 301–348.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, R. (2016). Cognitive codes and collective action at Mari and the Indus. In L. Fargher & V. H. Espinoza (Eds.), Alternative pathways to complexity (pp. 225–238). Boulder: University Press of Colorado.

  • Ziegler, N. (1999). La population féminine des palais d’après les archives royales de Mari: le harem de Zimrî-Lîm. Memoires de N.A.B.U. (Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires), No. 1 (Mari). Société pour l’étude du Proche-Orient Ancien.

  • Zuidema, R. T., (1964). The ceque system of Cuzco: the social organization of the capital of the Inca. International Archives of Ethnography, Supplement to Vol. 1. Leiden: E. J. Brill.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The John Templeton Foundation grant to the Santa Fe Institute (“The Principles of Complexity: Revealing the Hidden Sources of Order among the Prodigies of Nature and Culture,” Grant No. 15705) supported the project initially. Thanks to researchers Robert Weiner, Kong Fai Cheong, and Jonah Nonomaque. Thanks also to citizen scientists Jeffrey Cohen, George J. Haddad, Jack M. Jackson, and Shelley Waxman. Archaeologists who checked the original data sheets, read drafts, and offered advice are Laurel Bestock, Gary Feinman, Michael Galaty, Abigail Holeman, Peter Peregrine, Patrick Kirch, Gideon Shelach-Lavi, Adam D. Smith, Michael E. Smith, Charles Stanish, Stephen Tinney, and John Ware. Jeremy Sabloff also provided sound advice on several drafts of the paper. Finally, thanks to the anonymous reviewers who helped me strengthen the paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paula L.W. Sabloff.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The author declares that there is no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sabloff, P.L. How Pre-modern State Rulers Used Marriage to Reduce the Risk of Losing at War: A Comparison of Eight States. J Archaeol Method Theory 25, 426–452 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-017-9342-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-017-9342-2

Keywords

  • Risk reduction
  • Patron-client relations
  • Alliance theory
  • Pre-modern states
  • Warfare
  • Marriage exchange