High Bar
Rules of Thumb for
Time-Mapping Systemic
Human
Interaction
Networks
Eastern
and Western Systemic Spatio-temporal Networks
Christopher Chase-Dunn, Hiroko Inoue and Teresa Neal
Institute for
Research on World-Systems (IROWS)[1]
University of
California-Riverside
Paper to be presented at the
ISA-supported Workshop on
Systemic Boundaries,
Institute for Research on World-Systems, March 5, 2016
This is IROWS Working Paper #105
available at irows.ucr.edu/papers/irows105/irows105.htm
DRAFT v. 2/21/16, 8208 words
We propose a general set of decision
rules for specifying the spatial and temporal boundaries of interpolity
systems in anthropolical comparative perspective.
What is needed is a systematic method for separating significantly (high bar)
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. We
try to specify rules that will work across the anthropological spectrum of
human polities from nomadic foraging bands to the single global society of
today.
We also describe David Wilkinson’s
approach to the spatio-temporal bounding of state
systems and trade ecumenes since the Bronze Age.
We briefly discuss the concepts that
are needed for the bounding task:
- systemness,
- place-centricity,
- fall-off and
- exogenous impacts.
And we specify rules of thumb for systemic
connectedness for four types of interaction that typically have different
spatial scales:
- bulk goods networks,
- political-military networks,
- prestige goods networks and
- information/communications networks.
Bounding
Sociocultural Regions
Most
efforts to bound human sociocultural regions rely on the notion of homogeneity.
So the Handbook of North American Indians
divides space up according to alleged institutional and artifactual
similarities among indigenous groups. Civilizationists
long attempted to designate cultural regions by studying similarities and
differences in ideology (Melko and Scott 1987).. The problem with this approach is that it is
well known-that interaction produces both similarities and differences. So
groups that are interacting with one another frequently differentiate their
identities and often specialize in certain activities that come to form a
regional division of labor. These tendencies greatly complicate approaches that
try to characterize regions in terms of cultural similarties,
and they suggest that interactions and connectivity is a better approach
(Wilkinson 1993; Chase-Dunn and Jorgenson 2003).
Sociocultural Systemness
Systemic interaction in human
sociocultural systems is defined as two-way and regularized interaction that is
important for the reproduction or change of local social structures (Friedman
and Rowlands 1977; Chase-Dunn and Hall 1997). Sociocultural systemness
means largely self-contained interaction among a set of interdependent entities
that produces coherence and observable patterns.[2] Systemness is a variable. The
degree of systemness generally declines with
distance. Social scientists divide into “splitters” who emphasize the
uniqueness and autonomy of local social structures and “lumpers” who emphasize
the importance and systemic nature of long-distance connections. The intent
here is to propose some general rules for specifying the spatio-temporal
boundaries of largely separate and independent whole social systems that can be
accepted by those social scientists who wish to test propositions about the
causes of social change by comparing cases.
Since all polities[3] interact with adjacent neighboring
polities, the establishment of spatio-temporal
systemic boundaries requires using a place-centric approach.[4] A focal location must be chosen in order to answer the
question of what is included within this system and what is outside of it? The focal location could be a household or a
settlement or a polity or a set of adjacent polities. Since all known interpolity systems display systemic interaction among
directly adjacent territorial polities, we propose that the best way to
designate a focal locale is to pick five adjacent autonomous territorial
polities. These we shall call the focal
five.
Designating
the focal locale as five adjacent polities allows us to use a combination of
direct and short (one degree of separation) indirect linkages for designating
expansions of a system or mergers between two formerly separate systems. When a system expands the new connection is
typically formed between one of the polities in the focal locale with a polity
out on the edge, but not all of them. So, for example, when the Mesopotamian and Egyptian state
systems became linked, it was because some of the states (not all of them) in
the Mesopotamian system began having direct political-military relations with
Egypt. But not all the states in the Mesopotamian system did this. And the ones
that started direct warring with Egypt did not directly link with all the
states in the Egyptian interpolity system (e.g.
Kush). Allowing one degree of separation solves this problem and we shall do
that for each of the different kinds of systemic interaction discussed below.
Robert Hanneman et al 2016 propose an alternative method that uses data on whole
multidimensional networks and formal network analysis of modularity to
empirically locate systemic regions of concentrated interaction and
connectedness . This is a promising alternative approach to spatially bounding
interaction systems that should be compared with the place-centric approach
proposed here.
When
all human polities were nomadic foraging bands, before about 12,000 years ago,
there was already a single global network because all bands interacted with
their neighbors, but there was not yet a single global system. Systemic
interaction networks were small because the consequences of events and
activities at any point did not travel very far in space. Fall-off is the concept that
archaeologists (e.g. Renfrew 1975, 1977, Renfrew and Cherry 1986) have used to
comprehend the decline of effects over distance. Fall-off curves were short
when all polities were composed of nomadic foragers, and they may have become
somewhat shorter once sedentism emerged. Rather than
moving people to resources, as nomads did, sedentary people increased exchanges
among groups, using some goods that had been produced by people in other
groups. As exchange networks expanded,
the fall-off curve got longer. The question of systemness
requires a decision about where on the fall-off curve to draw a line. When the
fall-off curve gets to zero there are no consequential interactions between
locations A and B. Things that happen at A do not at all effect what happens as
B. So all systemic networks are located within the domain of their fall-off
curves. But systemness requires more than just
occasional or slight consequences.[5]
Exogenous vs. Endogenous Impacts
Both time and space are important
for determining sociocultural systemness. An
exploratory expedition or an incursion that does not result in regularized
alliance connections or two-way trade between the region of origin and the
region of arrival does not constitute systemic interaction. The arrival of
genetic materials (food crops), exotic tools or ideas, does not necessarily
constitute a systemic connection. These can be exogenous impacts and
they may have large one-time consequences for a local system, but not be part
of that system. A systemic connection is
developed when two regions come to expect future interaction or when people in
one region become dependent upon inputs coming from another region. Both
equal (symmetric) and unequal (asymmetric) exchange can be systemic. Two-way exchange does not necessarily mean
equal exchange. Repeated coercive
extraction of resources constitutes systemic interaction. Threats are an important type of interaction.
But human sociocultural systems are
subsystems within larger biological and geophysical systems (Hornborg and Crowley (2007). Human interactions with the
biosphere and the geosphere have always been, and continue to form important
constraints and to pose challenging opportunities for polities. And non-human
species often display forms of behavior that are similar to those known in
human world-systems (territoriality, warfare, demographic cycles, a complex
division of labor, etc.). Whereas geophysical processes such as global climate
change were once safely considered as exogenous causes of human social change,
that is no longer the case.
Nevertheless, it is important to develop methods for distinguishing
substantially autochthonous human sociocultural systems for purposes of
comparative study and hypothesis testing. When exogenous impacts are a
plausible cause of social change, as with climate change, these possible causes
must be included in models and in comparative research designs.
Nested Networks and Sociocultural Systemness
The specification of decision rules
is somewhat complicated by the observation that different kinds of important
interaction often have dissimilar spatial scales, and so may require somewhat
different decision rules. Thus we will propose decision rules for four
different kinds of potentially systemic interaction that take into account the
nature of the interaction processes and how they are affected by space and time.
These four networks are bulk goods systems, political-military systems, prestige
goods networks and information/communications networks. They are understood to
be spatially nested in most premodern whole systems (see Figure 1).
Figure 1: Nested Systemic Interaction Networks
This nested approach is already one
step toward distinguishing between degrees of systemness
because bulk goods interaction networks and political/military networks are
always systemic, whereas the larger prestige goods and information networks are
only systemic in some cases.
The world-systems perspective in
both the Frankian and Wallersteinian versions have
emphasized the importance of core/periphery relations. Chase-Dunn and Hall (1997)
agreed that interpolity hierarchies are often crucial
for prehension of the nature particular systems and
for explaining social change, but they also allow for the possibility that some
small-scale world-systems in the past have not had core/periphery hierarchies
based on asymmetrical interactions among polities. This allows for the study of
the emergence and evolution of core/periphery hierarchies. Chase-Dunn and Hall
also point out that the issue of whether or not interpolity
interactions are exploitative or not needs to be asked at each level of the
nested interaction networks.
Bulk
Goods Systems
Food and other resources that are
heavy relative to their “value” (so-called “bulk” goods) do not travel very
far, but they are systemic in all human polities.[6] Most bulk goods
are obtained locally, but in many interpolity systems
some bulk goods are obtained across polity boundaries, either by trade or
raiding, or both. Eventually the bulk goods network caught up with the larger
networks to produce the global system of today. But in earlier eras systemic interaction
networks were nested as depicted in Figure 1.
Gills and Frank (1991; see also Frank
and Gills, 1993) proposed that polities that exchange surplus product with one
another are systemically connected and that these connections extend to all the
polities that are indirectly connected. By this logic they assert that there
was a single Afroeurasian-wide world system that
became connected with the Americas at the end of the fifteenth century CE. They
also imply that both trade and information/communications flows are important
aspects of systemness (see below). The observation that all polities are in
interaction with their neighbors and so, if we count all indirect connections,
there is a single global (or hemispheric) network is correct. But, as Charles
Tilly (1984:62) observed, indirect
connectedness does not necessarily constitute systemness. It all depends on the rate at which the
consequences of connections decreases over space – the fall-off curve. Both bulk and prestige goods involve surplus
product transfers and interdependence, but these different kinds of exchange
have very dissimilar spatial ranges.[7]
How should the spatial boundaries of the bulk goods system
be delimited? The focal locale is
conceived as five autonomous adjacent polities. Starting from this focal locale,
all other polities that are the source of bulk goods constituting at least five
percent of total bulk goods consumption
and obtained at least once in an average year by any of the five focal polities
are part of the systemic bulk goods network (see Figure 2). This usually
includes all, or most, adjacent polities and some polities that are
non-adjacent. We also include polities
that are not directly connected with the focal five, but that are connected by
one degree of separation. How far the bulk goods network extends is a function
of transportation technology and the institutional nature of production and
exchange.
Many scholars have pointed out
that the sovereign boundaries between polities were not as institutionalized in
the past as they have become today (e.g. Hall 2016). While this is obviously
true, it does not mean that earlier polities were not territorial. Even nomadic
hunter-gatherers and pastoralists have notions of collective property regarding
use rights over places. In ethnographically-known systems of sedentary
foragers, such as existed in precontact California,
trespass involving the unauthorized use of gathering or hunting sites was a
major cause of disputes and warfare among tribelets. In precontact
Hawaii territorial boundaries between autonomous chiefdoms and regions within
chiefdoms (ahuapua) were formally marked by posts on
trails. So the idea that boundaries
between polities were so amorphous in premodern worlds that the notion of an interpolity system is inappropriate simple does not hold
water. Certainly there were many regions
in which boundaries were contested, as they still are, but the basic logic of
geopolitical competition for territory was already operating among nomadic hunter-gatherers
and also operated when the boundaries were fuzzy.
Figure 2: The Bulk Goods Systemic Network of Five Focal Polities
The Political/Military System
Interpolity political-military systems are sets of polities that
make war and alliances with one another.[8]
As with other networks, this requires specification of a focal locale, because
all polities make war or alliances with neighboring polities. Systemness at this level is about the ability of polities
to provide protection for their members from attacks from other polities and
the distances over which power can be projected in order to force compliance or
to produce influence. Warfare is understood to involve both actual attacks and
threats of attacks. Alliances are
understood as agreement to provide material support and actual provision of
such support. Formal agreements and informal understandings involving the
exchange of diplomats and/or cross-polity marriages are sometimes indicators of
such alliances.[9]
The big issue here is whether or not
political/military systemness can extend beyond
direct interaction. David Wilkinson’s method of bounding interpolity
interaction systems requires direct and sustained interactions, which is a very
high bar of systemness. We find it plausible to
contend that systemic political/military interaction should include at least
one degree of separation, meaning that the neighbors of one’s neighbors also
usually have an important impact on security, geopolitical processes and
opportunities to obtain resources.
Wilkinson describes the merger of
the Egyptian and Mesopotamian interstate systems to form what he calls Central
Civilization as follows: “The merger of the
Mesopotamian and Egyptian interpolity
systems began as a result of Eighteenth Dynasty Egypt’s invasions, conquests,
and diplomatic relations with states of the Southwest Asian (Mesopotamian)
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 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 personal communication
Friday, April 15, 2011).[10]
Regarding the incorporation of the
Indic PMN into the Central PMN, Wilkinson does not count the Alexandrian
conquests in India because that linkage was temporary. So the Indic PMN was first permanently
connected to the Central PMN in CE 1008 when Mahmud of Ghazni
conquered North India.[11]
By Wilkinson’s rule the East Asian
interstate system did not become permanently connected to the Central PMN until
the European states established treaty ports in China in the 19th
century CE. The PMN connection between
the East and the West formed by the Mongol Empire was temporary. [12] The decision to
allow one degree of indirect connection would probably result in an earlier
date for the merger of the Central and East Asian PMNs. Allowing one degree of separation makes it
easier to depict the merging of two state systems while still retaining the
focal locale approach developed here. If only direct connections count, Egypt
would get added to the Central PMN, but not the adjacent states that were part
of the Egyptian PMN prior to the merger.
The abstract formulation of our
geopolitical connectedness principle is as follows: beginning with a focal five
adjacent territorial polities, both direct conflicts or strong alliances with
any of the focal five constitute systemness and so
does one degree of separation. The neighbors of neighbors affect decisions and
opportunities, and so they are included in the PMN. This is a slight
modification of what appears to be Wilkinson’s decision rule to include only
direct connections. But the spirit of
the high bar of connectedness is honored here.
The Prestige Goods Network
Prestige goods are high value goods that are worth
transporting long distances. They are generally light and resistant to decay,
which makes them transportable over long distances.[13] The most famous historical prestige
goods network is the East/West caravan trade across the several routes that
were called the Silk Road and the maritime routes around South Asia that
connected the Mediterranean and the Indian Ocean with East and Southeast Asia.
These routes emerged well before the Han and Roman Empires. Archaeologists know
that valuables were traded over long distances in the precontact
Americas as well.
Prestige goods are systemic in some systems but not in others. Economic anthropologists
(e.g. Johnson and Earle 2000:
257-258) distinguish between staple and wealth finance systems. In staple
systems bulk goods are exchanged and accumulated by elites and symbols of value
do not play a big role in the processes of production, reproduction and
accumulation. Valuables may be used for decoration, but they are not important
to the political economy. This is what Wallerstein meant by “presciosities.” In wealth finance systems prestige goods
come to play an important role as storable wealth that facilitates exchange
within and between polities and may be important in reproducing hierarchies.[14]
What are good rules of thumb for determining the spatial
scale of prestige goods systemic networks? Prestige goods exchanges in small scale-systems
are often structured as “down-the-line” trade in which goods move from group to
group and there are no long-distance merchants. There are different ways in
which prestige goods can be systemic. The large literature on prestige goods systems usually points
to how local elites use their monopoly over exotic goods to shore up their
power over subalterns. If you cannot get married without this special exotic
pot and these are only available from Uncle Joe, Joe has a lot of leverage over
when you can get married and probably whom you can marry (Meillausoux
1981; Peregrine 1991; Helms 1988, 1992)). But another way that prestige goods
can be important for local social structures is when they serve as proto-money
– a storable medium of value that can be used to obtain other necessities
during times of scarcity. This use of proto-money in indigenous California
allowed trade to substitute for raiding during periods of scarcity (Vayda 1967; Chase-Dunn and Mann 1998).[15]
Flows of prestige goods are also commonly organized as
tribute payments extracted by a powerful empire or by a marcher state that
threatens an empire. The Chinese trade/tribute system was a complex combination
of trade and symbolic tribute payments that the Chinese dynasties required of
their trading partners. As with bulk goods, prestige goods exchanges can be
either symmetrical or asymmetrical mixes of coercion and cooperation.
The first issue is whether or
not imported prestige goods are playing a systemic role in the reproduction or
change of local social structures. This is best indicated by the distinction
between staple and wealth finance described above. In staple finance systems
prestige goods are unlikely to be systemic. In wealth finance systems they are
very likely to be systemic. Of course some systems combine wealth and staple
finance, and for these the call can be made by examining the extent to which
social structures are dependent on the importation or export of prestige goods.
Once this is decided the question becomes how far to include exchange partners
in the system. As with other systemic networks, there is a fall-off curve. Once again we begin with a focal five adjacent territorial
polities.
As
a rule of thumb for prestige goods in a wealth finance political economy we
propose that, when 5% percent or more of the total yearly importation of
prestige goods comes from a polity to any one of the focal five
polities, that polity should be included in the PGN. The issue of degrees of separation is not
crucial because of the nature of down-the-line trade structures. In such
systems trade goods obtained from neighbors may have passed through many hands.
If 5% by weight or more of total prestige goods imports has come to at least one of the focal
five polities from a distant polity,
that distant
polity should be considered to be within the PGN of the focal five.
The Information/Communications Network
World historian William H. McNeill (1990) noted
that information flows transmitted by humans has often had important
consequences for social change. In
response to McNeill’s prodding Chase-Dunn and Hall (1997) included information
networks as one of the types of interaction that can be systemic. As indicated
in Figure 1 above, information networks in nested systems were hypothesized to be somewhat larger than
prestige goods networks. There has been very of little investigation of the
systemic nature of information networks (but see Neal 2015; 2016) and little study of how to spatially and
temporally bound them. As Neal (2016) notes, information is ubiquitous and so
the discussion in human interaction networks requires that we focus on flows of
information among groups of humans – communications. Communications flows are obviously an
important component of the reproduction and change of local social structures
in both small-scale and complex systems. The structure of attention and
communication within small groups, organizations and states is a well-known
central component of political and economic processes (Deutsch 1966). Cross-cultural
communication is an important aspect of geopolitical and economic relations in
multicultural networks. Messengers, line-of-sight signaling, multilingualism and
both sign and oral trade languages are known in even small-scale systems like
that of indigenous California. Communications technologies have reflected and
transformed the nature of historical empires (Innis 1972[1950]) and the modern
global system has been importantly impacted by the emergence of the telegraph,
the radio, the telephone and now the Internet (Hugill
1999, Zook 2005).
But is the information/communications network
itself systemic beyond the roles it plays in bulk goods, political-military and
exchange networks? Are systemic information networks usually larger than prestige goods networks because
information is even lighter than prestige goods and so has a longer fall-off
curve?
Several of the same issues raised in the
discussion of bulk goods, political-military and prestige goods networks can be
asked about information/communications networks. How much information transfer
is necessary in order to constitute systemness
according to the high bar criterion advocated above. Do information flows play
different roles in dissimilar systems in the reproduction and transformation of
local social structures? What are the typical shapes of information fall-off
curves, and at what point on the curve is it prudent to draw the line between
systemic inclusion and exclusion? Do information flows need to be two-way in
order to be systemic?
As with
other exogenous impacts discussed above, some information flows are episodic and should
not be considered as systemic. So the high bar of two-way flows is probably a
good requirement.
Information can be quantified by
counting messages. Of course some
messages are long and others are short. But, for comparisons across space and
time, counts of the number of messages allow for the estimation fall-off
curves. In small-scale systems reports of unusual events (news) spread from
group to group. Part of information fall-off is due to the decay of information
accuracy that occurs because of errors that occur when messages are translated
from one language into another.[16]
Cora DuBois’s (2007[1939]) study of the
diffusion of the 1870 ghost dance from Western Nevada (Walker River Paiute) to Native
Americans in Northern California and Southern Oregon shows how far new ideas spread
and the processes of change that occurred as an ideological innovation became
adapted to local conditions. Both the 1870 and the more famous 1890 ghost
dancers believed that the Indians that had died were going to return and that
all the whites would die, and that in order to bring on this millenarian event
believers needed to dance a special dance and sing special songs. The ghost dance has been seen by social
scientists as a “revitalization movement” in which indigenous societies were
adapting to the radical changes brought by the arrival of Europeans to their
world (Wallace 1956).
The distances involved in the diffusion of the
1870 ghost dance were probably greater than when earlier ideologies spread
across indigenous polities because some Indians had acquired the use of horses
and wagons by the 1870s --- transportation technologies that had not been
available to their ancestors. The spatial scale of the spread of the 1890s
version of the ghost dance was much larger (Smoak 2006), probably reflecting the
further lowering of transportation and communications costs for indigenous
peoples between the 1870s and the 1890s.
DuBois’s study shows that the diffusion of cult
messages among preliterate populations[17] mixed direct contacts made by prophets who
traveled to distant peoples to tell the word with down-the-line processes in
which local entrepreneurs heard about the new dances and songs and made up
their own versions. She also notes that the diffusion was uneven. Groups that
had not been very disrupted by the arrival of the whites were less likely to
become involved with the ghost dance. The old “sucking doctors” (shamans who
cured by extracting bad spirits) resisted the new “dream doctors” who preached
a nontraditional vision of the dead and encouraged women and children to
participate in the ritual dances (from which they had formerly been excluded
because of alleged spiritual dangers).
The sucking doctors in regions that were more remote, and so less disrupted, were able
to convince their co-villagers to reject the ghost dance. The local entrepreneurs mixed ideas from the
Paiute ghost dance with older cults ( e.g. Kuksu,
Bole Maru) to
produce new combinations for local, neighboring and more distant audiences, and
so the content of the rituals became modified as they traveled.[18]
This example is not ideal for the purpose of
estimating the information/communications fall-off curve for precontact America because we cannot be sure how much of
the process of information diffusion had been affected by the arrival of the Europeans.
We know that earlier cults, dances and songs had spread across linguistic
groups in indigenous California. But we do not know about the spatial
characteristics of those diffusions because they are invisible in
archaeological evidence. But the 1870
ghost dance suggests that the information network was larger than the prestige
goods network. We know from archaeological evidence that prestige goods
exchanges in late prehistoric Northern California utilized clam disk shell
beads as protomoney. These beads were produced mainly
by the Pomo who lived around Clear Lake, about 500 kilometers from the northern
edge of the clam disk bead exchange network. The farthest distance that the
1870 ghost dance is known to have traveled is about 800 kilometers from Walker
Lake to central Oregon.
Some anthropologists contend that information
traveled very far and rapidly across indigenous polities in indigenous America (Peregrine
and Lekson 2006, 2012; Smith and Fauvelle
2015) forming a continent-wide “oikoumene.” Noting inspiration from Frank’s (1998, see
also Gills and Frank 1991) idea that there was a single Afroeurasian
world system since the emergence of cities and states in Mesopotamia, Smith and
Fauvelle (2015) cite ethnohistorical
reports that seem to substantiate the idea that very long-distance
transportation and communication networks existed in Pre-Columbian North
America.[19] They
note Frank and Gills’s idea that important systemic connections based on trade and information flows should result in increasingly
synchronous waves of polity formation between connected regions. [20] Smith and Fauvelle
(2015) contend that waves of the emergence of sociopolitical complexity in precontact Southern California and the U.S. Southwest
(Arizona, New Mexico and Northern Mexico) reveal synchrony and support the
existence of systemic inter-regional connections. As noted above, the Frank and
Gills approach to systemic connectedness combines the idea of trade and
information connections, and does not explicitly consider the issue of
fall-off. Nevertheless the ethnohistorical evidence of long-distance information flows
cited by Peregrine, Lekson, Smith and Fauvelle suggests the need for closer attention to the
issue of systemness in the precontact
Americas.
We
propose that systemic information networks are most likely to be spatially
associated with prestige goods networks and to be more important in
systems that are organized around wealth finance than in those organized around
staple finance.. The rules of thumb that we
have proposed above for spatially bounding prestige goods
networks can also be used for bounding information
networks
in most cases. As with the case with prestige goods networks, the first task is
to determine whether or not two-way information/communications from distant
sources is playing a systemic role in the reproduction or transformation of
local social structures in some of the five focal polities. A strong clue is whether or not prestige
goods are playing a systemic role.
The nested networks with a focal locale of five
polities is depicted in Figure 3. The center of Figure 3 is the same as the
bulk goods network of the five focal polities shown in Figure 2. Figure 3 does
not display all the interactions, but only those that are needed for estimating
the spatial scale of the political-military, prestige goods and information
networks. As with PMNs and PGNs one degree of separation is allowed.
Figure 3: Nested networks systemically connecting five
focal polities
Spatial
Bounding of PMNs and PGNs In State Systems
The ISA-sponsored Workshop on Systemic Boundaries is intended to interrogate and develop general and
consensual decision rules regarding the spatial and temporal boundaries of
substantially independent whole interaction systems that can be used for
comparative research using these regional systems as units of analysis. The
workshop will also examine the decision rules proposed above and will examine
David Wilkinson’s decisions about when and where the Central PMN expanded and incorporated
other interstate systems.
The following tables designate some
of Wilkinson’s bounding proposals and indicate problematic cases in the spatio-temporal bounding of international systems and trade
networks. Some of the issues involve the timing of
emergent linkages among regional networks that were not yet connected with the
Central PMN (e.g. when did the East Asian and Southeast Asian PMNs become
connected?). We will also examine the implications of the problem
cases for the specification of the general decision rules proposed above.
In order to apply the place-centric
approach to regional systems Wilkinson focusses on those areas in which large
cities first emerged. So he begins the spatial bounding of regions as soon as
they have a largest city with at least 20,000 residents. The decision rules
developed above have been designed to be useful no matter how big the
settlements are, and for starting at any place where humans polities (including
bands, tribes, chiefdoms and states) are present. But Wilkinson’s systemic
regions start with those areas that have cities of a certain size. This is a
convenient approach that facilitates the task of developing scholarly consensus
regarding the designation of a set of whole systems that researchers can
compare.
|
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/engulfment of
thirteen state 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 merger/engulfment of
thirteen prestige goods systems
*Starts when largest city reaches a
population size of 20,000
Political/military
networks (PMNs) since the Bronze Age
We begin bounding PMNs by focusing
on those five focal adjacent polities in which at least one of the focal five
contains a city with a residential population of at least 20,000 humans. These
focal five polities are the focal locale of the direct and indirect political/military
links. An alliance or war between any of the focal five polities and a distant
polity constitutes a link for the whole PMN that is being bounded and the
system extends to one indirect political/military link.
This allows one indirect link or one
degree of separation. Direct links can
exist between non-adjacent polities if they travel across other polities to
engage in warfare or the kinds of links that are involved in alliances (gift
exchanges, intermarriages, treaties, communications, diplomatic missions, etc.).
So each PMN consists of a set of five focal polities and those polities
elsewhere with which one or more of the focal polities are directly engaging in
warfare or alliances and it extends to the polities that are one degree of
separation from the focal polities.
Incursions in which a group invades
a territory but is not under the control of the polity from which it came
(Vikings, sea peoples, etc.) do not constitute a PMN link with the polity from
which they came. But if the invading
group does continue its relationship with its polity of origin then it does
constitute a systemic link.
Prestige
goods networks (PGNs) since the Bronze Age
A prestige goods network is a set of
polities that are exchanging significant amounts of
prestige goods with one another. In order to spatially bound such networks we
must pick a set of five focal polities, because all polities trade with their
immediate neighbors. Once again we begin
bounding PGNs by focusing on that set of five adjacent polities in which at
least one contains a city with a population of at least 20,000 residents.
In
the case of exchange links, systemness depends on the
amount and importance of imported and exported prestige goods for maintaining
or changing local social structures. In
some PGNs imported prestige goods facilitate interpolity
cooperation. In others prestige goods are used by local elites to control
subalterns. In both of these kinds of prestige goods systems important goods
may be obtained from indirect down-the-line trade in which goods move from
polity to polity. In such cases it makes sense to not limit the PGN boundaries
to direct links, but to allow as many indirect links as are involved in the
network of significant provisions. When 5% percent or more of the total yearly
importation of prestige goods comes from a polity
to any one of the focal five polities, that polity should be included in the PGN.
Our proposed decision rules are tentative.
We invite critical discussion and proposals for improving this formulation.
References
Abu-Lughod, Janet L.
1989 Before European
Hegemony: The World System A.D.
1250-1350. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
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.
Arnold, Jeanne
E. (ed.) 2004 Foundations of Chumash
Complexity. Perspective in California
Archaeology, Volume 7. University of
California, Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute.
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.
Bolton, Herbert
E. 1908 Spanish Exploration in the
Southwest, 1542–1706. New York: Barnes and Noble.
________________1930
Font’s Complete Diary of the Second Anza
Expedition. Anza’s California Expeditions,4.
Berkeley: University
of California Press.
Chase-Dunn,
Christopher 1998 Global
Formation: Structures of the
World-Economy. 2nd Edition. Lanham, MD:
Rowman and
Littlefield
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, C., Hiroko Inoue, Alexis Alvarez, Rebecca Alvarez, E.
N. Anderson and Teresa
Neal 2015 “Uneven
Urban Development:Largest Cities since the Late
Bronze Age”
Presented at the annual conference of the American Sociological
Association, Chicago,
August 24, 2015
https://irows.ucr.edu/papers/irows98/irows98.htm
Chase-Dunn, C. Daniel Pasciuti, Alexis Alvarez and Thomas D. Hall. 2006 “Waves of
Globalization
and Semiperipheral Development in the Ancient Mesopotamian and
Egyptian World-
Systems” Pp.
114-138 in Barry Gills and William R. Thompson (eds.),
Globalization
and Global History London: Routledge.
Chase-Dunn, C. and Andrew K. Jorgenson, “Regions
and Interaction Networks: an institutional
materialist
perspective” 2003 International Journal of Comparative Sociology
44,1:433-450.
Chase-Dunn, C. and T.D. Hall 1997 Rise and Demise: Comparing World-Systems.
Boulder, CO: Westview
Press.
Christopher Chase-Dunn and
Thomas D. Hall, 1998 "World-Systems in North America:
Networks,
Rise
and Fall and Pulsations of Trade in Stateless Systems," American Indian Culture and
Research Journal 22,1:23-72. http://wsarch.ucr.edu/archive/papers/c-d&hall/isa97.htm
Christopher
Chase-Dunn 2010 “Evolution of Nested Networks in the Prehistoric U.S. Southwest:
A
Comparative World-Systems
Approach”. Evolution: An Interdisciplinary Almanac.
https://irows.ucr.edu/papers/irows24/irows24.htm
Chase-Dunn, Christopher and Bruce Lerro 2014. Social Change: Globalization from
the Stone Age to the
Present. Boulder,
CO: Paradigm.
Chase-Dunn,
Christopher and Kelly M. Mann 1998 The Wintu and
Their Neighbors: A very Small World-System in Northern California
Tucson:
University of Arizona Press.
Curtin,
Philip D. 1984. Cross-Cultural Trade in World History Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Davis,
Jeffrey Edward 2010 Hand Talk: Sign Language Among American
Indian Nations. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Deutsch,
Karl W. 1966 Nationalism and social communication; an inquiry
into the foundations
of nationality, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
DuBois, Cora 2007
[1939] The 1870 Ghost Dance. Lincoln,
University of Nebraska Press.
Ekholm, Kasja and Jonathan Friedman 1982. “’Capital’ imperialism
and exploitation in the
ancient world-systems” Review 6:1
(summer): 87-110.
Frank, Andre Gunder 1998 Reorient.
Berkeley: University of California Press
Frank, Andre Gunder and Barry K. Gills
( eds.) 1993. The World
System: Five Hundred Years or Five
Thousand? London: Routledge.
Friedman, Jonathan and Michael Rowlands 1977 "Notes Towards an Epigenetic Model of
the Evolution of 'Civilization'."
Pp.
201-278 in The Evolution of Social
Systems, edited by J. Friedman and M. J. Rowlands. London:
Duckworth (also published in same title and
pages, University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, 1978).
Gills, Barry K.
and Andre G. Frank 1991 “5000 Years of World System History: The Cumulation of
Accumulation” Pp. 67-113 in C.
Chase-Dunn and T.D. Hall (eds) Core/Periphery Relations in
Precapitalist
Worlds. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
http://www.irows.ucr.edu/cd/books/c-p/chap3.htm
Gills, Barry K.
and William R. Thompson 2006 Globalization
and Global History. London: Routledge.
Hall, Thomas D. 1986. "Incorporation into the
World-system: Toward a
Critique." American Sociological Review 51:3(June):390-402.
_____________2016 “Bounding the fuzzy zone at the
edges of world-systems” Paper to be presented at the ISA-sponsored
workshop on Systemic Boundaries,
UC-Riverside, March 5
Hanneman, Robert
A. 2016 “Network boundaries and systemness” paper presented at the
workshop on “Systemic Boundaries” Institute for
Research on World-Systems. University of
California-Riverside, March 5.
Helms,
Mary W. 1988. Ulysses'
Sail: An Ethnographic Odyssey of Power,
Knowledge, and Geographical
Distance.
Princeton:
_____. 1992.
"Long-distance Contacts, Elite Aspirations, and the Age of Discovery
in
Cosmological
Context." Pp. 157-174 in Resources, Power, and Interregional
Interaction, edited by
Edward
Schortman and Patricia Urban.
Hornborg, Alf and Carole Crumley (eds) 2007 The World System and the Earth System. Walnut
Creek,
CA: Left Coast Press.
Hugill, Peter J. 1999 Global Communications Since 1844:
Geopolitics and Technology. Baltimore, MD: Johns
Hopkins University Press.
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 2016 “East Asia, Southeast Asia, Central System PMN and Trade
network” A paper to be
presented at the workshop on systemic
boundaries, University of California-Riverside, March 5
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.
Johnson,
Allen W. and Timothy Earle 2000, The
evolution of human societies, 2nd. edition. Stanford: Stanford University
Press
Lenski, Gerhard, Jean Lenski
and Patrick Nolan 1995. Human
Societies: An Introduction to Macrosociology, seventh edition.
New York:
McGraw-Hill.
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.
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.
McNeill, William
H. 1990 "The Rise of the West
after Twenty-Five Years." Journal
of World History 1:1-21 (reprinted in
Civilizations and
World-Systems: Two Approaches to the
Study of World-Historical Change, edited by
Stephen K. Sanderson.
Walnut Creek,
CA: Altamira Press).
Meillassoux, Claude 1981 Maidens,
Meal and Money: Capitalism and the Domestic Community. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Melko, Matthew and Leighton
R. Scott (eds.) 1987 The
Boundaries of Civilizations in Space and Time.
Modelski, George 2008 “Globalization as evolutionary
process” Pp. 11-29 in George Modelski, Tessaleno Devezas and
William R.
Thompson (eds.) Globalization as
Evolutionary Process. London: Routledge.
Morris,
Ian 2013. The Measure of Civilization. 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.
Neal, Teresa 2015 ““What is the
Information Network and how is it found in the pre-modern
world-system?” Presented at the
annual meeting of the California Sociological Association,
Sacramento, November 13.
_________2016 ““The Indian Ocean System: military and trade systemic
connectedness with the
Central East Asia, Southeast Asia
and Central Asia" A paper to be presented at the
workshop on systemic boundaries,
University of California-Riverside, March 5
Peregrine, Peter N. 1991
"Prehistoric Chiefdoms on the American Mid-continent: A
World-system Based on
Prestige Goods." Pp. 193-211 in Core/Periphery
Relations in
Precapitalist Worlds, edited by
Christopher Chase-Dunn and Thomas D. Hall.
Boulder, CO:
Westview Press.
________________
and Stephen H. Lekson 2006 “Southeast, Southwest, Mexico:
Continental
Perspectives on Mississippian Polities”
Pp. 351-374 in Leadership and Polity in
Mississippian
Society. Brian M. Butler and Paul D.Welch,(eds) Carbondale: Southern Illinois University
Press.
____________________________________2012”The
North American Oikoumene” Pp. 64-72 in
The
Oxford Handbook of North American Archaeology. Timothy R. Pauketat, (ed.) Oxford:
Oxford University Press
Renfrew, Colin R. 1975. "Trade as Action at a Distance: Questions of Integration and
Communication."
Pp. 3-59 in Ancient
Civilization and Trade, edited by J. A. Sabloff
and C. C. Lamborg‑Karlovsky.
Albuquerque, NM: University of
New Mexico Press.
_____. 1977. "Alternative Models for Exchange and
Spatial Distribution." Pp. 71-90 in
Exchange Systems in Prehistory, edited by T. J.
Earle and T. Ericson. New York: Academic Press.
Renfrew, Colin R. and John F. Cherry, eds. 1986 Peer Polity
Interaction and Socio-political Change.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kannan, Rajgopal, Lydia Ray and
Sudipta Sarengi 2007 “The Structure of Information Networks”
Economic Theory, 30,
119-134
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.
Schneider,
Jane. 1977 "Was There A Pre-capitalist
World-system?" Peasant Studies
6:1:20-29.
(Reprinted pp. 45-66 in Core/Periphery
Relations in Precapitalist Worlds, edited by
Christopher Chase-Dunn and Thomas D. Hall.
Boulder, CO: Westview Press). http://www.irows.ucr.edu/cd/books/c-p/cprel.htm
Smith, Erin and Mikael Fauvelle
2015 “Regional Interactions between California and the Southwest:
The
Western Edge of the North American Continental System” American Anthropologist 117,
4:710–721
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.
Smoak, Gregory
E. 2006 Ghost Dances and Identity
Berkeley: University of California Press
Thompson, William R. 2002 “Testing a Cyclical Instability
Theory in the Ancient Near East.”
Comparative Civilizations Review
46 (Spring): 34-78.
__________________ 2004 “Eurasian
C-Wave Crises in the First Millennium B.C.E.,” in Eugene
Anderson
and Christopher Chase-Dunn, eds., The Historical Evolution of World-Systems New
York:
Palgrave-Macmillan
___________________ 2004 “Complexity,
Diminishing Marginal Returns, and Fragmentation in
Ancient Mesopotamia.” Journal of World-Systems
Research 10, 3; 613-652.
___________________ and Andre Gunder
Frank 2005 “Bronze Age Economic Expansion and
Contraction Revisited.” Journal of World History
16, 2: 115-72
_______________________________________
2006 “Early Iron Age Economic Expansion and
Contraction
Revisited,” in Barry K. Gills and William R. Thompson (eds.), Globalization
and
Global
History. London: Routledge
Thompson, William R. 2006 “Early
Globalization, Trade Crises, and Reorientations in the Ancient
Near
East,” Pp. 33-59 in Oystein S. LaBianca
and Sandra Schram
(eds.), Connectivity in
Antiquity:
Globalization as Long-term Historical Process.
London: Equinox
__________________ 2006 ”Crises
in the Southwest Asian Bronze Age.” Nature and Culture
[Leipzig] 1:88-131.
__________________ 2006 “Climate,
Water and Political-economic Crises in Ancient
Mesopotamia
and Egypt,” in Alf Hornborg and Carole Crumley,eds., The World System and the
Earth
System: Global Socio-environmental Change and Sustainability Since the
Neolithic.
Oakland, Ca.:
Left
Coast Books
Tilly, Charles 1984 Big Structures, Large
Processes, Huge Comparisons. New York: Russell Sage
Foundation.
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
Vayda, Andrew
P. 1967 "Pomo trade feasts." Pp.494-500 in George Dalton (ed.) Tribal
and Peasant
Economies. Garden
City, NY: Natural History Press.
Wallace,
A.F.C. 1956 “Revitalization movements” American Anthropologist 58: Pp 264-281.
Wallerstein,
Immanuel. 2011 [1974] The Modern
World-System, Vol. 1: Capitalist
Agriculture and the Origins of the European
World-Economy in
the Sixteenth Century. New
York: Academic. Republished 2011 by
University of California Press.
Wallerstein 1976 “Three stages of African
involvement into the world-economy” in Peter C.W.
Gutkind and Immanuel Wallerstein (eds.) Volume 1. Beverly
Hills, CA; Sage.
Wilkinson, David. 1976. "Central civilization." Comparative Civilizations Review
7(Fall):31-59.
_____. 1987 "The Connectedness Criterion and Central
Civilization." Pp. 25-29 in
The Boundaries of Civilizations in Space and Time, edited by Matthew Melko and Leighton R. Scott.
Lanham, MD.: University Press of America.
_____. 1991 "Cores, Peripheries and Civilizations." Pp. 113-166 in Core/Periphery Relations in
Precapitalist Worlds,
edited by Christopher
Chase-Dunn and Thomas D. Hall. Boulder,
CO: Westview Press.
_____. 1992 "Cities, Civilizations and Oikumenes: I." Comparative
Civilizations Review 27(Fall):51-87.
_____. 1993a. "Cities, Civilizations and Oikumenes: II."
Comparative Civilizations Review 28(Spring):41-72.
_____. 1993b. "Civilizations, Cores, World-Economies
and Oikumenes."
Pp. 221-246 in Frank and Gills (eds.)
The World System: 500 Years or 5000? London: Routledge.
_____. 1995 "Civilizations are World
Systems!" Pp. 234-246 in Civilizations
and World-Systems:
Two Approaches to the Study of
World-Historical Change, edited by Stephen K.
Sanderson. Walnut Creek, CA:
Altamira Press.
________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
_____________ 2016 “Political Linkage Archetypes” paper to be
presented at the ISA-sponsored
workshop on Systemic Boundaries,
UC-Riverside, March 5
http://wsarch.ucr.edu/archive/conferences/confname/archetype.docx
A bibliography of Wilkinson’s
publications is available at
http://wsarch.ucr.edu/archive/conferences/confname/wilkinsonbib.docx
Zook, Matthew A. 2005
The Geography of the Internet.
Malden, MA: Blackwell