• I am hoping that in our discussion on Thursday, we will attempt to relate Norman Yoffee's new monograph (which should be considered a cumulative fruit of several decades of scholarship on the topic) among the state theories we have familiarized ourselves in the last few weeks, with arguments on the definition of the state and its practices, archaeologists' curious obsession with evolutionary models and state formation, questions of power and ideology operational in the social world, materialization of ideological discourse and the state intervention to everyday life, social complexity and chiefdoms and their usefulness, ideological state apparatuses in modern nation-states and their applicability to the ancient world, models of state formation, etc. Where does Yoffee stand in the obscure field of state studies? What are his important contributions on the debates not on an empirical level but on a theoretical one?

• Yoffee argues that social evolutionism is the only suitable model to speak about social change, and phenomena like state formation. Are there any non-evolutionary "models" out there? What could be the alternative to approaching this historical problem from a non-evolutionary perspective? Can we finally put on the table honestly and concretely what is our problem (or not at all) with evolutionary theories?

• Yoffee makes an interesting observation that the difficulties in seperating non-state entities from states in the archaeological record (or the ambiguity of the material record for such matters) led archaeologists to use the term "complex societies". Thoughts?

• In p. 32 Yoffee summarizes in a paragraph (mid-upper page, starts with "From the detritus..") the kinds of state related issues that his "new social evolutionism" (shall we call it post-neo-evolutionism) would be interested to tackle. I found this paragraph particularly helpful and intriguing in terms of more progressive theories of the state we have read so far. Thoughts on this paragraph in relation to his overall model?

• What Yoffee discusses as "symbols of incorporation" or "symbolic and ceremonial resources" of the state-culture/state-society for the maintenance of "societal collectivity" and the reproduction of state-culture/state-society is something that we will be discussing more extensively in the coming weeks (hopefully!). Can we review his approach in the constitution of the public realm of the state by means of such "resources"? This I hope will relate concretely to our earlier (conference and response paper) discussion of the material traces/residues of state formation/state practices. Take the cylinder seals of the Uruk period for instance. The way they operate as a bureacrativc technology as well as a representational medium in the public realm is fascinating.

• In the city chapter, Yoffee ventures towards understanding the "meaning of cities" in the context of state formation and argues how they are not "simply containers of social and economic and religious activities" but he has surprising little to say about the "content" of these cities. That is, what is the nature of urban space in these places? Throughout the chapter I yeared to find some refreshing insight on a discussion of the socio-spatial world of the city space, that is so magical and extraordinary in the way that they operate. Talking about such qualities of city life might actually fill our gaps in understanding the relationship between the state and the city.

The diorite stele ("Law code") of the Middle Bronze Age king of Babylon, Hammurapi, found at Susa (taken as booty by the Elamites). Here is a translation, and another. "In sum, it may be inferred that Hammurabi never intended that his rules be accorded the status of parctical law" (Yoffee 2005: 107).