A comparative framework for studying the causes of integration
among Bronze and Iron Age polities*
Christopher Chase-Dunn, Kirk Lawrence
and Hiroko Inoue
Institute for Research on World-Systems (IROWS)
University of California-Riverside
v. 2-28-11, 8234 words
To be presented at the New York University Abu Dhabi Institute, Abu Dhabi (UAE), March 6/7, 2011 workshop on beliefs, markets and empires: understanding mechanisms of integration in early societies Organized by Andrew Monson (NYU) and Walter Scheidel (Stanford/NYUAD)
IROWS Working Paper # 66 https://irows.ucr.edu/papers/irows66/irows66.htm
*Thanks to Andrew Jorgenson. David Wilkinson and Thomas Hall for help in
developing the ideas in this paper.
This paper outlines a comparative interdisciplinary framework for studying the causes of growing integration among human communities, as well as the factors that brought about declines in the intensity and extent of interpolity interaction. One main rationale for the proposed spatio-temporal framework is the empirical link between the sizes of the largest polities and settlements in regional interaction networks with the emergence of sociocultural complexity and hierarchy within polities and in systems of interacting polities. Focusing on the population sizes of settlements and the territorial sizes of polities allows us to pinpoint those periods in which the scale of sociocultural systems were significantly changing based on relatively simple and knowable quantitative criteria. Human interaction networks have expanded over the long run, but in the medium-run there have been cycles and occasional upward sweeps and collapses. It is the upward sweeps that account for the long-term upward trend toward global integration, and so specifying when and where the upward sweeps occurred and examining their causes will help to explain the long-term trend. It will also enable us to see how the causality of integration has changed over time, and how it may have been different in different regions.
This project could theoretically include all the local, regional and intercontinental networks, including both nomadic and sedentary world-systems, though in practice we may want to limit ourselves by the availability of quantitative estimates of largest polity and settlements sizes. We focus on the territorial sizes of polities and the population sizes of settlements because these are relatively easily ascertainable quantitative indicators of system size and complexity and they allow us to differentiate between cycles and upsweeps. We need to have an interval scale metric in order to tell the difference between small and large changes. When human sociocultural systems are studied over long periods of time we usually find cyclical processes of population growth and decline, the rise and fall of large and strong polities, etc. Our research needs to be able to tell the difference between a “normal” upcycle or downcycle in which a feature of sociocultural organization is fluctuating around an equilibrium level and an event of growth or decline that is greater than the “normal” fluctuations. We focus on the largest settlements and polities in each region rather than on individual settlements or polities. The size of the largest settlement or polity are understood as characteristics of each regional world-system that vary over time. We identify those instances in which there have been large increases or decreases in these system-wide characteristics.
A very long debate has waxed and waned over how to best bound sociocultural systems in time and space for purposes of explaining the emergence of complexity and hierarchy in human societies (e.g. Chase-Dunn and Hall 1997; Mann 1986; Tilly 1984; Wallerstein 1974). Our theoretical approach is what we call institutional materialism: an interdisciplinary approach that combines focusing on the historical emergence and development of humanly constructed institutions (language, kinship, production technology, states, money, markets, etc.) and the changing ways that humans interact with their biological and physical environment. This theoretical framework deploys what has been called the comparative world-systems approach to spatially and temporally bounding human sociocultural systems. Rather than comparing societies with one another, we compare systems of interacting human polities (or interpolity systems) and these are empirically bounded in space and time as interaction networks—multilateral regularized exchanges of materials, obligations, threats, ideas and information.
World-systems are human interaction networks that display oscillations of expansion and contraction, with occasional large expansions that bring formerly separate regional systems into systemic intercourse with one another. These waves of expanded integration, now called globalization, have, in the last two centuries, created a single linked intercontinental political-economy in which all national societies are strongly connected. But all earlier regional interaction networks also experienced expansions and contractions of trade. Archaeological studies of obsidian and shell exchange show these oscillations even among very small-scale polities in many regions (e.g. Chase-Dunn and Mann 1998).
As Tilly (1984) has emphasized, societies (defined as communities that share a common language and culture) are messy entities when we consider interaction networks. Many of the networks in which households are deeply involved are local, while many other important interactions strongly link the inhabitants of many different societies to one another. The world-systems perspective has argued that societies are subsystems within a larger system, and that in order to understand historical development we must focus on the larger system as a whole. Chase-Dunn and Hall (1997) have developed a nested network approach for spatially bounding world-systems that enables the comparison of the modern global system with earlier, smaller regional world-systems. They contend that the world-system rather than single polities is the most important unit of analysis for explaining long-term social change because interpolity conflict and cooperation are very important sources of the selection pressures that cause sociocultural development. In this article we explain this nested network approach to spatially bounding world-systems and we propose a practical research design for studying the emergence of larger and larger interaction networks that uses expanding network as the unit of analysis.
One problem with regional analysis is the effort to define regions in terms of homogenous sociocultural attributes. Thus, comparative civilizationists have mainly focused on the main cultural characteristics that are embodied in religions or institutionalized world-views and have tended to construct lists of such culturally defined civilizations that then become the “cases” for the study of social change (e.g. Toynbee 1947-57). The problem here is that most interactive sociocultural systems are multicultural, and religious ideologies interact with one another, both diffusing attributes to one another and reactively developing distinctions. So the effort to spatially bound systems based on religious beliefs or other ideological characteristics does not produce regions that are autonomous from one another.
The “culture area” approach developed by geographer Carl Sauer and used widely by ethnographers and archaeologists tries to define regions as areas with homogenous contiguous characteristics (e.g. Wissler 1927). The culture area project gathered and coded valuable information on all sorts of cultural attributes such as languages, architectural styles, technologies of production, and kinship structures, and used these to designate bounded and adjacent “culture areas.”
A major problem with both the civilizationist and the cultural area approaches is the assumption that homogeneity is a good approach to spatially bounding social systems for purposes of explaining social change. Heterogeneity rather than homogeneity has long been an important aspect of human social systems because different kinds of groups often complement one another and interaction often produces differentiation rather than similarity. The effort to bound systems as homogeneous regions obscures this important fact. Spatial distributions of homogeneous characteristics do not bound separate social systems. Examples in which social heterogeneity was produced by interaction include core/periphery differentiation, urban/rural, and sedentary/nomadic systems. Owen Lattimore’s (1940) classic, Inner Asian Frontiers of China, shows how Central Asian diversified foragers evolved to become specialized steppe pastoralists because of their interactions with farmers along the ecological boundary between steppe and loess. The farmer/pastoralist interaction was a powerful source of social change among Bronze and Iron Age societies for millennia (e.g. Barfield 1989). And the interaction between farmers and fishing populations led to the emergence of maritime polities that specialized in naval power and sea-borne trade such as Dilmun (Bahrein) in the Arabian/Persian Gulf (Tosi 1986), perhaps the first semiperipheral capitalist city-state carrying goods between the Indus Valley civilization and Mesopotamia in the Bronze Age. Bounding regions based on homogenous attributes completely ignores important interactions among different kinds of societies.
Anthropologists and geographers have developed
complicated multidimensional approaches
that examine distributions of many spatial characteristics statistically (e.g.
Another important point is worth making regarding the relationship between natural ecological regions (biomes) and human interaction networks. Biomes are regions that are defined on the basis of soil type, climate, characteristic plants and animals, etc. The relationship between human social structures and the natural world is obviously important, as stressed by cultural ecologists. Comparative research has demonstrated that empires are more likely to expand into regions that are ecologically similar to the home region, and so they are more likely to be wide than to be tall (to expand in the East/West plane rather than North/South (Turchin, Adams and Hall 2006). Cultural ecology stresses the important ways in which local ecological factors conditioned sociocultural institutions and modes of living. This has been an especially compelling perspective for understanding small-scale systems in which people were mainly interacting with adjacent neighbors not very far away. But this kind of local ecological determinism is much less compelling when world-systems get larger because long-distance interaction networks and the development of larger scale technologies enable people to impose socially constructed logics on local ecologies and to convert biomes into “anthroms” – regions in which the ecology has been radically altered by the intervention of humans (Ellis et al 2010). Some social evolutionists have interpreted this to mean that social institutions have become progressively less ecologically constrained (Lenski, Lenski, and Nolan 1995). But what has happened instead is that the spatial scale of ecological constraints has grown to the point where they are operating globally rather than locally (Chase-Dunn and Hall 2006).
Spatially Bounding World-Systems
world-systems perspective originally emerged as a theoretical approach for explaining
the expansion and deepening of the modern Europe-centered system as it engulfed
the globe over the past 500 years (Arrighi 1994; Chase-Dunn 1998; Wallerstein
1974). The idea of a core/periphery hierarchy composed of “advanced,”
economically developed, and powerful states dominating and exploiting “less
developed” peripheral regions has been a central concept in the world-systems perspective.
In the last two decades the world-systems approach has been extended to the
analysis of earlier interpolity systems. Andre Gunder Frank and Barry Gills
(1993) have argued that the contemporary world system is a continuation of a
5000-year old system that emerged with the first states and cities in
The comparative world-systems perspective is designed to be general enough to allow comparisons between quite different systems. Chase-Dunn and Hall (1997) defined world-systems as important networks of interaction that impinge upon a local society and condition social reproduction and social change. They note that different kinds of interaction often have distinct spatial characteristics and degrees of importance in different kinds of systems. And they hold that the question of the nature and degree of systemic interaction between two locales is prior to the question of core/periphery relations. Indeed, they make the existence of core/periphery relations an empirical question in each case, rather than an assumed characteristic of all world-systems.
Part of Chase-Dunn and Hall’s claim that world-system networks are the most important unit analysis for explaining sociocultural development is based on the hypothesis of semiperipheral development. Chase-Dunn and Hall (1997, Chapter 5) contend that semiperipheral regions within core/periphery hierarchies have been fertile locations for the implementation of new technologies of power, and that semiperipheral polities have played and continue to play important roles in the transformation of world-systems. Of course semiperipherality is a relational concept that depends on the nature of the larger system. Semiperipheral marcher chiefdoms were often the agents of the formation of larger paramount chiefdomships by conquest (Kirch 1984) and semiperipheral marcher states have frequently been the founders of large core-wide empires that accounted for upsweeps in polity size. Semiperipheral capitalist city-states in the interstices between tributary states and empires were agents of commodification that expanded trade networks in the Bronze and Iron Ages, and more recently. The phenomenon of semiperipheral development is the main force behind the movement in space of the cutting edge of complexity and hierarchy in human social change. It has mainly been societies out on the edge of older core regions that rewire the networks and expand the polities.
Spatially bounding world-systems must necessarily proceed from a locale-centric beginning rather than from a whole-system focus. This is because all human societies, even nomadic hunter-gatherers, interact importantly with neighboring societies. Thus, if we consider all indirect interactions to be of systemic importance (even very indirect ones) then there has been a single, global world-system since humankind spread to all the continents. But interaction networks, while they always linked polities that were near to one another, have not always been global in the sense that actions in one region had important and relatively quick effects on very distant regions. When transportation and communication occurred only over short distances world-systems were small. Thus the word “world” refers to the network of interactions that impinge on any focal locale.
It is necessary to use the notion of “fall-off” of effects over space (Renfrew 1977) to bound the networks of interaction that importantly impinge upon any point of origin. The world-system of which any locality is a part includes those peoples whose actions in production, communication, warfare, alliance, and trade have a large and interactive impact on that locality.
method of bounding systems is “place-centric.” It is also important to
distinguish between endogenous systemic interaction processes and exogenous
impacts that may change a system, but are not part of that system. Sweet
potatoes somehow got from South America to the
Chase-Dunn and Hall (1997) note that in most intersocietal systems there are several important networks with different spatial scales that impinge upon any particular locale:
Information Networks (INs)
Prestige Goods Networks (PGNs)
Political/Military Networks (PMNs) and
Bulk Goods Networks (BGNs).
The largest networks are those in which information and ideas travel. Information is light and it travels a long way, even in systems based on down-the-line interaction. These are termed Information Networks (INs). A usually somewhat smaller interaction network is based on the exchange of prestige goods or luxuries that have a high value/weight ratio. Such goods travel far, even in down-the-line systems. These are called Prestige Goods Networks (PGNs). The next largest interaction net is composed of polities that are allying or making war with one another. These are called Political/Military Networks (PMNs). And the smallest networks are those based on a division of labor in the production of basic everyday necessities such a food and raw materials. These are Bulk Goods Networks (BGNs). Figure 1 illustrates how these interaction networks are spatially related in most world-systems.
World-systems vary in the degree to which these different kinds of interaction are systemic – have important impacts on local sociocultural reproduction and social change. In all systems the Bulk Goods Network (BGN) and the Political-Military Network (PMN) are systemic. But the Prestige Goods Network varies across systems in both the ways it may be systemic and the extent to which it is important for sociocultural reproduction and social change. And the same may be said of the Information Network (IN).
Immanuel Wallerstein (1974) defined core/periphery relations in the modern world-system in terms of a hierarchical division of labor in the production of necessities between different polities or regions. This is the BGN. In world-system comparative perspective the BGN may or may not be hierarchical in the sense of unequal exchange in different systems, but it is always systemic because it is important for reproducing local households and communities. Political-military interactions among polities (alliances and warfare) may or may not correspond spatially with the Bulk Goods Network, though the assumption that polities do not trade or intermarry with their traditional enemies is often false.
have long noticed the importance of prestige goods when they are used by elites
to reward subalterns and to control marriage (Sahlins 1972 ; Eckholm and Friedman 1982
; Peregrine 1992 ) And Jane Schneider (1991 ) claimed that, contra Wallerstein, prestige goods flows
across the Silk Roads had played an important role in the development of the core
regions of Eurasia as well. Mary Helms
(1988) has emphasized the importance of exotic ideas as well as goods in the
emergence of theocratic chiefdoms and early states. A study of a very small world-system in
Figure 1: Nested Interaction Networks
The first question for any locale concerns the nature and spatial characteristics of its links with the above four interaction nets. This is prior to any consideration of core/periphery relation because one region must be linked to another by systemic interaction in order for a consideration of whether or not interpolity relations involve exploitation or domination is relevant. The spatial characteristics of these networks clearly depend on the costs of transportation and communications, and whether or not interaction is only with neighbors or there are regularized long-distance trade journeys being made. But these factors affect all kinds of interaction and so the relative size of networks is expected to approximate what is shown in Figure 1. Fall-off in the PMN generally occurs after two or three indirect links. Suppose polity X is fighting and allying with its immediate neighbors and sometimes with the immediate neighbors of its neighbors. So its direct links extend to the neighbors of the neighbors. But how many indirect links will involve actions that will importantly affect this original polity? The number of indirect links that bound a PMN is usually either two or three. As polities get larger and interactions occur over greater distances, each indirect link extends much farther across space. But the point of important fall-off will usually be after either two or three indirect links.
Figure 2: Chronograph of the Emergence of the
Using this conceptual apparatus, we can construct spatio-temporal chronographs for how the social structures and interaction networks of human populations changed their spatial scales to eventuate in the single global political economy of today. Figure 2 uses PMNs as the unit of analysis to show how what David Wilkinson (1987) calls “Central Civilization,” a PMN that was formed when the Mesopotamian and Egyptian PMNs merged in about 1500 BCE and which eventually incorporated all the other PMNs into itself to become the contemporary global interstate system. The timing of mergers and expansions depicted in Figure 2 are based on Wilkinson’s careful reading of world history to determine when the regions specified began to make war and alliances with one another. This kind of chronograph could be constructed for other regions using the same kinds of historical evidence, and this would be a huge contribution to our knowledge of the expansion of socio-cultural systems.
World-System Cycles: Rise-and-Fall and Oscillations
Comparative research reveals that all world-systems exhibit cyclical processes of change. There are two major cyclical phenomena: the rise and fall of large polities, and oscillations in the spatial extent and intensity of trade networks. “Rise and fall” corresponds to changes in the centralization of political/military power in a set of polities. It is a question of the relative size and distribution of power across a set of interacting polities.
world-systems in which there are hierarchical polities experience a cycle in
which relatively larger polities grow in power and size and then decline. This
applies to interchiefdom systems as well as interstate systems, to systems
composed of empires, and to the modern rise and fall of hegemonic core powers
Chase-Dunn and Hall (1997) contend that the causal processes of rise and fall differ depending on the predominant mode of accumulation. One big difference between the rise and fall of empires and the rise and fall of modern hegemons is in the degree of centralization achieved within the core. Tributary systems alternate back and forth between a structure of multiple and competing core states on the one hand, and core-wide (or nearly core-wide) empires on the other. The modern interstate system experiences the rise and fall of hegemons, but these never take over the other core states to form a core-wide empire. This is because the modern hegemons have pursued a capitalist, rather than a tributary, form of accumulation.
rise and fall works somewhat differently in interchiefdom systems because the
institutions that facilitate the extraction of resources from distant groups
are not as developed in chiefdom systems. David G. Anderson’s (1994) study of
the rise and fall of Mississippian chiefdoms in the Savannah River valley
provides an excellent and comprehensive review of the anthropological
literature about what
Chiefs relied more on hierarchical kinship relations, control of ritual hierarchies, and control of prestige goods imports than did the rulers of true states. These chiefly techniques of power are all highly dependent on normative integration and ideological consensus. States developed specialized organizations for extracting resources that chiefdoms lacked—standing armies and bureaucracies. And states and empires in the tributary world-systems were more dependent on the projection of armed force over great distances than modern hegemonic core states have been. The development of commodity production and mechanisms of financial control, as well as further development of bureaucratic techniques of power, have allowed modern hegemons to extract resources from far-away places with much less overhead cost.
The development of techniques of power has made core/periphery relations ever more important for competition among core powers and has altered the way in which the rise-and-fall process works in other respects. Chase-Dunn and Hall (1997, Chapter. 6) argue that population growth, degradation of natural resources, and changes in productive technology and social structure, have generated sociocultural development that is marked by cycles and occasional upsweeps. This is because any world-system varies around an equilibrium as a result of both internal instabilities and environmental fluctuations. Occasionally, on one of the upswings, a system solves its problems in a new way that allows for substantial expansion. The point is to explain expansions, qualitative transformations of systemic logics, and collapses by studying whole world-systems over time and by comparing these to one another.
The multiscalar regional method of bounding world-systems as nested interaction networks outlined above is complimentary with a multiscalar temporal analysis of the kind suggested by Fernand Braudel’s work. Temporal depth, the longue durée, needs to be combined with analyses of short-run and middle-run processes to fully understand social change.
A strong case for the very longue durée is made by Jared Diamond’s (1997) study of the long-term consequences of original differences in zoological and botanical wealth or “natural capital.” The geographical distribution of those species that could be easily and usefully domesticated (combined with the relative ease of latitudinal vs. longitudinal diffusion) explains a huge portion of the variation in which world-systems expanded and incorporated other world-systems.
diagram in Figure 3 depicts the coming together of the East Asian and the West
Asian/Mediterranean systems. Both the PGNs and
the PMNs are shown, as are the oscillations and rise and
fall sequences. The larger PGNs linked
intermittently and then joined. The PMNs
were joined briefly by the Mongol conquerors, and then more permanently when
the Europeans and Americans established Asian treaty ports. The pink area of
Figure 3 depicts the same
should be noted that the depiction in Figure 3 of the spatial boundaries of the
PMNs and the PGNs is only an approximation. Another rough depiction of
expanding, contracting and eventually merging is contained in Chase-Dunn and
Hall’s (1998) study of world-systems in
Figure 3: The Eastern and Western PMNs and PGNs
The following section describes the proposed structure and format for a geo-chronological dataset that focuses on the religious, trade, conquest, demographic, political, climate change and epidemiological aspects of settlements and polities in four world regional PMNs and the Central PMN over the past six millennia. The main purpose of this dataset is to enable the determination of the main causes of systemic integration and disintegration.
The Polities and Settlements in World Interaction
Networks (PSWIN) dataset will be established and maintained by the Settlements
and Polities Research Working Group at the Institute for Research on
World-Systems (IROWS) at the University of California-Riverside in
collaboration with colleagues at other universities. This data set will be made
available for public usage. The dataset
will link with the World Historical Dataverse at the University of
The proposed data set
will use CSV data files that will be stored on the IROWS web site at the
The PSWIN data set will include historical quantitative estimates of several demographic, political, climate and epidemiological characteristics of settlements and polities. The characteristics will be grouped into several world regional PMNs. Additional world regions can be added if quantitative estimates of the main variables are located. An effort will be made to use the same or similar metrics across world regions, but in some cases this may not be possible.
World Regional PMNs and the Central Political-Military Network
Four world regional PMNs and the expanding Central
PMN will be initially studied:
Each of the world regional PMNs mentioned is understood in
world-systemic terms as including populations that were importantly
interacting. So, for example, Mesopotamia includes the Susiana Plain in
The main variables around which the PSWIN dataset
will be constructed are the population sizes of settlements and the territorial
sizes of polities. Every effort will be
made to use the same kinds of measurements of variables across the different
world regional PMNs. Each world regional PMN will have a work
sheet for settlements and separate work sheets for polities, climate change,
landscapes, diet and epidemic diseases. The
general framework of the variables for each world regional PMNs and the
The PSWIN variables
(1) Year (a single year, BCE indicated by negative sign, e.g. -3250 = 3250 BCE)
(2) Period (period of years, e.g. -3250)
Settlement Name (e.g.
Alternative Names (e.g.
(6) Built-up Area of the city (hectares)
(7) Areal and Population Sizes of residential area (house or hearth counts)
(8) Population size estimate of the whole settlement
(9) Longitude of settlement center
(10) Latitude of settlement center
(11) Main religion of the urban population
(12) Locations of food production for the city
(13) Long-distance trade partners
(14) Long-distance trade exports
(15) Long-distance trade imports
(16) Internal conflict
(17) Involvement in warfare
(13) Epidemic disease
(14) Urban planning: rectangular walls, street grid
(15) Organized drainage or sewer system
(16) Organized fresh water system: aqueduct, public and restricted wells, etc.
(17) Extensive use of fermentation in food processing
(1) Year (a single year, BCE indicated by negative sign, e.g. -3250)
(2) Period (period of years, e.g. -3250 to -3225)
(4) Name of polity
(5) Alternative names
(6) Territorial size of polity (square megameters)
(7) Total population size estimate
(18) Long-distance trade partners
(19) Long-distance trade exports
(20) Long-distance trade imports
(8) Longitude of center of capital city
(9) Latitude of center of capital city
(10) Internal political unrest
(11) Involvement in warfare with other polities
(12) Amount of land under cultivation
(14) Episodes of epidemic disease
III. Climate data for world regions (as close to the geographical center as possible)
(1) Year, period, region
(2) Temperature (cold-normal-hot)
(3) Precipitation (rain/snowfall)
(4) Timing of precipitation (season)
(5) Incidence of violent storms
(6) River or lake levels
IV. Epidemic disease data and population well-being
(1) Year, period, region
(2) Settlement name
(3) Longitude of center
(4) Latitude of center
(5) Heights (indicator of well-being)
(6) Real wages (indicator of well-being)
(7) Grain prices
(8) Disease severity (mortality rate)
a. Number of deaths per capita
b. Epidemic reported in nearby cities
of the data on city sizes has already been coded in connection with related
projects. It comes primarily from
To summarize, it is proposed
that a study of the causes of the expansions and contractions of interpolity
integration should focus on largest settlements and polities in world regional
PMNs, and that the nested networks of interaction as formulated by the
comparative world-systems perspective can serve as a good starting point for
such a study. What is large with regard
to settlements and polities is a relative question. A very small settlement can
be the largest in a region. The place-centric approach to bounding systemic
networks is useful because any location where humans have lived can serve as a
starting point for constructing the networks. Thus for example the
Abu-Lughod, Janet. 1989. Before European Hegemony: The World System A.D. 1250-1350.
Allen, Mitchell. 1997 Contested
dissertation, Interdepartmental archaeology program, UCLA.
_____. 2005. “Power is in the Details: Administrative Technology and the Growth
of Ancient Near Eastern Cores.” Pp. 75-91 in The Historical Evolution of World-Systems, edited by
Christopher Chase-Dunn and E. N. Anderson.
Algaze, Guillermo. 1993. The Uruk World System: The Dynamics of Expansion of Early
Anderson, David G. 1994 The
Arrighi, Giovanni. 1994. The Long Twentieth Century: Money, Power and the Origins of Our
Thomas J. 1989. The Perilous Frontier: Nomadic Empires and
Christopher I. 2009 Empires of the
Geofrey 1969 Looking For Dilmun.
Carneiro, Robert L. 1978 “Political expansion as an expression of the principle of competitive
exclusion,” Pp. 205-223 in Ronald Cohen and Elman R. Service (eds.) Origins of the State: The
Edwin Mellon Press.
Chase-Dunn, Christopher and E.N. Anderson (eds.) 2005. The Historical Evolution of World-Systems.
Chase-Dunn, Christopher. 1988 "Comparing World Systems: Toward a Theory of Semiperipheral
Development." Comparative Civilizations Review 19(Fall):29-66.
__________ 1990 "Resistance to Imperialism: Semiperipheral Actors." Review 13:1(Winter):1-31.
____________ and Kelly M. Mann. 1998 The Wintu and Their
Neighbors: A Small World-System in
________________ and Thomas D. Hall 2006 “Ecological degradation and the evolution of world-systems”
Pp. 231-252 in Andrew Jorgenson and Edward Kick (eds.)
Globalization and the Environment.
: Brill. Leiden
Chase-Dunn, Christopher and Susan Manning, 2002 "City systems and world-systems: four millennia of city growth and decline,"
Cross-Cultural Research 36, 4: 379-398 (November).
____________ Alexis Álvarez, 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.
T.D. Hall (eds.) 1991 Core/Periphery
Relations in Precapitalist Worlds.
Thomas D. Hall 1997 Rise and Demise: Comparing World-Systems.
____________________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.
Chase-Dunn, Christopher, 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 Globalization and Global History edited by Barry K. Gills and
Christian, David 2004 Maps
Cioffi-Revilla, Claudio and David Lai 2001 “Chinese Warfare and Politics in the Ancient East Asian
International System, ca. 2700 B.C. to 722 B.C.” International Interactions 26,4: 1-32.
Collins, Randall 1981 “Long term social change and the territorial power of states,”
71-106 in R. Collins (ed.) Sociology Since Midcentury.
____________ 1992. “The Geographical and Economic World-Systems of Kinship-Based and
Agrarian-Coercive Societies.” Review 15(3):373-88.
Colinvaux, Paul 1978 Why Big Fierce Animals Are Rare. Princeton:
_____________ 1980 The fates of nations : a biological theory
Crawford, Harriet 1998 Dilmun
and Its Gulf Neighbors.
Jared 1999 Guns, Germs and Steel.
Jared 2005 Collapse.
Eckhardt, William. 1992. Civilizations, Empires and Wars: A Quantitative History of War.
Ekholm, Kasja and Jonathan Friedman. 1982. “Capital Imperialism and Exploitation in the
Ancient World-Systems.” Review 6(1):87-110.
Ellis, Erle C., Kees Klein Goldewijk, Stefan Siebert, Deborah Lightman and Navin
Ramankutty 2010 “Anthropogenic transformation of the biomes, 1700-2000” Global Ecology
and Biogeography 19:589-606.
Frank, Andre Gunder and Barry Gills. 1994. The
World System: 500 or 5000 Years?
States and Indigenous Warfare.
Near East.” Pp. 73-100 in The Domestication and Exploitation of Plants and Animals, eds. Ucko, P. and G.W. Dimbleby.
Roland 1995 The Limits of Settlement
Gotts, Nicholas M. 2007 “Resilience, panarchy and world-systems analysis” Ecology and Society 2,1:24.
Graber, Robert Bates 2004 “Is a world state just a matter of time?: a population-pressure
alternative.” Cross-Cultural Research 38,2:147-161 (May).
Hall, Thomas D. 1991. Nomadic Peripheries. In Core/Periphery Relations in Precapitalist
Worlds, edited by Christopher Chase-Dunn and T.D. Hall.
Hall, Thomas D., Christopher Chase-Dunn and Richard Niemeyer 2009 “The roles of Central Asian
middlemen and marcher states in Afroeurasian world-system synchrony” in Ganesh Trichur
(ed.) Asian Regionality in the Twenty-First Century: New Perspectives on the Modern World-System.
Hall, Thomas D. 2000 "Frontiers, Ethnogenesis, and World-Systems: Rethinking the Theories."
Pp. 237-270 in A World-Systems Reader: New Perspectives on Gender, Urbanism, Cultures,
Peoples, and Ecology edited by
Thomas D. Hall.
Hart, Hornell 1948 “The logistic growth of political areas” Social Forces 26,4: 396-408.
Amos. 1950. Human Ecology: A Theory of Community Structure.
Helms, Mary W. 1988 Ulysses' sail : an ethnographic odyssey of power, knowledge, and geographical distance
Hui, Victoria Tin-bor 2005 War and State Formation in Ancient China and Early Modern Europe.
Harold 1972  Empire and
Hopkins, Terence K. and Immanuel Wallerstein 1987. "Capitalism and the
Incorporation of New Zones Into the World-economy." Review 10:4(Fall):763-779.
Kirch, Patrick 1984 The Evolution of Polynesian Chiefdoms.
Korotayev, Andrey 2005 “A compact macro-model of world-system evolution” Journal of
World-Systems Research, 11, 1: 79-93
Kradin, Nikolay N.. 2002. “Nomadism, Evolution and World-Systems: Pastoral Societies in
Theories of Historical Development.” Journal of World-Systems Research, 8,3.
Kradin, Nikolay N., Dmitri M. Bondarenko, Thomas J. Barfield, eds. 2003. Nomadic Pathways in
Evolution. The Civilization
Dimension Series, Vol. 5.
Sciences: Center for Civilizational and Regional Studies.
1940. Inner Asian Frontiers of
republished 1951, 2nd ed.
La Lone, Darrell. 2000. "Rise, Fall, and Semiperipheral Development in the Andean World-
System." Journal of World-Systems Research 6:1(Spring):68-99 [ejournal http://jwsr.ucr.edu/index.php].
Lenski, Gerhard, Jean Lenski, and Nolan Patrick. 1995. Human Societies: An Introduction to
Macrosociology, 7th ed.
Li and Xingcan Chen 2003 State Formation
Mann, Michael 1986. The Sources of Social Power: A History of Power from the Beginning to A.D. 1760.
McAnany, Patricia A. and Norman Yoffee (eds) 2010 Questioning Collapse: Human Resilience,
Ecological Vulnerability and The Aftermath of
McNeill, William H. 1976. Plagues and Peoples. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
McNeill, John R. and William H. McNeill 2003 The Human Web.
: Norton. New York
Modelski, G. and W. R. Thompson. 1996. Leading sectors and world powers: the coevolution of global politics
_____________ Tessaleno Devezas and William R. Thompson (eds.) 2008 Globalization As
Process: Modeling Global Change.
Peter N. 1992 Mississippian Evolution: A
Quigley, Carroll 1961 The Evolution of Civilizations.
Indianapolis: Press. Liberty
Renfrew, Colin R. 1977 "Alternative models for exchange and spatial distribution." Pp. 71-90 in T.
K. Earle and J. E. Ericson (eds.) Exchange Systems in Prehistory.
:Academic New York
Renfrew, Colin and John F. Cherry (eds.) 1986 Peer Polity Interaction and Socio-political Change.
Gilbert 1973 Urban Networks in Ching
Sanderson, Stephen K. 1990 Social Evolutionism.
: Blackwell. Cambridge, MA
2007 Evolutionism and Its Critics.
Schneider, Jane 1992 “Was there a precapitlist world-system? Pp. 45-66 in C. Chase-Dunn and T.D.
Hall (eds) Core/Periphery Relations in Precapitalist Worlds.
______ 1978b "Size and duration of empires: growth-decline curves, 3000 to 600 B.C."
Social Science Research, 7 :180-96.
______1979 "Size and duration of empires: growth-decline curves, 600 B.C. to 600 A.D." Social
Science History 3,3-4:115-38.
“Expansion and contraction patterns of large polities: context for
Studies Quarterly 41,3:475-504.
Tainter, Joseph 1988 The Collapse of Complex
Teggart, Frederick J. 1939.
Tilly, Charles. 1984. Big Structures, Large
Processes, Huge Comparisons.
1986 “Early maritime cultures of the Arabian Gulf and the
108 in Al Khalifa and Rice.
Turchin, Peter. 2003. Historical Dynamics.
Turchin, Peter, Jonathan M. Adams, and Thomas D. 2006. “East-West Orientation of Historical
Turchin, Peter 2009 “A theory for formation of large empires” Journal of Global History 4: 191-217.
Turchin, Peter and Sergey
Nefadov 2009 Secular Cycles
Walby, Sylvia 2009 Globalization and Inequalities: Complexity and Contested Modernities.
Wallerstein, Immanuel. 1974. The Modern World-System: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of European
in the Sixteenth Century.
White, D. R., Natasa Kejzar and Laurent Tambayong 2006 “Oscillatory dynamics of city-size
distributions in world historical systems”. Pp. 190-225 in G. Modelski, T. Devezas
and W. Thompson, (eds.) Globalization as Evolutionary Process: Modeling, Simulating,
and Forecasting Global Change..
: Routledge. London
Wilcox, David R., David A. Gregory and J. Brett Hill 2007 “Zuni in the Puebloan and Southwestern
Worlds” Pp 165-209 in David A. Gregory and David R. Wilcox (eds.) Zuni Origins: Toward a
New Synthesis of Southwestern Archaeology
Wilkinson, David. 1987 "Central civilization" Comparative Civilizations Review 17:31-59 (Fall).
______________ 1991 “Cores, peripheries and civilizations” Pp.113-166 in C. Chase-Dunn
and T.D. Hall (eds.) Core/Periphery
Relations in Precapitalist Worlds.
________________ 1999 ."
Journal of World-Systems Research, V, 3, Fall: 501-617
_______________ 2002" .",
Journal of World-Systems Research, VIII, 3, Fall 292-328
________________ 2003" ."
Complexity, Vol. 8 No. 1 (2003), 82-86
_______________ 2004 " ",
Journal of World-Systems Research, X, 3, Fall 655-720
_______________ (with Sergey V. Tsirel) 2006 " ",
Structure and Dynamics: eJournal of Anthropological and Related Sciences: Vol. 1, No. 2, Article 2.
_________________2007 "States Systems and Universal Empires." In World System History, ed. George Modelski and Robert A.
Denemark, in UNESCO
Online Encyclopedia. Eolss Publishers,
Wissler, Clark. 1927. “The Culture Area Concept in Social Anthropology.” American Journal of
Wright, Henry T. 2006 “Atlas of Chiefdoms and Early States” Structure and Dynamics 1,4.
Yoffee, Norman 1991 “The collapse of ancient Mesopotamian states and civilization.”
Pp. 44-68 in Norman Yoffee and George Cowgill (eds.) The Collapse of Ancient States
2006. Myths of the Archaic State:
Evolution of the Earliest Cities, States, and Civilizations.
2010 “Collapse in Ancient
 We use the term “polity” to generally denote a spatially-bounded realm of sovereign authority such as a band, tribe, chiefdom, state or empire. The term “settlement” includes camps, hamlets, villages, towns and cities. Settlements are spatially bounded for comparative purposes as the contiguous built-up area.
 A data set using the approach
outlined here is already being developed by the Polities and Settlements Research Working Group at the
 Our empirical inventory of quantitatively identified upsweep and collapse “events” in four world regions and the expanding Central Political/Military Interaction network is described in Alvarez et al ( 2011)
 World-systems are defined as being composed of those human settlements and polities within a region that are importantly interacting with one another (Chase-Dunn and Hall 1997).
 Some social scientists erroneously assume that GIS data structures are restricted to the mapping of attributes that are stationary in space and that GIS is useless for studying things that move. Geographers have developed GIS techniques based on vectors for mapping prevailing winds, but also for studying migration (Tobler 1995; n.d.).
 Down-the-line exchange is when goods or ideas are passed from group to group and there are few long-distance trade expeditions.
 PMNs are interpolity systems of warfare and alliance. This is the same idea as “:international systems” as it is used by Political Scientists who study international relations.
 In the comparative civilizations literature what we call core-wide empires are terms “universal empires.”
 Wilkinson (1997) says of his “power polarity” scheme at the most centralized end, where one state encompasses the whole system, is the universal state (Toynbee) or empire (Quigley); next to it is hegemony (or "unipolarity with hegemony"), where a single great power or superpower, with influence to match its capability, oversees a number of subject states which retain internal autonomy; next to that is the condition of unipolarity (more precisely, unipolarity without hegemony), where a single great power, lacking the influence to match its capability, rests among a collection of non-subject non-tributary states; nearer the decentralized end come configurations with two, three, or more great powers: bipolarity, tripolarity, multipolarity; and most decentralized, with many ministates and no great powers, is nonpolarity.