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, https://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.
Ekholm, Kasja 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 https://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 Weltgeschichte, Teil 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 History, Berkeley:
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