World-System and Evolution: An Appraisal

This paper makes six arguments. First, socio-cultural evolution must be studied from a "world-system" or intersocietal interaction perspective. A focus on change in individual "societies" or "groups" fails to attend adequately to the effects of intersocietal interaction on social and cultural change. Second, in order to be useful, theories of the modern world-system must be modified extensively to deal with non-capitalist settings. In particular, changes in system boundaries marked by exchange networks (for information, luxury or prestige goods, political/military interactions, and bulk goods) seldom coincide,and follow different patterns of change. Third, all such systems tend to pulsate, that is, expand and contract, or at least expand rapidly and less rapidly. Fourth, once hierarchical forms of social organization develop such systems typically have cycles of rise and fall in the relative positions of constituent politics. Fifth, expansion of world-systems forms and transforms social relations in newly incorporated areas. While complex in the modern world-system, these changes are even more complex in precapitalist settings. Sixth, thesetwo cycles combine with demographic and epidemiological processes to shape long -term socio-cultural evolution.

Commentary on "Leadership, Production, and Exchange: An Evaluation of World-Systems Theory in a Global Context"

As we expand and extend our applications of world-system theory, as we explore the shifting interplay between cores and peripheries, as we see boundaries emerge and dissolve, we also fix world-systems theory itself on the map table. What is its core? What are its peripheries, or would it claim that all human interactions fall within its sway?Thomas Hall, for example, does not take quite the entire map, but takes "intersocietal interaction" as the world-systems domain.

A Crisis of Identity: Late Classic Competition and Interaction on the Southeast Maya Periphery

Archaeologists frequently assume that when cultures interact with each other the most complex partner dominates the transactions. We propose that this is a misleadingly simple view of a complex process. A framework for modeling intersocietal interaction and understanding its sociopolitical consequences is outlined here. This theoretical structure calls attention to who is actually involved in the interaction process, how these transactions are carried out, and what the goals of the contact partners are. The complex material patterns from two neighboring areas of Late Classic (A. D. 600-950) southeast Mesoamerica are then examined using the proposed model to see what insights into ancient interaction processes it can provide.

Interregional Interaction in Prehistory: The Need for a New Perspective

Recent archaeological efforts to model processes of intersocietal interaction have been hampered by a dearth of conceptual tools suitable to these analyses. In particular, there is a need for a theoretical structure that shifts concern from our traditional focus on spatially distinct cultures and their relations to the physical environment. Without such a shift, questions of intersocietal contact cannot be addressed successfully. This article suggests that the concept of social identity has a role to play in this reorientation. The use of social identity focuses attention directly on intersocietal interactions by encouraging us to ask such questions as who is interacting with whom, under what conditions, and what are the effects of the contact on local social change? This paper defines social identity, provides examples suggesting its utility in archaeological research, and considers the specific questions raised by the application of social identity to archaeological materials.