Time Mapping Globalization since the Bronze Age

 

 

Christopher Chase-Dunn, David Wilkinson,
E.N. Anderson, Hiroko Inoue and Robert Denemark

Isa research workshop proposal for 2016 5769 words; Proposed date of workshop:  March 5, 2016

Location: University of California-Riverside

Irows Working Paper # 100, http://irows.ucr.edu/papers/irows100/irows100.htm

 

 

 

               

PLEASE LIST ALL PROPOSED WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS:

 

 

INDIVIDUAL                             TITLE/RANK            AFFILIATION                                                           COUNTRY       ISA MEMBER?

 

Eugene. N.  Anderson             Professor Emeritus  University of California-Riverside                           USA                        ?

Gullermo Algaze                      Professor                                 University of California-San Diego                         USA                        No

Philippe Beaujard                    Professor                 French National Centre for Scientific Research      France                     ?

Frances Berdan                        Professor                 California State University-San Bernardino                             USA                        No

Albert Bergesen                       Professor                 University of Arizona                                                              USA                        Yes

Robert Denemark                    Professor                 University of Delaware                                            USA                        Yes

Kajsa Ekholm Friedman          Professor                                 Lund University                                                      USA                        ?

Jonathan Friedman                  Professor                                 University of California-San Diego                         USA                        ?

Barry K. Gills                          Professor                                 University of Helsinki                                             Finland                    yes

Thoman D. Hall                      Professor Emeritus  Depauw University                                                  USA                        ?

Robert Hanneman                   Professor                 University of California-Riverside                           USA                        ?

Victoria Hui                            Associate Professor University of California-Los Angeles                       USA                        ?

Ho-Fung Hung                        Associate Professor Johns Hopkins University                                        USA                        ?

Hiroko Inoue                           Research Associate  University of California-Riverside                          USA                        yes

Victor B. Lieberman                                Professor                                 University of Michigan                                            USA                        ?

Patrick Manning                      Professor                                 University of Pittsburgh                                          USA                        ?

Ian Morris                                Professor                                 Stanford University                                                 USA                        ?

Teresa Neal                              Graduate Student    University of California-Riverside                           USA                        ?

Anthony Reid                          Professor Emeritus Australian National University                                Australia                  ?

Peter Robertshaw                    Professor                 California State University-San Bernardino             USA                        ?

Walter Scheidel                       Professor                 Stanford University                                                 USA                        ?

Michael E. Smith                     Professor                 Arizona State University                                         USA                        ?

Peter Turchin                          Professor                 University of Connecticut                                       USA                        ?

William R. Thompson             Professor                 Indiana University                                                   USA                        ?

David Wilkinson                     Professor                                 University of California-Los Angeles                       USA                        Yes

Douglas White                         Professor                 University of California-Irvine                                                USA                        ?

 

 

Workshop Project Summary

Provide a detailed summary [in the space provided] of the proposed activity suitable for publication. It should include a clear and self-contained description of the work to be undertaken and the product that would result if the proposal were funded. The summary should identify the intellectual merit as well as the expected significance and broader impact resulting from the proposed activity in relation to the present state of knowledge in the field.

 

Abstract: The proposed workshop will gather experts and students together to produce a new comprehensive specification of the spatial and temporal boundaries of international systems since the Bronze Age. This will produce a definitive understanding of the spatio-temporal boundaries of integration based on political/military interaction and on trade (globalization). It will also make it possible to compare whole systems in order to better answer questions about their similarities and differences and about the causes of long-term increases in the scale of cities and states. Growing awareness of Eurocentrism suggests the need to systematically compare the state system that emerged in Europe with international systems that existed in other regions and in the more distant past in order to test explanations of the causes of systemic changes and continuities. This requires the development of a set of consensual decision rules that will enable specification of the spatial and temporal boundaries of international systems in world regions since the early Bronze Age. What is needed is a systematic method for separating largely independent cases that can be the basis of comparative analysis and for determining when and where regional systems merged with one another to become the global system that we have today. Defining international systems as networks of polities that make war and alliances with one another, this workshop will formulate explicit decision rules for specifying the spatial and temporal extent of these important interaction networks starting from regions in which large cities first appeared.  We will examine methods of determining both political/military interactions and trade interactions. Our workshop will produce an interdisciplinary consensual inventory of political/military networks and will develop a comparative method for accurately specifying degrees of interaction that constitute political/military and trade connectedness. We will also identify problematic cases in which spatial and temporal boundaries are in dispute and will consult with relevant area experts to help reduce uncertainties regarding bounding decisions in these cases.

The project will study all those interstate systems that had at least one city with a population size of at least 20,000 residents. From these starting points the spatial boundaries of trade and warfare interaction networks will be estimated, thus producing a new list of warfare and trade networks that will serve as comparable cases for studies of whole international systems.

            This project will provide a systematic basis for sorting out the similarities and the differences across international systems in comparative perspective and will have important implications for the long-standing debates about East/West comparisons in the past and in the present. A better scientific comprehension of international systems in general will also have implications for understanding the evolution of geopolitical institutions and will have important implications for comprehending the emergent possibilities of a more multipolar global structure of authority in the twenty-first century.

ISA Workshop Project Summary: Time Mapping Globalization

One of the main meanings of globalization is the expansion and integration of interaction networks.

Expansion and integration of interaction networks have been going on since the first emergence of cities and states and so a new literature on ancient and classical globalization has emerged (Jennings 2010; Chase-Dunn and Lerro 2014). The most important interaction networks are those that involve both trade and the political/military interaction among fighting and allying states. But these have had somewhat different spatial scales in the past. Trade networks have tended to be larger than political/military networks and it is only with the emergence of an Earth-wide system that both have become global.  This project will produce a consensual time map of globalization since the Bronze Age based on the determination of the expansion and linkage of what had been  separate trade and political/military interaction networks in to the single global system of today. It is widely recognized that the science of international relations should compare the Westphalian system that emerged in Europe with other systems in order to examine the extent to which structural processes such as the balance of power are similar or different across systems (e.g. Wohlforth et al 2007). Recent controversies about East-West relations and the expectation that the growing importance of India and China will have important consequences for the nature of the world polity in the 21st century support the notion that the comparative study of state systems may have important implications for the future as well as for understanding the past (Beaujard 2010; Morris 2011; Turchin 2015). The hypothesis of increasingly synchronous cycles of political integration in world regions distant from one another (Chase-Dunn, Alvarez and Pasciuti 2005; Lieberman 2003, 2009; Turchin and Hall 2003) is an exciting topic that can be systematically evaluated once we have expert consensus on the spatio-temporal boundaries of state and trade networks. And a strongly identified set of cases will also make it possible to comparatively study the causes of upsweeps in urban population sizes and in the territorial sizes of states an empires.

            Recent research on the changing dynamics of cities, empires, and civilizations since the Bronze Age has found that, for highly detailed comparisons and statistical analyses, existing definitions of regions and boundaries of early empires are not adequately detailed in the usual sources. In conjunction with the SESHAT project of the Evolution Institute[1] we are constructing a large database that contains important characteristics of cities and states and we want to use the best specification of bounded regional networks for testing explanations of changing scale and complexity. This workshop will generate a new level of interdisciplinary consensus regarding estimates of trade and warfare/alliance network boundaries.

The interaction network approach to systemic bounding is much better than methods that try to divide space and time into regions with homogenous cultural characteristics. This is so because very different kinds of societies were often in important interaction with one another, and because interaction itself often produces differentiation rather than homogenization (Wilkinson 2003; Chase-Dunn and Jorgenson 2003). 

Because all human polities interact with their neighbors, the bounding of interaction networks is necessarily place-centric and relies on a conception of fall-off. If all indirect connections are counted there has been a single global network since the modern humans migrated out of Africa. But the analysis of interaction systems supposes that only those connections that are important for reproducing or changing local social structures and institutions are systemic. When transportation and communications technologies were simple, consequential interaction networks included a few indirect connections, but not many.  Thus there were small international systems when polities were small and were interacting with only a few adjacent neighbors and neighbors of neighbors.

In principle any starting point is a good as any other for studying interaction networks because all human settlements and polities are parts of larger interaction networks. But we need a convenient way of choosing among the vast number of possible starting points.[2] Because we want to explain changes in the scale of human organized life it is convenient to start with regions in which relatively large cities first emerged. These are also the same regions in which relatively large states first emerged and are the same regions for which we have fairly good documentary and archaeological evidence that goes back in to the Bronze Age. We pick the size of 20,000 residents as a convenient cut-off because this allows us to focus on ten world regions in which settlements of this size first emerged.

It has been noted that different kinds of important interaction usually have different spatial scales that form nested networks. Chase-Dunn and Hall (1997) distinguish between more local interaction networks based on the exchange of everyday foods and raw materials, which they call bulk goods networks; somewhat larger networks of polities that are making war and allying with one another which in this proposal we call “international systems;” even larger networks in which prestige goods are exchanged and even larger networks in which information is exchanged.

Figure 1 is a modified version of David Wilkinson’s (1986) original chronograph of the emergence of the Central international system (which he called Central Civilization). We follow David Wilkinson’s use of the term “Central” except that we call systems of states that make war and alliances with one another international systems instead of civilizations. Central is a term that all depends on where you start. We start with Egypt and Mesopotamia because these were the first regions in which states and cities appeared. So the Central international system refers to that network of interacting states that was created when the Mesopotamian and Egyptian states became  connected with one another by means of warfare and alliances in about 1500 BCE (see below). The Central international system expanded in waves until it came to encompass the whole Earth in the 19th century CE. Because it was an expanding system, its spatial boundaries changed over time. Our workshop will develop general and consensual decision rules and will examine Wilkinson’s decisions about when and where the Central international system expanded and incorporated other international systems.[3]

Figure 1: The incorporation of 12 international systems in to the Central International System

The merger of the Mesopotamian and Egyptian international systems began as a result of Eighteenth Dynasty Egypt's invasions, conquests, and diplomatic relations with states of the Southwest Asian (Mesopotamian) international system—first of all Mitanni, then the Hittites, Babylon and Assyria. The signal event was Thutmosis I's invasion of Syria in about 1505 BCE. The fusion of the Mesopotamian and Egyptian state systems began then but enlarged and intensified until 1350 BCE.  Thutmosis III's many campaigns in Syria and the establishment of tributary relations, wars and peace- making under Amenhotep II, as well as the peaceful relations and alliance with Mitanni by Thutmosis IV, eventually led to Egyptian hegemony under Amenhotep III (Wilkinson 2011) .

            The final linking of the South Asian international system with the Central system was begun by the incursion of Mahmud of Ghazni in 1008 CE. Alexander of Macedon’s earlier incursion in the 4th century BCE had been a temporary connection between the Central and the South Asian state systems that ceased after the Greek conquest states in South Asia had been expelled.  The connection was made permanent by the conquests of Mahmud of Ghazni.

Figure 2:  A stylized chronograph of the Central and East Asian International and Trade Networks coming together.

Figure 2 is a stylized chronograph that depicts the emergence of separate nested interaction networks in East Asia and in Mesopotamia and Egypt, the cyclical expansion of these and their eventual coming together. Figure 2 designates international systems as PMNs and prestige goods trade networks as PGNs. The Mongol Empire is depicted as a temporary linking of the Eastern and Western state systems.

Tables 1 and 2 show the international systems that have been specified by Wilkinson and the related prestige goods trade networks that result from the decision rule to start with world regions that first developed cities with 20,000 residents. Tables 1 and 2 also show the best estimates so far of the years when these systems first developed large cities and the years that they became incorporated into, or merged with, another system. All of these parameters will be scrutinized at our workshop, but the most attention will be focused on those cells that contain question marks (?).

International System

Code

Begin*

Merged or Engulfed

notes

Mesopotamia

mesop

3400 BCE

1500 BCE

 

Egypt

egypt

2500 BCE

1500 BCE

 

Central

cent

1500 BCE

 

 

Aegean

aeg

1600 BCE?

600 BCE

Or was this part of the central system after 1500 BCE?

South Asian

sas

1800 BCE

1100 CE

 

Japanese

japa

600 CE

?

Or was this part of the East Asian system after the failed Mongol invasions?

East Asian

eas

1400 BCE

1830 CE

 

Mesamerican

mesoa

200 CE

1500 CE

 

West African

wafr

800 CE

1600 CE

 

Southeast Asian

sea

600 CE

1500 CE

Should what Wilkinson calls Indonesia be seen as connected with mainland Southeast Asia? And when did Southeast Asia become connected with East Asia?

Mississippian

missi

1100 CE

1500 CE

 

Andean

ande

1300 CE

1500 CE

 

Irish?

ire

?

?

When did the Irish system become linked with the Central system?

Other?

 

 

 

 

Table 1: Chronograph of beginnings and merger/engulfments of international systems

*Starts when largest city reaches a population size of 20,000

Prestige Goods Trade Network

Code

Begin*

Merged or Engulfed

notes

Mesopotamia

mesop

3400 BCE

?

 

Egypt

egypt

2500 BCE

?

 

Central

cent

1500 BCE

?

 

Aegean

aeg

1600 BCE?

?

When did it become part of Central trade network?

South Asian

sas

1800 BCE

?

 

Japanese

japa

600 CE

???

When was Japan linked to the East Asian trade network?

East Asian

eas

1400 BCE

?

 

Mesamerican

mesoa

200 CE

1500 CE

 

West African

wafr

800 CE

?

 

Southeast Asian

sea

600 CE

?

Should what Wilkinson calls Indonesia be seen as connected with mainland Southeast Asia? And when did Southeast Asia become connected with East Asia?

Mississippian

missi

1100 CE

1500 CE

 

Andean

Ande

1300 CE

1500 CE

 

Irish?

Ire

?

?

When did the Irish system become linked with the Central trade network?

Other?

 

 

 

??

Table 2: Chronograph of beginnings and mergers/engulfments of prestige goods trade networks

*Starts when largest city reaches a population size of 20,000

In addition to the problem areas indicated in Tables 1 and 2, the workshop will consider additions to the list of international systems and trade networks.  A lot of new work has been done on the Indian Ocean as a systemically linked world region (e.g. Beaujard 2005) and recent discoveries of ancient cities in East and Southern Africa may require the addition of networks.  Wilkinson also included Chibchan, a culture area on the Central American Isthmus and in Northern South America, as a possible state system separate from the Andean and the Mesoamerican, but the settlements seem to have been smaller than our population cutoff of 20,000. We will also focus on estimating the periods in which non-Central state systems and trade networks merged or were engulfed by one another. When did the Japanese and the East Asian networks become linked? What about the East Asian and the Southeast Asia ones, and the East Asian and the South  Asian, and the South Asian and the Southeast Asian?

The workshop will be organized as a one-day meeting on Saturday March 5, 2016 with a schedule of presentations that will focus on clarification of decision rules and problematic cases in the spatio-temporal bounding of international systems and trade networks. The main participants will be assigned presenter or discussant roles depending on willingness and expertise, and they will have been provided with materials relevant to their assigned problems no later than February 5, 2016. These materials will also be made available on the workshop website for those who are interested, including members of the community who may wish to attend and observe the workshop. Ample space will be made available for observers. Junior scholars and scholars from different disciplines are helping to organize the conference and will be directly involved in the research.[4] The results of the workshop will be used to produce improved maps and chronographs that time map globalization and that use international systems and trade networks as units of analysis. Working papers will be put up on project web sites and will be presented at professional conferences, especially the ISA conference to be held in Baltimore in 2017.  We will propose a session on time mapping globalization that will contain papers based on the outcome of our workshop. The refined set of spatio-temporally defined networks will be used to retest the results of studies of upsweeps and comparisons of world regions. Articles will be submitted to International Studies Quarterly. 

A standardized and consensual set of international systems will allow for the use of formal comparative methods that take whole state systems as the unit of analysis. This will allow for teasing out the similarities and differences across systems and for comprehending the evolutionary consequences of changes in scale and types of integration as well as future prospects for greater multipolarity followed by eventual global state formation.

 


Isa workshop program schedule, Saturday March 5, 2016 UCR

 

8:00 am 2 vans leave Mission Inn with participants

8:30 am workshop registration and continental breakfast

9:00 am Welcome and discussion of the program

9:20 am Session 1 (75 minutes; 4 fifteen minute presentations and general discussion): the spatio-temporal boundaries of international systems and trade networks for specifying the dimensions of globalization and the comparative study of whole interaction networks: specifying decision rules (drafts will be distributed 2 weeks before the conference to participants and interested observers)

·         David Wilkinson “Title”

·         E.N. Anderson   “Title”

·         Peter Turchin “Title”

·         Chris Chase-Dunn “Title”

10:35 am break

10:50 am Session 2 (75 minutes; 4 fifteen minute presentations and general discussion): International system problem cases: the Aegean, the Indian Ocean, Japan, Southeast Asia, Ireland

·         Philippe Beaujard “Title”

·         Ian Morris “Title”

·         Walter Scheidel “Title”

·         Douglas White “Title”

12:05 pm (25 minutes): box lunch

12:30 pm Session 3 (75 minutes; 4 fifteen minute presentations and general discussion): Trade network problem cases: Southeast Asia/East Asia; South Asia/Southeast Asia;

·         Victor Lieberman “Title”

·         Victoria Hui “Title”

·         Guillermo Algaze “Title”

·         Kasja Ekholm “Title”

1:45 pm break

2 session held in parallel starting at 2 pm

2:00 pm Session 4a (75 minutes; 4 fifteen minute presentations and general discussion): More trade network problem cases: Mesopotamia/Egypt; Mesoamerica/Andes

·         Michael E. Smith “Title”

·         Frances Berdan “Title”

·         Jonathan Friedman “Title”

·         Thomas D. Hall “Title”

2:00 pm Session 4b (75 minutes; 4 fifteen minute presentations and general discussion): More trade network problem cases: East Asia/Central; East Asia/South Asia

·         Barry Gills “Title”

·         Albert Bergesen “Title”

·         Patrick Manning “Title”

·         Peter Robertshaw “Title”

3:15 pm break

3:30 pm Session 5: (75 minutes; 4 fifteen minute presentations and general discussion) Implications of the problem cases for the specification of the decision rules. Discussion of future comparative research projects that should use the identified system cases for comparing systemic networks and for time mapping globalization.

·         William R. Thompson “Title”

·         Robert Denemark “Title”

·         Ho Fung Hung “Title”

·         Robert Hanneman “Title”

4:45 pm Adjourn to dinner at White Horse Ranch which starts at 5:30 pm

8:30 pm Vans return to Mission Inn

 

References for ISA Workshop on Comparing International Systems

Algaze, Guillermo 1993. The Uruk World System: The Dynamics of Expansion of Early Mesopotamian Civilization Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

            . 2000. “The prehistory of imperialism: the case of Uruk period Mesopotamia” in M. Rothman (ed.) Uruk Mesopotamia and its Neighbors: Cross-cultural Interactions and their Consequences in the Era of State Formation. Santa Fe: School of the Americas

Anderson, E. N. and Christopher Chase-Dunn 2005. “The Rise and Fall of Great Powers” in Christopher Chase-Dunn and E.N. Anderson (eds.) The Historical Evolution of World-Systems. London: Palgrave.

Arrighi, Giovanni 1978. The Geometry of Imperialism. London: New Left Review Press.

            . 1994.  The Long Twentieth Century.  London: Verso.

            . 2008 Adam Smith in Beijing. London: Verso.

Arrighi, Giovanni 2006. “Spatial and other ‘fixes’ of historical capitalism” Pp. 201-212 in C. Chase-Dunn and S. Babones (eds.) Global Social Change. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Arrighi, Giovanni, Silver, Beverly J., ‘Introduction’, In Arrighi, G., Silver, B.J., et al, Chaos and Governance in the Modern World-System (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1999), 1-36.

Arrighi, Giovanni, Takeshi Hamashita, and Mark Selden 2003. The Resurgence of East Asia: 500, 150 and 50 Year Perspectives. London: Routledge.

Beaujard, Philippe. 2005. “The Indian Ocean in Eurasian and African World-Systems before the Sixteenth Century” Journal of World History 16, 4:411-465.

            . 2010. “From Three possible Iron-Age World-Systems to a Single Afro-Eurasian World-System.” Journal of World History 21:1(March):1-43.

Braudel, Fernand 1972. The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip II. New York: Harper and Row, 2 vol.

            . 1984.  The Perspective of the World, Volume 3 of Civilization and Capitalism.  Berkeley:  University of California Press.

Chandler, David 1996. A History of Cambodia. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Chase-Dunn, Christopher and Thomas D. Hall 1997. Rise and Demise: Comparing World-Systems Boulder, CO.: Westview Press.

Chase-Dunn, Christopher, Alexis Alvarez, and Daniel Pasciuti. 2005. “Power and Size: urbanization and empire formation in world-systems” pp. 92-112 in C.Chase-Dunn and E.N. Anderson (eds.) The historical Evolution of World-systems. New York: Palgrave.

Chase-Dunn, Christopher and Thomas D. Hall. 2011.“East and West in world-systems evolution” Pp. 97-119 in Patrick Manning and Barry K. Gills (eds.) Andre Gunder Frank and Global Development, London: Routledge.

Chase-Dunn, Christopher and Andrew K. Jorgenson. 2003. “Regions and Interaction Networks: an institutional materialist perspective,” International Journal of Comparative Sociology 44, 1:433-450.

Chase-Dunn, Christopher and Bruce Lerro 2014. Social Change: Globalization from the Stone Age to the Present. Boulder, CO: Paradigm.

Ciolek, T. Matthew (ed.). 1999 - present. Georeferenced historical transport/travel/communication - Asia & the Middle East. OWTRAD Dromographic Digital Data Archives (ODDDA). Old World Trade Routes (OWTRAD) Project. Canberra: www.ciolek.com/OWTRAD/DATA/oddda.html

Cline, Eric H. 2014. 1177 BC: The Year Civilization Collapsed. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Collins, Randall. 1992. “The Geographical and Economic World-Systems of Kinship-Based and Agrarian-Coercive Societies.” Review 15(3):373-88. 

Curtin, Philip D. 1984. Cross-Cultural Trade in World History Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Darwin, John 2008. After Tamerlane: The Rise and Fall of Global Empires, 1400-2000. New York: Bloomsbury Press.

Diakonoff, Igor 1973.  "The Rise of the Despotic State in Ancient Mesopotamia."  Pp. 173-203 in I. M. Diakonoff (ed.) Ancient Mesopotamia: Socio-Economic History. Dr. Martin Sandig oHG; (Unverand. Neudr. d. Ausg. v. 1969.) edition (1973)

Diakonoff (ed.) 1973. Ancient Mesopotamia, edited by I. M. Diakonoff, trans by G. M. Sergheyev Walluf bei Weisbaden: Dr. Martin Sandig.

EkholmKasja and Jonathan Friedman 1982. “’Capital’ imperialism and exploitation in the ancient world-systems” Review 6:1 (summer):  87-110.

EmpCit Project. The Research Working Group on Settlements and Polities, Institute for Research on World-Systems, University of California-Riverside http://irows.ucr.edu/research/citemp/citemp.html

Fairbank, John K. (ed.) 1968. The Chinese World Order. Cambridge, MA:  Harvard University Press.

Fieldhouse, D.K. 1966. The Colonial Empires From the 18th Century. New York: Dell Publishing Company.

Frank, Andre Gunder 1998. Reorient: Global Economy in the Asian Age. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Frank, Andre Gunder and Barry Gills 1994. The World System: 500 or 5000 Years? London: Routledge.

Go, Julian. 2011. Patterns of Empire: The British and American Empires, 1688 to the present   Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

Gowdy John and Lisi Krall L. 2015. "The economic origins of ultrasociality." Behavioral Brain Science. 27:1-63.

Hamashita, Takeshi 2003. “Tribute and treaties: maritime Asia and treaty port networks in the era of negotiations, 1800-1900” Pp. 17-50 in Giovanni Arrighi, Takeshi Hamashita and Mark Selden (eds.) The Resurgence of East Asia. London: Routledge.

Hall, Thomas D. and Chrsitopher. Chase-Dunn 2006. “Global social change in the long run” Pp. 33-58 in C. Chase-Dunn and S. Babones (eds.) Global Social Change. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Harris, Marvin. 1977. Cannibals and Kings:  The Origins of Cultures.  New York:  Random House.

Hui, Victoria Tin-Bor 2005. War and state Formation in Ancient China and Early Modern Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

            . 2008. “How China was ruled” China Futures, Spring, 53-65

Innis, Harold 1972 [1950]. Empire and Communications. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Inoue, Hiroko, Alexis Álvarez, Kirk Lawrence, Anthony Roberts, Eugene N Anderson and Christopher Chase-Dunn 2012. “Polity scale shifts in world-systems since the Bronze Age: A comparative inventory of upsweeps and collapses” International Journal of Comparative Sociology http://cos.sagepub.com/content/53/3/210.full.pdf+html

Inoue, Hiroko, Alexis Álvarez, Eugene N. Anderson, Andrew Owen, Rebecca Álvarez, Kirk Lawrence and Christopher Chase-Dunn  2015. “Urban scale shifts since the Bronze Age: upsweeps, collapses and semiperipheral development” Social Science History Volume 39 number 2, Summer.

Jennings, Justin 2010 Globalizations and the Ancient World. Cambridge: Cambridge University

            Press.

Kennedy, Paul. 1987. The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers.  New York: Random House.

Korotayev, Andrey, Goldstone, Jack A., Zinkina, Julia, 2015. “Phases of global demographic transition correlate with phases of the Great Divergence and Great Convergence' Technological Forecasting & Social Change  Retrieved March 20, 2015 from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162515000244

La Lone, Darrell. 2000. "Rise, Fall, and Semiperipheral Development in the Andean World-System." Journal of World-Systems Research 6 (1):68-99. http://jwsr.ucr.edu/index.php

Lane, Frederic C. 1979. Profits from Power: readings in protection rent and violence-controlling enterprises. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Larsen, Mogens Trolle 1976. The Old Assyrian City-State and Its Colonies. Copenhagen: Akadmisk Forlag.

Larsen, Mogens Trolle.  1987.  "Commercial Networks in the Ancient Near East."  Pp. 47-56 in Centre and Periphery in the Ancient World, edited by Michael Rowlands, Mogens Larsen, and Kristian Kristiansen.  Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

_____.  1992. "Commercial Capitalism in a World System of the Early Second Millennium B.C."  Paper presented at International Studies Association, Atlanta, GA.

Lenski, Gerhard. 2005. Ecological-Evolutionary Theory: Principles and Applications (Boulder: Paradigm Publishers.

Levy, Jack L. and William R. Thompson. 2011. The Arc of War. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lieberman, Victor. 2003.  Strange Parallels:  Southeast Asia in Global Context, c. 800-1830.  Vol. 1: Integration on the Mainland.  Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press.

            . 2009.  Strange Parallels:  Southeast Asia in Global Context, c. 800-1830.  Vol 2: Mainland Mirrors: Europe, Japan, China, South Asia, and the Islands.  Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Liverani, Mario. 2014. The Ancient near East: History, Society and Economy. London: Routledge.

McNeill, William H. 1982. The Pursuit of Power: Technology, Armed Force and Society since A.D. 1000. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Mann, Michael. 1986. The Sources of Social Power Volume I: A History of Power from the Beginning to A.D. 1760. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

            . 2013. The Sources of Social Power, Volume 4: Globalizations, 1945-2011. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Markoe, Glenn E. 2000. Phoenicians Berkeley: University of California Press

Modelski, George 1964. "Kautilya: foreign policy and international system in the ancient Hindu world," American Political Science Review 58, 3: 549-60.

Modelski, George and William R. Thompson. 1988. Seapower in Global Politics, l494-1993.  Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press.

Morris, Ian. 2010. Why the West Rules—For Now.  New York:  Farrer, Straus and Giroux

            . 2013. The Measure of Civilization. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

            . 2015. Foragers, Farmers and Fossil Fuels. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press

Morris, Ian and Walter Scheidel (eds.) 2008. The Dynamics of Ancient Empires: State Power from Assyria to Byzantium. New York: Oxford University Press.

Nefedov, Sergey A. 2008. Faktornyy Analiz Istoricheskoho Processa: Istoriya Vostoka. (Factor analysis of historical process: The History of the East), In Russian (Moscow: Publishing house "Territory of the Future".

Palat, Ravi. 1995. “Historical Transformations in Agrarian Systems Based on Wet-Rice Cultivation: toward an Alternative Model of Social Change." Pp. 55-77 in P. McMichael (ed.), Food and Agrarian Orders in the World-Economy, Westport, CT: Praeger.

Parkinson, William A. and William L. Galaty, eds. 2010. Archaic State Interaction: The Eastern Mediterranean in the Bronze Age. Santa Fe, NM: SAR Press.

Patomaki, Heiki. 2008. The Political Economy of Global Security War Future Crises and Changes in Global Governance. London: Routledge.

Price, Barbara J. 1978. “Secondary state formation: an explanatory model," pp. 161-186 in Ronald           Cohen and Elman R. Service (eds.) Origins of the State: The Anthropology of Political Evolution. Philadelphia: Institute for the Study of Human Issues.

Quigley, Carroll. 1961. The Evolution of Civilizations. Indianapolis: Liberty Press.

Radner, Karen 2014. “The Neo-Assyrian Empire” Pp. 101-119 in Michael Gehler and Robert Rollinger (eds.) Imperien und Reiche in der WeltgeschichteTeil 1. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag

Reid, Anthony. 1988.  Southeast Asia in the Age of Commerce, 1450-1680.  Vol. I, the Lands below the Winds.  New Haven:  Yale University Press.

                        . 1993. Vol. 2:  Expansion and Crisis.  New Haven:  Yale University Press.

Sabloff, Jeremy and William J. Rathje 1975. A Study of Changing Pre-Columbian Commercial Systems. Cambridge: Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology. Harvard University.

Scheidel, Walter 2006. “Republics between hegemony and empire: How ancient city-states built empires and the USA doesn’t (anymore).” Princeton/Stanford Working Papers.

Scheidel, Walter 2009a. “From the “great convergence” to the “first great divergence”:  Roman and Qin-Han state formation” Pp. 11-23 in Walter Scheidel (ed.) Rome and China: Comparative Perspectives on Ancient World Empires. New York: Oxford University Press.

            . ORBIS: The Stanford Geospatial Network Model of the Roman World http://orbis.stanford.edu/

Scheidel, Walter and Sitta Von Reden (eds.) 1995. The Ancient Economy. New York: Routledge.

Schumpeter, Joseph. 1951. “The Sociology of Imperialism” in J.A. Schumpeter, Imperialism, Social Classes. New York: Meridian Books.

Service, Elman, R. 1975.  The Origins of the State and Civilization.  New York:  Norton.

SESHAT: Global History Databank http://evolution-institute.org/seshat

Sherratt, Andrew G. 1993a. "What Would a Bronze-Age World System Look Like?  Relations between Temperate Europe and the Mediterranean in Later Prehistory." Journal of European Archaeology 1:2:1-57.

            . 1993b. "Core, Periphery and Margin:  Perspectives on the Bronze Age." Pp. 335-345 in Development and Decline in the Mediterranean Bronze Age, edited by C. Mathers and S. Stoddart.  Sheffield:  Sheffield Academic Press.

            . 1993c. "Who are You Calling Peripheral?  Dependence and Independence in European Prehistory."  Pp.  245-255 in Trade and Exchange in Prehistoric Europe, edited by C. Scarre and F. Healy.  Oxford:  Oxbow (Prehistoric Society Monograph).

            . 1993d. "The Growth of the Mediterranean Economy in the Early First Millennium BC."  World Archaeology 24:3:361-78.

Schwartzberg, Joseph E. 1992. A Historical Atlas of South Asia New York:  Oxford

Simmel, Georg 1955. Conflict and the Web of Group Affiliations. Glencoe, Ill., Free Press 

Smith, Michael E. and Lisa Montiel. 2001. “The Archaeological Study of Empires and Imperialism in Pre-Hispanic Central Mexico” Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 20, 245–284.

Stanish, Charles P. 2010. “Labor Taxes, Market Systems, and Urbanization in the Prehispanic Andes: A Comparative Perspective” Pp. 185-206 in Garraty and Stark.

Stein, Gil J. 1999. Rethinking World-Systems: Diasporas, Colonies and Interaction in Uruk Mesopotamia. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

Taagepera, Rein 1978. "Size and duration of empires: systematics of size" Social Science Research 7:108-27.

Thompson, William R. 1995.  "Comparing World Systems: Systemic Leadership Succession and the Peloponnesian War Case."  Pp. 271-286 in The Historicial Evolution of the International Political Economy, Volume 1, edited by Christopher Chase-Dunn.  Aldershot, UK: Edward Elgar.

Turchin, Peter and Sergey Nefadov. 2009. Secular Cycles. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Turchin, Peter and Thomas D. Hall. 2003.  “Spatial Synchrony among and within World-Systems:  Insights from Theoretical Ecology.”  Journal of World-Systems Research 9:1(Winter):37-64.

Turchin, Peter, Jonathan M. Adams, and Thomas D. 2006. “East-West Orientation of Historical Empires and Modern States.” Journal of World-Systems Research. 12:2(December):218-229.

Turchin, Peter and Sergey Gavrilets 2009. “The evolution of complex hierarchical societies” Social Evolution & History, Vol. 8 No. 2, September: 167–198.

Turchin, Peter, Thomas E.Currie, Edward A.L. Turner and Sergey Gavrilets. 2013. “War, space, and the evolution of Old World complex societies” PNAS October vol. 110 no. 41: 16384–16389 Appendix: http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2013/09/20/1308825110.DCSupplemental/sapp.pdf

Turchin, Peter, The Evolution Institute. 2015. The Seshat: Global History Databank https://evolution-institute.org/project/seshat/

Wallerstein, Immanuel. 2011 [1974]. The Modern World-System, Vol. 1:  Capitalist Agriculture and the  Origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century Berkeley: University of California Press.

Wilkinson, David. 1987. "Central Civilization." Comparative Civilizations Review 17:31-59.

            . 1991. "Core, peripheries and civilizations." Pp. 113-166 in Christopher Chase-Dunn and Thomas D. Hall (eds.) Core/Periphery Relations in Precapitalist Worlds, Boulder, CO.: Westview.

            . 1992a. "Decline phases in civilizations, regions and oikumenes." A paper presented at the annual meetings of the International Studies Association, Atlanta, GA. April 1-4.

            . 1992b "Cities, civilizations and oikumenes:I." Comparative Civilizations Review 27:51-87 (Fall).

            . 1993. “Cities, civilizations and oikumenes:II Comparative Civilizations Review 28: 41-72.

            .  2003. “Civilizations as Networks: Trade, War, Diplomacy, and Command-Control.” Complexity Vol.8 No. 1, 82-86 http://eclectic.ss.uci.edu/~drwhite/Complexity/Wilkenson.pdf

            . 2004. “The Power Configuration Sequence of the Central World System, 1500-700 BC” Journal of World-Systems Research Vol. 10, 3.

            . 2011. Personal Communication, Friday April 15

Wohlforth, William C., Richard Little, Stuart J. Kaufman, David Kang, Charles A Jones, Victoria Tin-Bor Hui, Arther Eckstein, Daniel Deudney and William L Brenner. 2007. “Testing balance of power theory in world history” European Journal of International Relations 13, 2: 155-185.

Wolf, Eric. 1997. Europe and the People without HistoryBerkeley: University of California Press.

Wright, Henry T. 1986. "The Evolution of Civilization."  Pp. 323-365 in American Archaeology, Past and Future:  A Celebration of the Society for American Archaeology, 1935-1985, edited by David J. Meltzer.  Washington, D. C.: Smithsonian Institutional Press.

            . 1998. “Uruk states in Southwestern Iran.” Pp. 173-197 in Gary Feinman and Joyce Marcus (eds.) Archaic States. Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research.

            . 2006. “Atlas of Chiefdoms and Early States” Structure and Dynamics 1, 4. http://escholarship.org/uc/item/2r63702g#page-1

 



[1] SESHAT:  The Global History Data Bank. The Evolution Institute http://evolution-institute.org/seshat

[2] Our workshop will develop consensual and explicit decision rules that can be used by those who wish to start network bounding on a different basis than the approach that we use. The focal locale might be, for example, Central Asia, where cities emerged late, but important polities emerged that had world historical significance.

[3] A set of maps that depict Wilkinson’s spatio-temporal bounding are at http://irows.ucr.edu/research/citemp/asa01/wilkinson.htm

 

 

[4] Hiroko Inoue is ABD in in sociology at University of California-Riverside. E.N. Anderson is an anthropologist with a thorough knowledge of East Asian history as well as the diffusions of plant seeds, animals, food recipes and technologies. Inoue and Anderson are organizers of the proposed workshop. Political scientists, sociologists, geographers, historians and archaeologists are on our list of invited participants.