The World-System(s) of the Indian
Ocean
Christopher
Chase-Dunn and Teresa Neal
Institute for
Research on World-Systems
University of
California-Riverside
v. 2-16-18; 4869 words
Forthcoming Hommage to Philippe Beaujard to be edited by Delphine BURGUET, Sarah FEE and Samuel
F. SANCHEZ. This is IROWS Working Paper #123 available at https://irows.ucr.edu/papers/irows123/irows123.htm
Finding
a systemic relationship of trade and exchange in pre-modern times helps to
establish a theoretical framework for studying world history and sociocultural
evolution that is de-centered from European hegemonic history. The comparative
evolutionary world-systems perspective does this a priori by analyzing small, medium and large whole human
interaction networks to describe and explain the evolution of complexity and
hierarchy in human societies and in interpolity systems (Chase-Dunn and Hall
1997; Chase-Dunn and Lerro 2016). Conventionally the cases used for purposes of
comparing whole world-systems focus on places where large settlements and
polities first emerged (Inoue, et al
2012; 2015), but it is also useful to start by focusing on whole world regions
such as the Indian Ocean. Influenced by Fernand Braudel’s study of the
Mediterranean, K. N. Chaudhuri adopted a view of the Indian Ocean as a place
where climate, geography, and the “everyday lives of people” merged to form a
cohesive unit of analysis (Chaudhuri, 1985). The study and comparison of
regions, especially seas and oceans, has a long pedigree in social science and world
history. It focuses our attention on how small localized interaction networks
expanded, merged and became fused into larger multicultural systems.[1] Studying the Indian
Ocean as a world region provides a valuable jumping-off point for examination
of how a great expanse of water containing islands and surrounded by important land-masses
was the locus of the emergence of complex societies, their interactions with
less complex societies and the development of large-scale multicultural
interaction networks based on communications, trade and migration, diplomacy
and warfare (Alpers 2009, 2014). Continental land
masses surround the Indian Ocean, and, except for Antarctica, each has its own
story of the evolution of human social complexity and hierarchy. The Indic subcontinent (South Asia) pokes
down into the Indian Ocean from the North, giving it its name, but in this
multi-polar system, eastern Africa, the Islamic sultanates, Persia and China
along with South Asia, drove systemic interactivities of trade, communications
and political/military engagement.
The
works of Philippe Beaujard make unique contributions to our knowledge of Afro-Eurasia
and the Indian Ocean as well as to the processes of systemic expansion (and
contraction) that have been going on since the emergence of horticulture.
Beaujard’s insightful analyses of world-systemic issues such as core/periphery
relations (2005; 2010) provide illuminating insights. His magisterial world
history of the Indian Ocean[2] (2009, 2012, 2018) follows
and was inspired by his earlier close ethnohistorical studies of East Africa
and Madagascar where, over the last several decades, he has done ethnographic field
work. His world-systemic theoretical
approach has produced a detailed summary and analysis of how local social
structures have been influenced by the diffusion of biota, long-distance trade
and migration. And he proposes an
insightful account of the rise of Neolithic and Bronze Age systemic interaction
networks with special emphasis on the importance of long-distance trade for
both reproducing and transforming social structures. His analysis of the
importance of Indian Ocean luxury trades confirms the tradition in the
anthropological literature that theorizes about prestige goods economies
(Schneider 1991; Peregrine 1991),[3] but he also notes that
the long-distance diffusion of important bulk goods crops, such as bananas, imply
that prestige goods traders also carried bulk goods on their long voyages
(Beaujard 2009; Robertshaw 2006). Beaujard also focusses on communication
networks and the diffusion of religious ideas that generally followed trade
routes. And he contends that core, peripheral and
semiperipheral polities co-evolved with one another despite interpolity
exploitation and domination.
Small Worlds in the Indian Ocean
Before
the emergence of long-distance traders in the Indian Ocean there were very
small world-systems. Nomadic foraging peoples moved in seasonal migration circuits
and, before the emergence of horticulture, Mesolithic diversified foragers
began living in winter villages, the precursors of sedentism. The emergence of
planting allowed villages to be larger and small-scale trade and warfare
networks linked shore-living fishing peoples with inland hunters, forming local
interpolity spatial divisions of labor that were not hierarchical (Tosi 1986). Shore-living peoples used boats and they expanded coastal exchange
networks that connected regions with different resources. These world-systems
were small because transportation and communication technologies were good
enough to systemically link polities to their neighbors and the neighbors of
their neighbors, but the effects of these interaction networks fell off as the
down-the-line exchange connections became more indirect. As settlements got
larger, longer distance trading across land and along coasts expanded these networks. As Beaujard (2009) recounts, it was in the
early Bronze Age that cities and states emerged in Mesopotamia and then later
in the Indus River Valley. The 
emergence of
long-distance maritime trade connecting the core regions of Mesopotamia with
the Indus (Harrapan) cities provided an opportunity for specialized trading
states such as Dilmun (Bahrein) (Bibby 1969) and led to the development of
larger and lighter plank-sewn ships (Alpers 2014:22). Dilmun may have been the
first semiperipheral capitalist city-state (Chase-Dunn, Anderson, Inoue and Álvarez (2015)
Dilmun in Sumerian cuneiform script
While
Philippe Beaujard’s periodization of the rise of Afroeurasian and Indian Ocean
interaction networks is based on a thorough review of the recently available
evidence on trade and diffusion, it may be fine-tuned in the future as new
evidence emerges from archaeological and genetic studies. This said, his
approach is far superior to that of the “ancient hyperglobalists” who depict a
single global system as already existing in the Paleolithic Age. Several
eminent scholars have claimed that there has been a single global (Earth-wide)
system for millennia (Lenski 2005; Frank and Gills 1994; Modelski 2003;
Modelski, Devezas and Thompson 2008, and Chew 2001, 2007). Beaujard and Janet
Abu-Lughod (1989) have agreed with Immanuel Wallerstein that, as we go back in
time there were multiple regional whole systems that should be studied
separately and compared. The ancient hyperglobalists are correct that there has
been a single global network for millennia because all human groups interact
with their neighbors and so they are indirectly connected with all others. But
this ignores the issue of the fall-off
of interaction effects mentioned above. When transportation was mainly
based on individuals carrying things on their backs or in small boats, the
effective size on systemic interaction networks was small.
Frank and Gills (1994) contended that there had been a
single global system since the rise of cities and states in Mesopotamia, though
later they admitted that the Americas were largely disconnected from
Afroeurasia before 1492 CE.[4] They also raised the
important issue of the evolution of modes of accumulation, claiming that there
had been a “capitalist-imperialist” mode in the Bronze Age with alternating
periods in which tribute-taking and market based profit-making had been
predominant (see also Ekholm and Friedman 1982). While it is important to understand
that capitalism only became a predominant logic of accumulation with the rise
of the West, the insights from those who see continuities with Bronze, Iron Age
and early modern processes of commercialization and state formation are also
useful.
A System of Balances
Indian and Indonesian commerce made the Indian Ocean a very busy
place from the Roman Empire times on. The Roman Empire had a huge spice trade
from India and Indonesia. India and
Indonesia had huge voyaging and trading enterprises. East Africa was explored
by Indonesians during Roman times, and Madagascar was colonized from Borneo and
other Indonesian islands by 500 CE.
Philippe Beaujard’s view of the medieval Indian Ocean network
can best be characterized as a system of balances and uneven development that
included upwardly mobile semiperipheries. Just as the merchant ships on the
Indian Ocean were balanced between luxury goods cargo and bulk goods ballast,
the entire system, with its co-evolutionary core/periphery relationships, was
balanced between utilitarian trade and prestige goods (see also Chaudhuri,1985:
203-204; Neal 2014). Beaujard (2005) makes good use
of the semiperiphery concept in his study of the emergence of world-systems in
the Indian Ocean. He found interesting instances in which the emergence of
regional settlements that connected hinterlands with core areas were
facilitated by the presence of merchants and religious elites who were migrants
from core regions (2005:442). His study of the
emergence of unequal exchange between the coastal East African Swahili cities
and the interior of the East African mainland notes that immigrants from the
Arabian core helped to form commercial ties, intermarried with local elites,
and converted locals to Islam, thereby promoting a process of class-formation
that led to the emergence of semiperipheral polities along the coast. Beaujard (2005:445)
also affirms the idea, which is asserted in the literature on semiperipheral
development (Chase-Dunn et al 2015)
that important institutional and technological innovations often occurred in
semiperipheral polities.
When formerly
disconnected regional networks became linked with one another, cycles of urban and
polity growth tended to become synchronized (Beaujard 2005, 2010; Lieberman
2009). Philippe Beaujard (2005) contends
that core, peripheral and semiperipheral polities co-evolved with one another
despite interpolity exploitation and domination. Strong
and direct political/military systemic links tended to emerge later than
systemic links based on trade. Alexander
of Macedon conquered part of the South Asian subcontinent but, after the
subsequent Greek states were expelled, there was only sporadic direct
political/military interaction between the Mediterranean interpolity system and
the South Asian (Indic) system of states until the Portuguese established
colonies in South Asia in the sixteenth century CE. David Wilkinson studies and
spatially bounds interaction networks in which states are engaged in warfare,
diplomacy and alliances with one another.
Wilkinson has estimated the time periods in
which smaller state systems (interpolity systems) became strongly and
permanently linked with one another (Wilkinson 1986). The larger state system
that was formed when the Mesopotamian and Egyptian state
systems merged around 1500 BCE is called “Central Civilization” by Wilkinson,
but he is talking about a system of fighting and allying states. Regarding the
incorporation of the South Asian (Indic) state system into the expanding
Central state system, Wilkinson does not count the Alexandrian conquests in
India because that linkage was temporary.
The South Asian state system was again temporarily connected to the
Central system in CE 1008 when Mahmud of Ghazni conquered North India. Wilkinson (forthcoming) says: “I feel the need to re-examine connections, especially the
Central-Indic connection, with respect to three sorts of cases: 1) temporary connections like
Alexander's that lasted longer than his (some fuller sense of the distribution
of the durations of connections seems needed); 2) Central
invaders/conquerors of Indic who then moved their political base into Indic;
and 3) whole peoples (Yuezhi?) who
pulled up stakes and moved between civilizations, thus decolonizing their
old home and neocolonizing their new (e.g. Indic) abode, and perhaps
disconnecting from a former network while making new political connections.” His conclusion is that the South Asian state
system did not become tightly and permanently connected to the Central system
until Britain and France established colonies and eventual control over the
South Asian subcontinent in the 18th century CE. The sixteenth century incursions in India by
Portugal are not seen by Wilkinson to have been geopolitically systemic, though
a plausible case could be made that the establishment of Portuguese India (Estado da India) did constitute a
long-lasting and consequential connection between the Central and South Asian
geopolitical systems.
Indian
traders ranged far to the East toward “Indochina” and island Southeast Asia.
Even though Brahmins were theoretically forbidden to travel overseas (to avoid
pollution by contact with foreigners), many did. Wheatley (1975) described the
Indianization of Southeast Asia by traders and priests, the latter imported by
local rulers to sanctify the creation of divine kingships. The main stimulus that
spurred Southeast Asian state formation was trade with Indian merchants. This
was not tributary exchange or reciprocal gift-giving. Indian merchant entrepreneurs brought highly
valued goods across the sea to trade for scarce metals and forest products that
the local economies could provide. Control over access to the Indian goods enabled
local leaders to organize redistributive states and provided the motivation for
increased production for exchange in the overseas trade. The multicentric
nature of the Indian ocean trade network made commerce competitive. Both Indian and Chinese core areas traded
with the Southeast Asian periphery, and important groups of trading middlemen emerged.
Specialized trade diasporas developed to service the local bulk sea trade
(Curtin, 1984) while Chinese and Indian merchants kept the importation of core commodities
in their own hands (Meilink-Roelofsz 1962).
Indian
Ocean and Southeast Asian city-states and some larger states sometimes
specialized in trade, and the maritime shipping routes and choke-points
provided ample opportunities for piracy, but the relatively successful
regulation of trade in the Chinese trade-tribute system discouraged the
emergence of strong and successful semiperipheral capitalist city-states. Malacca, a regional Chinese
ally, was a partial exception. This is an important difference between the
Eastern and Western trajectories of economic development. The east
commercialized, but states with capitalists wielding state power did not emerge
their (at least until recently).
It is now more
generally recognized that the science of international relations should compare
the Westphalian system that emerged in Europe with other state systems 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). Philippe Beaujard
discusses power relations as imbricated in unequal economic exchange and
religious hierarchies, but a full comprehension of the Indian Ocean
world-systems can also benefit from a focus on geopolitics. George Modelski’s
(1964) discussion of the nature of the Indic state system during the Mauryan
Empire, based on texts attributed to Khautyla, Chandragupta Maurya’s political
advisor, portrays a system in which horizontal (equal) relations between states
was a theoretical impossibility. This was an obstacle to the formation of
alliances and it inhibited the operation of the balance of power mechanism,
though ideological formations and the formalities of diplomatic institutions were
often overlooked or side-stepped in practice.
Chase-Dunn Manning and Hall (2000), comparing the sequence of the
rise and fall of large polities in South Asia with East Asia and the Central
interstate system, noted that the Indic sequence was distinct in that, after
the fall of the Mauryan Empire, there was a long hiatus before the rise of
another sub-continent-wide empire in South Asia (so-called Indic
Exceptionalism).[5]
Ravi Palat’s (2015) comparative
study of economic and political evolution considered the ways in which regional
differences based on the social and political characteristics of wet-rice
agriculture interacted with other historical forces to produce
political-economic outcomes in the Indic sub-continent. Palat’s original
research on textual evidence from the Vijayanagara
Empire supports the idea that the class structures and state organizations of
South Asia were importantly shaped by constraints (and opportunities) imposed
by the nature of agricultural production –rice cultivation. Palat also contends
that nomadic incursions were important factors shaping the Indic class
structure and he contrasts the different histories of Europe, India, China,
Japan and Southeast Asia in terms of the structural implications of different agricultural
and incursion histories. He concludes that these factors caused the South Asian
development of a world-economy without developing full-on capitalism. Palat’s
examination of how commercialization had different causes and effects in Europe
and Asia corrects Immanuel Wallerstein’s dismissal of “preciosities” as
inconsequential, agreeing with Beaujard in this respect. Palat makes a
convincing case that the emergence of the Indian Ocean world economy was the
outcome of the confluence of rice-cultivation with a military surge of nomads
during a time of metal coinage scarcity. This produced a more integrated commercialized
but non-capitalist world-system from 1350-1650 CE.
Palat’s study also invites
consideration of the contentious issues regarding Eurocentrism and coloniality
that continue to rile the waters of social science and world history. A good overview of the issues of Eurocentrism,
post-structuralism, post-coloniality and subaltern studies is contained in a
review symposium on Vivek Chibber’s Postcolonial
Theory and the Spectre of Capital organized by Ho-Fung Hung (2014) (with valuable
contributions by George Steinmetz, Bruce Cumings, Michael Schwartz and Bill
Sewell). Though it has been beaten hard for decades, the big horse that is
Eurocentrism continues to provide inspiration for new rejections of the
heritages of European social science. Afro-centrism, Sino-centrism, South East
Asia-centrism; Third Worldism, Indian Ocean-centrism and Islam-centrism have
challenged the claimed universality of Eurocentric social science. Many of the
anti-Eurocentrists provide corrections to the stories told by Eurocentrists or seek
to give the “people without history” a voice. But some try to assert an
alternative universalistic social science to replace the discarded Eurocentric
universalism. Dependency theory and the world-system perspective emerged in the
1970s as efforts to overcome the Eurocentrism and core-centrism of
modernization theory, but they too have been disparaged as Eurocentric. Vivek Chibber’s
spirited defense of a class struggle, point-of-production version of Marxism provides
an entirely plausible explanation of class politics in India in response to the
subaltern theorists who contend that Indic civilization cannot be comprehend by
theories developed to explain class struggles in Europe. Chibber’s critique
provides a useful distinction between those aspects of social science theories
that erroneously assume that European institutional and cultural
characteristics are universal from those that well-describe and explain
non-European social change. Cosmocentrism provides a stance for scientifically
making such distinctions (Chase-Dunn and Lerro 2014: 206-207), and an
alternative to throwing the baby out with the bath. Philippe Beaujard’s
contributions to the comparative world-systems perspective carry the ball far down
the field toward a cumulative science of human social change.
References
Abu-Lughod, Janet 1989 Before European
Hegemony: The World System A.D. 1250- 1350 New York:
Oxford University
Press.
Alpers, Edward A. 2009 East
Africa and the Indian Ocean. Princeton: Markus Wiener Publishers
______________ 2014 The
Indian Ocean in World History. New York: Oxford University Pres
Al Khalifa, Shaikha Haya
Alia and Michael Rice (eds.) Bahrain Through the Ages. London:
KPI
Anderson, E.N. 2018 Review of Les mondes de l’océan Indien Vols. 1 and 2 by Philippe Beaujard. Journal of World-Systems Research
Asher, Catherine B. and Cynthia Talbot 2006 India Before Europe. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press
Aslanian, Sebouh David 2011 From the Indian Ocean to the Mediterranean: The Global
Trade Networks of
Armenian Merchants
from New Julfa. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Beaujard, Philippe.
2005 “The Indian Ocean in Eurasian and African World-Systems Before the
Sixteenth Century” Journal of World History 16,4:411-465.
_____ 2009 Les
mondes de l’océan Indien Tome I: De la formation de l’État au premier
système-monde Afro-Eurasien (4e millénaire av. J.-C. – 6e siècle apr.
J.-C.). Paris: Armand Colin.
_____ 2010.
“From Three possible Iron-Age World-Systems to a Single Afro Eurasian
World-System.” Journal of World History 21:1(March):1-43.
_______2011 “Evolutions and Temporal Delimitations of
Possible Bronze Age World-systems in Western Asia and the Mediterranean” Pp.
7-26 in
Toby C. Wilkinson, Susan
Sherratt
and John Bennett (eds.) Interweaving
Worlds, Oxford: Oxbow Books
_____ 2012. Les
mondes de l’océan Indien Tome II: L’océan Indien, au coeur
des globalisations de l’ancien Monde du 7e au 15e siècle. Paris: Armand Colin
______ 2018 The Worlds of the Indian Ocean. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Bhargava, P.L. 2007 Chandgragupta Maurya. Delhi:
D.K. Printworld.
Bibby, Geoffrey 1969 Looking
For Dilmun. New York: Alfred A. Knopf
Braudel, Fernand 1972 The
Chase-Dunn, Christopher, E. N. Anderson, Hiroko Inoue and
Alexis Álvarez 2015 “The evolution
of economic
institutions: City-states and forms of imperialism since the Bronze Age”
IROWS Working Paper #79 available
at https://irows.ucr.edu/papers/irows79/irows79.htm
Chase-Dunn,
C and Thomas D. Hall 1997 Rise and
Demise: Comparing World-Systems
Chase-Dunn, C. Hiroko Inoue, Teresa Neal and Evan Heimlich 2015 “The
Development of World-
Systems” Sociology
of Development 1,1: pp. 149-172 (Spring) http://socdev.ucpress.edu/content/1/1/149
Chase-Dunn,
Christopher and Bruce Lerro 2016 Social
Change: Globalization from the Stone Age to the
Present. New York: Routledge
Chase-Dunn, C and Kelly
M. Mann. The Wintu and Their Neighbors: A Small
World-System in Northern
California, University
of Arizona Press,1998.
Chase-Dunn, Christopher, Susan
Manning and Thomas D. Hall, 2000 "Rise
and Fall: East-West
Synchrony and
Indic Exceptionalism Reexamined" Social Science History 24,4: 721-
48(Winter).
Chaudhuri, K. N.
1985. Trade and Civilisation in
the Indian Ocean: An Economic History from the Rise of
Islam to 1750. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
_______________1990 Asia
Before Europe: Economy and Civilisation of the Indian Ocean from the rise of
Islam to 1750
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chew, Sing C. 2001 World
ecological degradation: accumulation, urbanization, and deforestation, 3000
B.C.-A.D. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press
______ . 2007 The
Recurring Dark Ages: ecological stress, climate changes, and system transformation Walnut
Creek, CA: Altamira Press.
Chibber, Vivek 2013 Postcolonial
Theory and the Spectre of Capital London: Verso
Coquery-Vidrovitch,
Catherine 2008 The History of African
Cities South of the Sahara. Princeton, NJ:
Markus Wiener.
Curtin, Philip D.
1984. Cross-Cultural Trade in World History.
Davis, Mike 2002 Late
Victorian Holocausts: El Niño Famines in the Making of the Third World London:
Verso.
Denbow, James; Carla Klehm and Laure Dussubieux 2015 “The
Glass Beads of Kaitshaa and
Early Indian Ocean Trade
into the Far Interior of Southern Africa.” Antiquity
89:361-377.
Fleisher,
Jeffrey; Paul Lane; Adria La Violette; Mark Horton; Edward
Pollard; Eréndira Quintana
Morales;
Thomas Vernet; Annalisa Christie; Stephanie Wynne-Jones 2015 “When Did the
Swahili
Become Maritime?” American Anthropologist 117:100-115.
Ekholm, Kasja and Jonathan Friedman 1982.
"'Capital' Imperialism and Exploitation in the Ancient
World-systems."
Review 6:1(Summer):87-110. (Originally published pp. 61-76 in History and Underdevelopment, (1980)
edited by L. Blusse,
H. L. Wesseling and G. D. Winius. Center for the
History of European Expansion, Leyden University.
Frank, Andre Gunder and Barry Gills 1994. The World
System: 500 or 5000 Years? London: Routledge.
Granoff,
Phyllis 2004 “Luxury Goods and Intellectual History: The Case of Printed and
Woven
Multicolored Textiles in Medieval India” Ars Orientalis, Vol. 34: 151-171
Ho, Engseng 2006 The
Graves of Tarim: Genealogy and Mobility across the Indian Ocean.
Berkeley:
University of
California Press
Hourani, George F. 1959 Arab Seafaring Princeton: Princeton University Press
Hung, Ho-Fung 2011 Protest with Chinese Characteristics: Demonstrations, Riots and Petitions
in the Mid-
Qing
Dynasty.
New York: Columbia University Press.
_____________(ed.) 2014 Review Symposium on Vivek
Chibber’s Postcolonial Theory and the
Specter of
Capital http://jwsr.pitt.edu/ojs/index.php/jwsr/issue/view/62
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 https://irows.ucr.edu/papers/irows89/irows89.htm
Kirch, Patrick V.
1984. The Evolution of Polynesian Chiefdoms. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Lawler,
Andrew 2014 “Sailing Sinbad’s Seas” Science 344:1440-1445
Lenski,
Gerhard. 2005. Ecological-Evolutionary Theory: Principles and Applications
(Boulder: Paradigm Publishers.
Lieberman, Victor 2003 Strange
Parallels: Southeast Asia in Global
Context, c. 800-1830. Vol. 1:
Integration on the Mainland. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Lieberman, Victor.
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.
Meilink-Roelofsz, M. A. P. 1962 Asian Trade and European Influence in the
Indonesian Archepelago Between 1500 and About 1630.
The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
McLaughlin, Raoul. 2010 Rome and the Distant East. Bloomsbury Academic.
Miller, James Innes 1969 The Spice Trade of the Roman Empire, 29 B.C. to A.D. 641.Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Miroslaw,
Michalak 1996 “The Political Background of Iranian Naval Activities in the
Sasanian
Period.”
Iranica Cracoviensia: Cracow Iranian
Studies in Memory of Wladyslaw Dulęba. Kraków:
Cornelius
Publishing House
Modelski,
George 1964 "Kautilya: Foreign policy and international system in the
ancient
Hindu world," American Political Science Review 58, 3: 549-560.
______________ 2003 World
Cities: –3000 to 2000. Washington, DC: Faros 2000
______________ 2008
“Globalization as evolutionary process” in pp. 22-29. Modelski, George, Tessaleno Devezas and
William R. Thompson (eds.) 2008. Globalization as Evolutionary
Process: Modeling, Simulating, and Forecasting Global Change. London:
Routledge.
Mukherjee,
Ramkrishna 1974 The Rise and Fall of the
East India Company. New York: Monthly Review
Press
Mukherjee, Rila 2014 “Review of Philippe Beaujard. Les mondes de l’océan Indien [The Worlds
of the
Indian Ocean] The Asian Review of World Histories Volume 2, ∙ Number 1
(January)
Neal, Teresa 2014 “Finding Evidence for a
Pre-Modern World-System in the Indian Ocean”
unpublished
paper
Palat, Ravi 2015 The Making
of an Indian Ocean World-Economy, 1250–1650: Princes, Paddy fields, and
Bazaars London: Palgrave
Patel,
Alka 2004 “Communities and Commodities: Western India and the Indian Ocean,
Eleventh-Fifteenth Centuries”
Ars Orientalis, Vol. 34: 7-18.
Pearson,
Michael 2003 The Indian Ocean.
London: Routledge
Peregrine, Peter N. 1991
"Prehistoric Chiefdoms on the American Mid-contentinent: 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 https://irows.ucr.edu/cd/books/c-p/cprel.htm
Ray,
Himanshu Prabha 2004 “The Beginnings: The Artisan and the Merchant in Early
Gujarat, Sixth-Eleventh Centuries.”
Ars Orientalis, Vol. 34: 39-61
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.
Robertshaw, Peter 2006 “Africa’s earliest bananas” Archaeology
59(5):25-29.
Sherif,
Abdul and Engseng Ho (eds.) 2014 The
Indian Ocean: Oceanic Connections and the Creation of New
Societies London: Hurst and Company.
Schneider,
Jane 1991 “Was There a Pre-capitalist World-System?” Pp. 45-66 in Christopher
Chase-
Dunn
and Thomas D. Hall (eds.) Core/Periphery
Relations in Precapitalist Worlds. Boulder CO:
Westview
Press https://irows.ucr.edu/cd/books/c-p/cprel.htm
Schwartzberg, J.E. 1992 A
Historical Atlas of South Asia. 2nd impression, with
additional material.
New York: Oxford
University Press.
Sidebotham, Steven E. 2010 Berenike and the Ancient Maritime Spice Route.
Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Singh, Simron 2003 In the Sea of Influence: A
World System Perspective of the Nicobar Islands Lund Studies
in Human Ecology. Volume 6.
https://lup.lub.lu.se/search/publication/7b34f784-7976-4cc3-a405-50a448614d1f
Tabak, Faruk 2008 The Waning of the Mediterranean, 1550–1870: A Geohistorical Approach. Baltimore:
Johns Hopkins
University Press.
Tosi, Maurizio 1986
“Early maritime cultures of the Arabian Gulf and the Indian Ocean” Pp. 94-
108 in Al Khalifa
and Rice.
Turchin, Peter 2011
“Strange Parallels: Patterns in Eurasian Social Evolution” Journal of
World
Systems Research 17(2):538-552.
Villiers,
Alan 1952 Monsoon Seas: The Story of the Indian
Ocean New York:
McGraw-Hill
___________1969 Sons
of Sinbad. An Account of Sailing with the Arabs in their Dhows, in the Red
Sea. New York:
Scribners
Wallerstein, Immanuel 2001 “Does India Exist?” Chapter 9. Pp.
130-134 in Immanuel Wallerstein,
Unthinking Social
Science: The Limits of Nineteenth
Century Paradigms Philadelphia, PA: Temple
University Press.
_____________ 2011 (1974) The
Modern World-System, Volume 1. Berkeley: University of California
Press
Wheatley, Paul 1975 "Satyanrta Suvarnadvipa:
from reciprocity to redistribution in ancient Southeast Asia"
Pp. 227-284 in Ancient Civilization and Trade, edited by J. A. Sabloff and C. C.
Lamberg-Karlovski.
____________1983
Nagara and Commandery: Origins of the
Southeast Asian Urban Traditions. Chicago:
University
of Chicago Department of Geography. Research Paper #s 207-208
Wilkinson, David 1996 "Configurations
of the Indic States System." Comparative Civilizations
Review 34: 63-119. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/ccr/vol34/iss34/6
__________________2015
"The Civilizations of Africa," pp.41-62 in African Civilization in the 21st Century,
ed. Tseggai Isaac and Andrew Targowski. Nova Science Publishers.
____________
Forthcoming ““When States-Systems Unite: Spatio-Temporal Boundary
and
Transition Issues in the Unification of the Central,
Far Eastern and Indic States-Systems” in
C.
Chase-Dunn and Hiroko Inoue (eds.) Systemic
Boundaries: Time-Mapping Globalization Since the Bronze Age.
New
York: Springer Verlag
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.