Bret Devereaux

Second - I don't know if Hall would endorse M.H. Hansen's definition of a state needing to be "public power above both ruler and ruled" but I think that added rider isn't very helpful, as it moves to exclude states built around truly personal rulership. 8/21

But history is full of states which achieved a monopoly on the legitimate use of force while still being personal possessions of an individual or a family; we still have some of these (e.g. Saudi Arabia). I don't think the state as an abstract beyond the ruler is necessary. 9/21

And I think an excessively narrow definition of the 'state,' when they emerge and are used, has an unfortunately tendency to 'define out' non-Western states where the definition is otherwise met. 10/21

More to the center of the argument, the proscription of abandoning 'state' for 'community' I think still airbrushes an important distinction for comparing and understanding different polities. 11/21

Working at the meeting point of the Middle Roman Republic - where the state/non-state/proto-state question-marks of the sixth and fifth century had long since resolved into a clear state (perched atop a tributary empire and so complex in form) and truly non-state peoples... 12/21

...like those of much of Gaul and Spain, the state/non-state typology still has tremendous value for understanding differences in the structures of these communities. 13/21

The idea of 'state formation' is also valuable in situating Iberian and Gallic communities on a continuum of social change w/ Rome, at different points, rather than treating as completely alien forms of social org. because in many ways they are more similar than different. 14/21

Moreover, abandoning the 'state' label completely makes the process of state formation - with its tendency to 'ripple' outward as non-state peoples form states to compete with neighboring states - harder for the student to discern. 15/21