The recent wave of feminism has prompted many anthropologists concerned with the status of women to return to Engels' work, The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State. While anthropologists vary widely in their assessment of the autonomy of women in prestate societies, there seems to be a general consensus that with the rise of civilization, women as a social category were increasingly subjugated to the male heads of their households. That is, civilizations are properly described as patriarchal. This con? sensus is based, implicitly or explicitly, on the tradition in which Engels was writing. His schema links the growth of private productive property to the dismantling of a communal kinship base in prestate society. In this pro? cess, marriage grows more restrictive, legit? imacy of heirs more important, and wives generally become means of reproduction to their husbands. At the same time, reciprocal relations amongst kinsfolk are curtailed, un? equal access to strategic productive resources gradually develops, and estates or classes arise out of formerly kin-based social organizations. In this analysis, the creation of a class hierar? chy is intimately linked to the creation of the patriarchal family. Restrictions on women's autonomy emerge with class society. Engels' analysis informs many of the themes concerning women that are currently being investigated, such as the relation between productive contribution, control over distribu tion of products, and female status in society; the relation of the mode of reproduction to the mode of production; and the effects of the relative separation or merger of the domestic and public spheres of activity on the roles available to women [ 1 ]. Consciously or not, our questions are often framed within the general territory mapped in Origins. Yet the major problematic of the book the postulated intertwined origins of class oppression and gender oppression ? has bare? ly been examined. Engels was working with a paucity of ethnological, archaeological and historical cases; he lacked data on primary or pristine state formation, and knew only minimally of highly stratified prestate societies. We, however, have access to a great deal more information concerning societies in transition between primitivity and civilization with which to examine his theory [2]. Twentieth-century archaeologists and social theorists have amassed a substantive and growing body of theory and data concerning state origins to which we can, in principle, turn. Yet when we do, we discover that our question is certainly not theirs. We face a double theoretical problem in using their models. First: their search for "prime mover" explanations severely limits the questions that are being asked. There exists within evolution? ary anthropology a strongly entrenched tradi? tion which seeks to universalize its explana? tions. Such theories tend to be extremely reductive, and often condense a multiplicity of processes into unilinear variables. These Rayna Rapp is Assistant Professor of Anthropology at the Graduate Faculty of the New School for Social Research.