Jim you have touched on an old friend (Engels OSPPFS). I am sorry I do not know of a recent work and I agree with you on Reed, but have you read George Thomson's "The Prehistoric Aegean" and "Aesceplus in Athens" (his "First Philosophers" is worth a read also). Thomson actually employs Engels method to great effect and though it is a bit old (1948 I believe) I am sure you will find it a revelation and far from a waste of time. I think the first book above will almost meet your needs.
As you are probably aware Gorden Vere Child used Engels periodization quite extensively and also to good and productive effect in his archaeological synthesis (now proved wrong but being the foundation of its own disproof - that is his synthesis of Danubian culture and European artifacts does not follow his logic, but without his logic it could not have in the end be disproved as we would not have the basis for a new synthesis not yet created). A much harder read is Krader's "Marx's Ethnological Notebooks" but I am not in agreement with his preface and it is off the topic of your inquiry (it does show that Engels is not too far removed from Marx's opinions). Morgan's "Ancient Society" stills stands up today though some of his concerns are simply quaint (ie brain size). Jim you might not believe it but Morgans collection of kinship terms has never been equaled, in fact, in terms of modern anthropology no- one has even come close (I forget the name of the publication where he announced his first results but it is also worth a read - well at least a decent glance). Years ago I scanned Soviet archaeological sources where, unfortunately, Engels scheme was applied most mechanically and unproductively (no-doubt some keen Soviet archaeologist made good use of it but I found no evidence in translations - I recommend avoiding this area). In the late 1970s I wrote a small graduate thesis on OFPPS, which turned out to be a bit of a disaster. My first impression of Engels was not good and I decided I would write a critique (I was very young and stupid). To this end I collected all the feminist and anthropological literature I could find, everything I could lay my hands on that had anything critical to say. Just as I finished this notetaking and needed to get writing, I re-read Engels and found to my dismay that he was far better then I first thought (hence the thesis went down the toilet as the whole thrust was changed at the last minute). First the criticisms of Engels and Morgan can be traced back to Boas who displaced Morganist concerns and took the first chair in anthropology in the US. If I remember rightly his criticisms boiled down to a couple of unimportant points and a major accusation that Morgan had not understood Aztec culture at all (Boas relying on Spanish sources). Boas was wrong, very wrong in the light of modern views. I could not find in all my searches any criticism of Engels/Morgans anthropology which did not trace right back to Boas - quite a surprise after the passage of years even twenty years ago. Moreover, Boas was a empiricist of first water and whose anthropology from what I have read is ahistorical nonsense, not what I would call a reliable source (I think you will find that Reed and White assume Boas to be correct which is a real pity as Morgan has proved to be superior as a matter of record - Boas' anthropology proved incorrect in each specific instance in regard to his criticism). Morgan, Marx and Engels are not without their problems in this area, one of which was that they gave too much emphasis to the role kinship in human biological development (of course they had no ideas of the real complexity of genes and a very much compressed view of human biological evolution). Moreover, there work contains no actual social dialectic for change within pre-class societies, but other than that as an abstract theory of social evolution there work stands up very well indeed despite its reputation (Again I would refer you to Thomson's excellent application of the theory in unraveling the prehistory of the Greeks). If you are interested to track down a pamphlet by (I think) Peggy Anne Dobbins "From Kin to Class" you will find that she has discovered the missing dialectic in the equal exchange of necessary labour (compare this to Sahlins muddled attempt to employ use- value to understand kin societies) - a word of warning on Dobbins work (perhaps one of the most poorly printed I have ever come across) she has some rather bizarre ideas on human sexual dimorphism which should be treated as the eccentricity that they are but not used to dismiss her discovery which, at any rate, appears to have been completely ignored. Jim if you find a good recent work on any of this could you please let me know as it is an area that I am very interested in, but being removed from academic resources I would not have a clue what has happened in the last twenty years in this area. Good luck Engels has a few big surprises in his little work Greg Schofield Perth Australia --- Message Received --- From: Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 15:18:26 -0700 Subject: [PEN-L:18974] query: Engels & anthropology Has there been a serious effort to consider Engels' _Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State_ from the perspective of recent anthropology, i.e., to present a serious critique (rather than a trashing) and reconciliation? (The effort by Evelyn Reed in the edition that I own seems to be a bit too hagiographical.) Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
