Appendix to Upsweeps and Waves of Conflict in the East Asian World-System, 1800 BCE-1830 CE v. 8-8-19

Christopher Chase-Dunn, Hiroko Inoue,

†Levin Welch and Manjing Gao

IROWS Working Paper # 135 available at http://irows.ucr.edu/papers/irows135/irows135.htm

Appendix url: http://irows.ucr.edu/cd/appendices/eaconf/eaconfapp.htm

Table of Contents

Wilkinsonís Power Concentration Codings

††††††††††† http://irows.ucr.edu/cd/appendices/powsize/powconfig.xls

Our Estimates of Largest City and Polity Sizes

††††††††††† http://irows.ucr.edu/cd/appendices/powsize/citypolity.xlsx

Excel File Combining Wilkinsonís Power Concentration with City and Polity Size Estimates

††††††††††† http://irows.ucr.edu/cd/appendices/powsize/powsize.xlsx

Discussion of the population size of Hangzhou and its connection with changes in the geopolitical structure of East Asia http://irows.ucr.edu/papers/irows111/irows111.htm

Figure A1: Components of Early East Asian warfare intensity scores (1900 bce-700 bce (25-year intervals) Source: Cioffi and Lai

Figure A2: East Asian PMN, 1900 BCE to 1850 CE: Largest cities and polities, power configuration and early interpolity conflict intensity

Figure A3: Sizes of largest polities in Europe and East Asia (square megameters): 1500 BCE- 2010CE

 

Figure A1: Components of Early East Asian warfare intensity scores (1900 bce-700 bce (25-year intervals) Source: Cioffi and Lai

Compare Figure A1 with Figure 2 in our paper. The Pearsonís r correlation between the 25-year and 50-year estimates is .82. The 25-year time periods contain significantly more information about interpolity conflict than the 50-year averages.

 

Figure A2: East Asian PMN, 1900 BCE to 1850 CE: Largest cities and polities, power configuration and early interpolity conflict intensity

This East Asian PMN graph contains 57 time points showing change in largest cities and polities, power configuration and early interpolity conflict intensity from 1800 BCE until 1800 ce. All of the correlations are positive and most are statistically significant. The only one that is not very positive and is statistically not significant is that between power configuration and city size. The bivariate correlation between city and polity size is .64 and statistically significant. The Mongol Empire, which was an important player in both the East Asian and the central PMNs, shows a peak for both powcon and the size of the largest polity in Figure A2.[1] The correlation between power configuration and the size of the largest polity in is .50 and statistically significant.† Both the trend correlations are high (city/year .82 with statistical significance and state/year .69 with statistical significance) so detrending is needed to see what happens with the state/city correlation.

 

Figure A3: Sizes of largest polities in Europe and East Asia (square megameters): 1500 BCE- 2010CE

This figure shows the sizes of the largest states and empires in Europe and East Asia since 1500 BCE. Both regions show the overall long-term trend toward greater polity sizes and the sequences of shorter-term fluctuations. When we look at Europeís trajectory vis a vis East Asia in Figure 2 we can see that the rise of the Han Empire in China began earlier than the rise of the large Macedonian and Roman empires in Europe and the decline began earlier in East Asia than it did in Europe. China did it first, followed not long after by Europe. The European peak then last rather longer than did the Chinese peak. This was what many have observed as the unusually long tenure of the Roman Empire. Then Europe went into a long slump while Tang China recovered. So these waves of empire formation were partly, but not entirely, synchronous, and Walter Scheidelís (2009) idea of the first great divergence[5] is supported, but the apparent divergence was partly due to the earlier start of East Asia. The later rise of Europe began in the 15th century, contrary to Andre Gunder Frankís (1998,2014) contention that the great divergence that was the rise of Europe was a late and conjunctural event. Qing China also got larger but ended up only half as large as the British Empire.



[1] Our original version of this graph also showed a peak city size in 1300 CE because we were using Modelskiís (2003: 63, 65) estimate that Hangzhou had a population of one million five hundred thousand residents in that year. This caused us to scrutinize Modelskiís apparent claim more closely. We found that the high estimate for 1300 was a typographical error in Table 12 (Modelski 2003:63). On p. 65 he makes it clear that the estimate of 1.5 million is for 1250, before the Mongol conquest of Hangchou, not 1300. We decided to stick with Ian Morrisís estimate of 800,000 for 1300 ce. Our discussion of the difficulties of estimating the size of Hangzhou and the role that East Asian geopolitics played in its growth during the 13th century is at http://irows.ucr.edu/papers/irows111/irows111.htm