The World System since the Bronze Age: Systemic Integration and Divergence-Convergence Cycles
Almanac: Evolution:Evolutionary Aspects: Stars, Primates, and Religion
The paper discusses some aspects of integration of different regions and societies in the course of historical globalization. Within historical globalization one can observe a close correlation between such important processes as technological transformations, urbanization, political integration, struggle for political hegemony, etc. In the paper we analyze these correlations in more detail. We will also try to associate historical globalization and its aspects with the phases of expansion of spatial links between societies. Within the expansion process we point out seven levels from the local level through the planetary one. The most significant changes were associated with crucial technological breakthroughs, or production revolutions and other related transformations like the Urban Revolution. The latter can be regarded as a phase transition of the Afroeurasian world-system to a qualitatively new level of complexity. There are also several periods which one can define as landmarks in the World-System history. The paper also offers some theoretical ideas about the cycles of divergence and convergence.
Keywords: world system, the Bronze Age, political processes, divergence, convergence.
The purpose of the present article is to describe the processes of systemic integration basing on the analysis of peculiarities of the system links within the World-System. In particular, I would like to show the complex character of World-System's development as well as the interrelation between the development of some important variables (including production, technology, politics, and urbanization) and the growth of spatial links. Due to the limited scope, this paper cannot discuss each of these variables and interactions in detail so we refer the reader to our previous works on the subject (Grinin 2007a, 2011; Grinin and Korotayev 2006, 2012а; Korotayev and Grinin 2006). So here many ideas are briefly or even schematically outlined via tables and some other formal methods. The paper seeks to combine a number of conclusions made in other works (see above) into a general concept. Only when offering new conclusions or introducing new terms, do I provide a more comprehensive analysis.
1. The Systemic
Properties and Landmarks
of the World-System History
The subject of the paper makes us primarily address the issue of systemic properties. The matter is that the world-system processes and transformations can be understood much better with the account of their systemic properties. In particular, the rise or decline of individual societies and regions, shifts of the developmental centers, some rapid common and almost simultaneous transformations throughout vast territories (with account of inevitable time lag) as well as many other phenomena can be also (or chiefly) explained just by the systemic properties of the Afroeurasian world-system in a respective epoch.[1] These systemic properties imply a relevant degree of interdependence between the parts and constituents, as well as the presence of a certain structure which reproduces itself over quite a long period of time. Yet, this structure may also change or launch a dramatic transformation within a world-system. This is the way a fundamental systemic property (wherein the whole is more than just a sum of its parts[2]) is realized within world-systems. Thus, changes and transformations in certain parts of a World-System can launch changes in its other parts through the so-called impulse transformations, which can be manifested in various forms and can produce some rather unexpected consequences. Such systemic properties account for the presence of long-lasting positive and negative feedbacks that can be traced in technological or demographic indicators.
One should pay special attention to Chase-Dunn and Hall's idea that a world-system is constituted by a whole set of intersocietal interactions and the level of analysis which is of greatest importance for our understanding of social development is not the one of societies and states, but that of the World-System as a whole (Chase-Dunn and Hall 1997: xi–xii). Undoubtedly, these systemic properties and characteristics have transformed with the course of time and appear quite evident within the evolution of the Afroeurasian world-system.
Even a brief analysis proves that the systemic properties of world-systems and all the more of the World System surpass the common level (even of complex systems) and transform into supersystemic properties determined by the vast temporal and spatial dimensions which we already discussed in some our previous works (Grinin and Korotayev 2009a, 2012a). This demands elaboration of new theoretical and conceptual frameworks. And although much has been done in this respect, there is still much to do. The present article attempts at making a theoretical and conceptual contribution to the studies of the World System's systemic properties, in particular, by suggesting the notions of divergence and convergence (see Section 5).
One should also note that within a world-system one can point out landmarks (integral points) which define peculiar forms and characteristics. These can be both spatial points (specific regions and subregions which constitute the most important communication links and confronting forces), and temporal points which are the periods when the most intensive and important transformations and bifurcations occur. When the most important temporal and spatial points overlap we observe the emergence of historical spatial-temporal nodes which generate dramatic transformations, patterns of change and development which become relevant for different regions and environments. There have been quite a few such spatial-temporal nodes in the world history. If one brings them together within a conventional timeline, they can show the mainstream pattern of the World System's development.
One of the first such nodes could be traced in South Mesopotamia in the 4th millennium BCE. The urbanization that started in South Mesopotamia launched many processes which gave birth to civilizations and contributed to the emergence of politics in the present sense of the word and of political institutions with inchoate modern ones, it also promoted the struggle for hegemony, intensified trade relations, and created the first systems of money circulation. Thus, this approach turns to be of utmost importance from the World-System perspective as well.
That was one of the crucial phase transitions, actually its start that had lasted for almost three millennia in the Afroeurasian world-system. As a result the period from the second half of the 4th millennium BCE to the first half of the 1st millennium CE was really of outstanding importance since it witnessed the main technological, urban, political and cultural transformations in the Afroeurasian world-system and virtually triggered historical globalization.
Another spatial-temporal node was surely the late Middle Ages and early Modern Age in Europe which gave birth to modern economy and statehood. Between the defined two nodes there lies the node of the second third and middle 1st millennium BCE (that Karl Jaspers [1953] called the Axial Age), which created a background for the emergence of new philosophies, ideologies, religions, arts, and forms of statehood. The core of this node was situated in Western Asia and on the Balkan Peninsula and later also incorporated India and China, thus forming a belt of empires. By the way, there appeared the largest expansion within the World System in the framework of the close cultural and political systems prior to the Mongol Conquest.
The development of these nodes increased the divergence between regions while the distribution of innovations implied convergence, as will be discussed in the last section of this paper.
2. Periodization on the Basis of Expanding
Spatial Links
and Phases of the Afroeurasian World-System
The students of world-systems always paid much attention to spatial links (e.g., Chase-Dunn and Hall 1997; Hall 2014; Chase-Dunn 2014) which form a certain frame within a world-system. Moreover, the scale (length) of these links can be measured. Individual world systems and the World System vary both in scale (length) of these links, as well as in their intensity and complexity. In this paper we present a concept of the evolution of these links in the form of periodization of globalization as defined by the expanding spatial links. This periodization can be correlated with others in order to show the complex character of the World System development, the interactions between some other important variables (production, technology, politics, and urbanization), and the growth of spatial links.
Elsewhere we have already discussed both the procedure and various approaches to the periodization (e.g., Grinin 2007a, 2007b, 2012; Grinin L. and Grinin A. 2015, 2016; Grinin and Korotayev 2009a) and different approaches to periodization of historical globalization (Grinin and Korotayev 2013a, 2013b), thus, we can omit this point in the present paper.
Our ideas of the main phases of historical globalization are presented in Table 1 which distinguishes seven periods. The given periodization is based on the principle of expanding spatial links between societies (see Grinin and Korotayev 2013a, 2013b). We can point how the expansion and integration of interacting networks moves from the local level through the level of transcontinental links, to the planetary one. Actually, one can speak about historical globalization starting from the third phase when the regional-continental links originated. Since the Age of Discovery the intercontinental links started to develop and by the early 19th century they had become truly global.
Table 1. Growth of globalization level in historical process
|
Period number |
Type of spatial links (globalization level) |
Period dates |
|
1 |
Local links |
Before the 7th – 6th millennium BCE |
|
2 |
Local-regional links |
From the 7th – 6th millennium to
the second half |
|
3 |
Regional-conti- |
From the second half of the 4th millennium
BCE |
|
4 |
Transcontinental links |
From the second half of the 1st millennium
BCE |
|
5 |
Intercontinental (Oceanic) links |
From the late 15th century to the early 19th century |
|
6 |
Global links |
From the early 19th century to the 1960s and 1970s |
|
7 |
Planetary links |
From the last third of the 20th century to the mid-21st century |
Since we have already given a thorough description of the developmental phases of the Afroeurasian world-system, which later transformed into the World System (Grinin and Korotayev 2012a, 2013a, 2013b), in the present paper we will only summarize these phases.
1) From the 8th to the 4th millennia BCE – the formation of contours and structure of the Middle Eastern core of the Afroeurasian world-system (the first phase). This was the period of completing the Agrarian Revolution in the Near East (also see Table 3). It evidenced the formation of long-distance and permanent information and exchange links which was accompanied by the emergence of medium-complexity early agrarian societies, relatively complex polities, and settlements that (in terms of their size and structure) slightly resembled cities (e.g., Kenyon 1981; Wenke 1990: 325; Schultz and Lavenda 1998: 214).
In the 5th millennium BCE, the Ubaid culture emerged in Southern Mesopotamia. Within that culture the material and social basis of the Sumerian civilization developed. The Uruk culture that succeeded the Ubaid was characterized by the presence of a considerable number of large settlements. The Ubaid and the Uruk cultures laid the material and social basis for the development of the Sumerian civilization. By the end of the Uruk period we observe the emergence of urbanized societies (Bernbeck and Pollock 2005: 17), as well as of the first early states and their analogues (Grinin and Korotayev 2006; Grinin 2003, 2008), and civilizations. By the end of this period the ‘Urban Revolution’ took place within Afroeurasian world-system. This can be regarded as a phase transition of the Afroeurasian world-system to a qualitatively new level of social, political, cultural, demographic, and technological complexity (Berezkin 2007).
2) The 3rd and 2nd millennia BCE – the development of the Afroeurasian world-system centers during the Bronze Age (the second phase). This is a period of a rapidly growing population and agricultural intensity in the Afroeurasian world-system (about urbanization see below). One of the most important outcomes of this period was the growing political integration of the Afroeurasian world-system core societies, which was a consequence of rather complex military-political and other interactions.
In the West-Asian region the prestige good trade network achieved a high level of development and was often supported by states. Some European regions were involved in the communication network of the Afroeurasian world-system, while the trade links with South Asia were established through the Persian Gulf.
3) From the 1st millennium BCE to 200 BCE – the Afroeurasian world-system as a belt of expanding empires and new civilizations (the third phase). This is the time of the early Iron Age. Already in the initial phase of this period the Agrarian Revolution had been completed within the Afroeurasian world-system through the diffusion of the technology of plow non-irrigation agriculture and usage of tools with iron parts (for more details see Korotayev and Grinin 2006, 2012). Within Afroeurasian world-system one could observe a constant growth of the belt of empires. The end of the period evidenced the formation of empires both in the Far West (Rome) and the Far East (China) of the Afroeurasian world-system. The West Asian center was finally integrated with the Mediterranean world, whereas the European areas of the barbarian periphery were linked more actively with Afroeurasian world-system centers through military, trade, and cultural links.
4) From 200 BCE to the early 7th century CE – the Afroeurasian world-system integrated with the steppe periphery (the fourth phase). During the period the links within this world-system became transcontinental. Around the 2nd century BCE, relatively stable trade links (albeit involving preciosities rather than bulk goods) were established between the ‘marcher empires’ of Afroeurasian world-system through the so-called Silk Route, whose significant part crossed the territories of the nomadic periphery and semi-periphery. Thus, in this period the periphery closed the circuit of Afroeurasian world-system trade links. For a long time the Afroeurasian world-system expansion to a considerable extent proceeded through the expanding interaction between civilizations and their barbarian peripheries. The disintegration of the Western Roman Empire, the weakening of the Eastern Roman Empire, the diffusion of Christianity in the western part of Afroeurasian world-system, a new rise of the Chinese Empire in its eastern part, prepared the Afroeurasian world-system for major geopolitical changes and new levels of complexity.
5) From the 7th to the 14th centuries CE – the Afroeurasian world-system apogee: world religions and world trade (the fifth phase). In this period the developmental level of the world-system links reached the limits of what could be achieved on the agrarian basis. One could also observe the formation of important preconditions for the transformation of the Afroeurasian world-system into the planetary capitalist World System.
One should particularly note: a) the formation of especially dense oceanic trade links in the second half of the 1st millennium CE in the Indian Ocean Basin; b) the creation of vigorous major transcontinental land routes through the territory of the Mongol states that connected in a rather direct way the main Afroeurasian world-system centers; and c) the started expansion of the urbanized zone from Northern Italy through Southern Germany to the Netherlands, where the commodity production became the dominant economic pattern (Bernal 1965; Wallerstein 1974; Blockmans 1989: 734; Grinin and Korotayev 2015).
6) From the 15th to 18th centuries CE – the transformation of the Afroeurasian world-system into the planetary World System (the sixth phase). This phase was associated with the initial phase of the Industrial Revolution (see Table 3) that drove the transformation of the Afroeurasian world-system into a world-system of planetary scale (on the one hand) and of capitalist nature (on the other hand).[3] The planetary scale of the world-system could be evidenced, for example, by the price revolution that resulted from the mass import of gold and silver from the New World to the Old World (see, e.g., Barkan and McCarthy 1975; Goldstone 1984, 1988; Hathaway 1998: 34).
7) From the beginning of the 19th century to the 12th century CE – the industrial World System and mature globalization (subsequent phases). Great Geographic discoveries sharply extended the Afroeurasian world-system's contact zone. As a result a new structure of this world-system (alongside with the European technological breakthrough) started to originate. The trade-capitalist core emerged in Europe, while the previous world-system centers (in particular, the South Asian one) had been transformed into an exploited periphery (this process became even more active at the subsequent phase of the World-System evolution). Thus, the world-system periphery experienced a significant transformation (for more details see Grinin and Korotayev 2015).
The subsequent World-System's development is connected directly with the final phase of the Industrial Revolution (between the last third of the 18th century and the first half of the 19th century) [see Table 3; for more details see Grinin 2007a, 2007b; Grinin and Korotayev 2015]). The changes in transportation and communication had a revolutionizing effect on the development of the world-system links.
In the 20th century, the World System's development (after the World Wars and decolonization) was associated with the Cybernetic Revolution of the second half of the century. The world became tightly interconnected as has been recently demonstrated by the global financial-economic crisis. By the late 20th century, the idea that our world is experiencing ‘globalization’ (whatever meaning was assigned to this word) became a common point.
Table 2 shows the correlation between the phases of historical globalization and the development of the Afroeurasian world-system (for our approach see Grinin and Korotayev 2009a, 2012a) whose evolution evidently provided the basis for the qualitative development of globalization. Since any periodization requires its own basis to distinguish the time periods, the congruence between two presented periodization cannot be complete.
Table 2. The increasing level of globalization and the rise of the Afroeurasian world-system
|
Type of spatial links (globalization level) |
Period |
Phases of development |
|
Local links |
Till the 7th – 6th millennium BCE |
|
|
Local-regional links |
From the 7th – 6th millennium to
the second half of the |
The first phase: from the 8th to 4th millennia BCE – the formation of contours and structure of the Middle Eastern core of the Afroeurasian world-system. |
|
Regional-continental links
|
From the second half of the 4th millennium BCE to the first half of the 1st millennium BCE |
The second and third phases: the 3rd and 2nd millennia BCE – the development of the Afroeurasian world-system centers during the Bronze Age (the second phase). From the first millennium BCE to 200 BCE – the Afroeurasian world-system as a belt of expanding empires and new civilizations (the third phase). |
|
Transcontinental links |
From the second half of the 1st millennium BCE to the late 15th century CE |
The fourth and fifth phases: from 200 BCE to the 14th century CE – the Afroeurasian world-system is integrated by the steppe periphery; the Afroeurasian world-system apogee: world religions and world trade |
Continuation of the Table
|
Type of spatial links (globalization level) |
Period |
Phases of development |
|
Intercontinental (Oceanic) links |
From the late 15th century to the early 19th century |
The sixth phase: from the 15th to the 18th centuries – the transformation of the Afroeurasian world-system into the planetary World System. |
|
Global links
|
From the early 19th century to the 1960s and 1970s |
The seventh phase: from the beginning of the 19th century to the 20th century – the industrial World System and mature globalization. |
|
Planetary links
|
From the last third of the 20th century to the mid-21st century |
Subsequent phases: mature and integrated World System |
3. The Correlation between Spatial Links,
Technological
Level, and Political Organization
In this paper I attempt at defining important correlations between different variables. The most significant changes within the World System and its globalization were definitely associated with dramatic technological breakthroughs or production revolutions, namely, Agrarian (or Neolithic), Industrial, and Cybernetic (Grinin 2007a; Grinin A. and Grinin L. 2015a, 2015b; Grinin and Korotayev 2015).
Each production revolution launches a new production principle and passes through three phases: two innovative phases and between them – a modernization one (see Fig. 2).
The phases of the production revolutions can be conceptualized as in Table 3.
Table 3. The phases of the Agrarian, Industrial
and Cybernetic
Revolutions
|
Phases of the Agrarian Revolution |
||||
|
Phases |
Type |
Name |
Dates |
Changes |
|
Initial |
Inno-vative |
Manual farming |
12,000– |
Transition to primitive manual (hoe) agriculture and cattle-breeding |
|
Intermediate |
Moder-nization |
Distribution of agriculture |
9,000– |
Emergence of new domesticated plants and animals, development of complex agriculture, emergence of a complete set of agricultural instruments |
|
Final |
Inno-vative |
Irrigated and plough agriculture |
5,500– |
Transition to irrigative or non-irrigated plow agriculture |
|
Initial |
Inno-vative |
Manufacturing |
The 15th – 16th centuries |
Development of shipping, technology and mechanization on the basis of water engine, manufacture based on the division of labor and mechanization |
|
Intermediate |
Moder-nization |
Primary industry |
The 17th – early 18th centuries |
Formation of a complex industrial sector and capitalist economy, increasing mechanization and division of labor |
|
Final |
Inno-vative |
Machinery |
1730 – the 1830s |
Formation of sectors with the machine production cycle with steam energy |
Continuation of the Table
|
Phases |
Type |
Name |
Dates |
Changes |
|
Initial |
Inno-vative |
Scientific-Cybernetic |
from the 1950s to the 1990s |
Breakthroughs occurred in the spheres of automation, energy production, synthetic materials production, and especially in the development of electronic control facilities, communication and information |
|
Intermediate |
Modernization |
The phase of digital electronics |
from the 1990s to the 2020s
|
Development and wide diffusion of user-friendly computers, communication technologies, cell phones and so on. Medicine and biotechnologies as well as some other innovative fields have also made great advance |
|
Final |
Innovative |
The phase of self-regulating systems |
from the 2030s to the 2070s |
Creation of self-regulating systems or systems indirectly controlled either via other systems or by means of point impact and correction |
Note that every phase of historical globalization closely correlates with a new level of development of productive forces. The origins of globalization and formation of regional-continental links correlate with the final phase of the Agrarian Revolution, which spread in many parts of the Afroeurasian world-system from the 4th to the 1st millennia BCE. The Age of Discovery and the formation of intercontinental links correlate with the initial phase of the Industrial Revolution. In a number of our works we described the correlation between the technological development and elaboration of political forms (e.g., Grinin 2009, 2011; Grinin L. and Grinin A. 2015; Korotayev and Grinin 2006, 2012), thus, in the present paper we only summarize this correlation.
The correlation between different variables and the correlations between the periods of globalization and such variables as spatial links, political organization, and level of technological development, are demonstrated in Table 4.
Table 4. Correlation between spatial links,
political organization
and level of
technological development
|
Type |
Period |
Forms |
Level of techno-logical
development (production principles and production |
|
Local |
Till the second half of the 4th millennium BCE
|
Pre-state (simple and medium complexity) political forms, the first complex polities |
Hunter-gatherer production principle. |
|
Regional- Continental links |
The second half |
Early states and their analogues; |
The final phase of the Agrarian revolution (from Mesopotamia to Europe) |
|
Continental/Transcontinental links |
The second half |
Rise of developed states and empires |
Agrarian production principle reaches its maturity |
|
Intercontinental (oceanic) links |
The late 15th centu- |
Rise of developed states, first mature states |
The initial phase of the Industrial revolution |
|
Global links |
The early 19th centu- |
Mature states and early forms of supranational entities |
The final phase of the Industrial revolution. Maturity of the Industrial production principle |
|
Planetary links |
Starting from the last third of the 20th century |
Formation of supranational entities, washing out of state sovereignty, search for new types of political alliances and entities, planetary governance forms |
The start and development of the Cybernetic revolution, whose final phase is forecasted for the 2030s and 2040s |
4. The Correlation between Urbanization and
Political
Processes
Urbanization is closely connected with technological and political transformations. In the 4th millennium BCE, the Urban Revolution (the term was coined by Childe [1950, 1952]) took place in South Mesopotamia and for the first time in history the urbanized societies had originated (e.g., Adams 1966, 1981; Bernbeck and Pollock 2005: 17; Pollock 2001: 45; Rothman 2004).[4] Let us once again point that this revolution, built upon the Agrarian Revolution, which spread throughout Mesopotamia and beyond, can be regarded as a multi-dimensional phase transition of the Afroeurasian world-system to a qualitatively new level of complexity.
The correlation between urbanization and political processes is beyond doubt. The ‘urban’ pattern of the early state formation was one of the most common ones. Urbanization was connected with the concentration of people due to the forced merger of a few settlements, usually under the pressure of military or other threats. Such a situation was typical in many regions: in Ancient Greece, Mesopotamia (in particular, during the Urban revolution, i.e. in the late 4th and 3rd millennia BCE) (Dyakonov 1983: 110; 2000: 46), as well as in a number of European, Asian and African regions (e.g., in the 17th-century South-East Madagascar several small states of the Betsileo originated following this pattern [Kottak 1980; Claessen 2002]). In Greece this process was called synoikismos.
Population concentration also contributed in a rather significant way both to urbanization and to state formation processes as well as to increasing complexity. In particular, the contact density within a polity is a very important factor for state formation. Archaeologists note that population concentration leads to a spatial structuring of settlements (Adams 1966; Wright and Johnson 1975). The larger the population density, the more pronounced is the structuring of society, including its spatial organization (Girenko 1991: 91).
Since the density in urban communities is usually larger than in rural societies, the politogenetic processes within the former have certain peculiarities in comparison with rural societies. The patterns of statehood development are also different due to the presence or lack of cities' political dominance over rural neighborhood.
This explains why we disagree with Robert Carneiro's circumscription theory, which ignores the urban pattern of state-formation and thereby neglects the fact that in cities the population and resource concentration plays a different role than it is described in his theory (Carneiro 1970, 2012; Grinin and Korotayev 2012b). In the agrarian polity the increasing population density may bring the land shortage, social tension and wars, while in cities the increasing population density may rather bring the emergence of new forms of government and statehood.
Let us consider now the relationship between the size of the territory controlled by developed and mature states and their analogues, and the world urban population. In Fig. 3 one can see a close correlation between urbanization and political integration.
Second, by the 1st millennium BCE the urbanization slowed down. During this period we observe a growing political integration among the Afroeurasian world-system core societies, which was a consequence of rather complex military-political and other interactions. As a result one could observe that an increasing political complexity of cities and small polities gave way to large early and developed states (Grinin 2008, 2011, 2012). In Fig. 3 one can observe the dramatic rise of this new type of states starting from the late 3rd millennium BCE. This rise of states and the emergence of the first empires generated the upswings and downswings of the cycles of political hegemony after the 3rd millennium BCE (Frank and Gills 1993; see also Chase-Dunn et al. 2010; Grinin, Ilyin, and Andreev 2016). In the late 3rd and 2nd millennia BCE, in Mesopotamia one could observe the succession of the Akkadian Empire, the third Dynasty of Ur Kingdom and Old Babylonian Kingdom followed by the Assyrian Kingdom. In the second half of the 2nd millennium BCE, a vigorous hegemonic struggle occurred between Assyria, New Kingdom of Egypt, Mitanni and the Hittite Kingdom. Some of these powers would unite against others (in Fig. 3 the period of oscillations in the 2nd millennium BCE correlates with the period of the struggle for political hegemony [about various theories of cycles of political hegemony see e.g., Modelski and Thompson 1996; Thompson 1988]).
Thus, a rapid urbanization in the 4th and 3rd millennia BCE contributed to the emergence of new political structures (early states and their analogues).[5] However, the transition to maturing political forms required no further increase in urbanization; thus, although the political integration in the 3rd and 2nd millennia proceeded rather actively, one observes no transition of urbanization to a new attractor. Yet, in the second half of the 2nd millennium one can observe a certain rise that is accounted for by Egypt, where urbanization, unlike in Mesopotamia, actually followed the political process.
The slowdown of urbanization was also caused by the uncompleted Agrarian revolution in Europe. It could complete through the diffusion of plow non-irrigation agriculture based on the use of cultivation tools with iron parts as well as iron axe and other iron tools (for more details see Korotayev and Grinin 2006, 2013; Grinin and Korotayev 2009a, 2009b, 2013a). The diffusion of iron, together with population growth in Europe and other parts of the Afroeurasian world-system, brought a new increase both of urbanization and of state-formation (first, of the early states, and later – of the developed ones). As a result, in the second half of the 1st century BCE and in the 1st century CE we can also find a belt of expanding empires and new civilizations.
It is worth noting a very remarkable phenomenon of East/West synchrony in growth and decline of the population size of the largest cities from 500 BCE to 1500 CE in West Asia and of those in East Asia (Chase-Dunn and Manning 2002). There is a similar synchrony in the territorial sizes of the largest empires (Hall, Chase-Dunn, and Niemeyer 2009).
One observes the third wave of explosive growth of cities and mature states (Grinin 2008, 2011, 2012) in connection with the Industrial Revolution whose start we date to the end of the 15th century (see Table 3) and which completed in the early 19th century (that actually coincides with the transition to the true globalization).[6] The increasing number of developed states in the 16th century was connected with the so-called Gunpowder Revolution and other changes in the military arts which forced the European and Asian States to change their organization (Duffy 1980; Downing 1992; Andrade 2016; see also McNeill 1982).
5. System Integration in Terms of Divergences
and Convergences
In world-system terms, the integration is generated by an array of complex processes occurring within the forming or developing world-system. Sooner or later the increasing interactions promote complexity by means of diffusing innovations, interactions, and impacts of various kinds, as well as expanding the most active regions or societies, and resisting to this expansion. These interactions also influence the restructuring of the system due to the emergence of new dynamically developing competitive centers. Within this flow of interactions one can trace a manifestation of the law of uneven development of societies. Development has always been spatially uneven (Chase-Dunn and Hall 1997: xiii; see also Harvey 1996; Marx 1963, 1972; Ilyushechkin 1986, 1990, 1996). In particular, this law is manifested in alternating periods of fast development of certain regions (which, therefore, surpass other regions), and of the distribution of achievements of the leading region far beyond its boundaries. Consequently, there occurs a levelling between different regions. The described cyclical uneven development leads to a powerful expansion of the world system or of its developed regions, as well as to increasing contact density and complexity levels, and to a general acceleration of its development.
The fluctuation phases within uneven social development can be presented as alternations of divergences and convergences. A group of global historians (the ‘California School’) denoted the 19th-century powerful breakaway between the West European and Asian societies as a ‘great divergence’ (see Goldstone 1991, 2002, 2008a, 2008b; Pomeranz 2000, 2002; Wong 1997; Frank 1998; Marks 2002; Vries 2003, 2010). Following this approach we find it appropriate to call the epoch beginning between 1950 and the 1970s, and lasting until the present day, the ‘great convergence’, since during this period the periphery and semi-periphery have been catching up with the world-system core (Grinin and Korotayev 2014b, 2015). In our co-authored monograph Great Divergence and Great Convergence: A Global Perspective (Grinin and Korotayev 2015) we analyzed the processes of divergence and convergence, having covered the period starting from the 12th century CE. Moreover, this analysis has been made to a large extent within the world-system paradigm. We also analyzed additional mechanisms of both divergence and convergence, as well as transformation of the former into the latter.
In this context we have come to the conclusion that alternations of these processes can be also discovered in other periods of World-System history starting from the 9th and 8th centuries BCE, that is at least from the moment of the formation of the World-System core according to our chronology (Grinin and Korotayev 2016).
Divergences and convergences have been accompanying the development throughout historical process and appear at different levels and scales. Divergence and convergence are respectively a discrepancy or closing up of evolutionary patterns; meanwhile, the developmental level of societies evolving along divergent or convergent trajectories could remain different as well as become generally comparable. Divergence in some aspects can combine with convergence in other aspects if societies maintain a close contact. We described a similar type of development for Europe of the 15th to the 18th centuries CE and called it a ‘catching-up divergence’. Thus, a number of Asian states borrowed (converged with) the European military technologies in the early Modern period. Convergence can also be alternated by divergence and vice versa.
Divergence occurs both among affined and unrelated societies. The divergence among societies with common ancestry is especially evident if, for example, these societies' developmental trajectories diverge or they develop in differing social and geographical environments. For example, after the 5th century CE the development of the Saxons who intruded in Britain and of the Saxons staying on the European continent unfolded in essentially different directions (for more details see Grinin 2011: 17–21). The same refers to any divergence with previously uniform society or pattern of life (e.g., as it happened with Indo-Europeans who in the 5th millennium BC used to have a more or less unified language and way of life). Along with a number of other factors the religious divergence between Orthodox and Roman Catholic Christianity generated essential developmental differences between the Western European societies and Orthodox Eastern Europe. Divergence underlies the idea of the adherents of civilization approach that new civilizations can appear on the basis of a mother civilization. However, divergence can never be completed and it always affects only some aspects of life in society.[7] But at the same time it can be more or less profound and important from the point of view of the destinies of emerging societies.
Great divergence and great convergence are discrepancies or rapprochements which respectively reveal either a radical gap between societies, or the reaching of the leaders' level by previously lagging societies. At the same time great divergence was quite often preceded by large convergence when a lagging society would quickly catch up the leaders, and then, still possessing a huge potential, would start running ahead following a new developmental trajectory.
There were few great divergences and great convergences in history, and they were associated with technological breakthroughs starting from the invention of agriculture up to digital electronics. The development of farming led to the emergence of a new type of societies in the Near East which resulted in the formation of the Afroeurasian world-system as well as in the general divergence between early agricultural societies and hunter-gatherers. And the final phase of the Agrarian revolution, the transition to a large-scale irrigation in the second half of the 4th to the beginning of the 3rd millennia BCE, gave birth to the first states, civilizations, and urbanized societies, and also brought about the divergence between states/civilized areas and barbarian societies. In a certain sense it was the first great divergence between the East and the West as the East began to dramatically surpass the West in many respects during the 3rd and 2nd millennia BC.[8]
But actually this great divergence between the East and the West was preceded by the important divergence in the Middle East, which can be traced already starting from the 5th millennium BCE when the Southern Mesopotamia started to advance. Then during the 3rd and 2nd millennia BCE a powerful convergence occurred in the Near East which simultaneously turned a great divergence between the East and the West. Thus, the described processes determined the dynamics of the World System development for two millennia. Thus, the important characteristics of the integral spatial-temporal point described in the present article (the Southern Mesopotamia of the around 4th century BCE) can be elaborated by the idea that it launched one of the major divergences in the history of the World System.
We can trace another divergence when the East rushed ahead. It occurred after the fall of the Western Roman Empire during the so-called Dark Ages in Europe.[9] The period from the 5th to the 12th centuries CE was the time of prosperity in many oriental societies (accompanied by their rise and decline). During this period the East considerably outpaced the West. Thus, the divergence of the 1st millennium CE prepared the background for the great convergence of the 19th century which was preceded by the convergence of the 12th to 14th centuries CE when Europe started to catch up with the achievements of the East (see below and Grinin and Korotayev 2015).[10]
The above-described great divergence connected with the European industrial breakthrough was also the result of the revolution of industrial production that lasted from the 15th – 16th centuries to the 18th and early 19th century. As with previous divergences, this one also brought about a radical gap in the production level and amount of surplus product, as well as radical demographic changes. Its result was the establishment of new types of political systems, a radical increase in the level of armaments and military art, culture, etc.[11]
Convergence, or rapprochement, is also a very common evolutionary pattern when societies borrow each other's achievements and institutes in different spheres of life along with diffusing various innovations, then the societies unite thus, reducing distinctions among them. As mentioned above, there were few great convergences and great divergences. Furthermore, they were connected with production revolutions and technological breakthroughs, taking into account that here we observe a catching up model associated with the necessity to borrow new technologies and to adapt them to particular conditions. In connection with our study we refer to one of the most important great convergences occurred in the second half of the 1st millennium CE. It was related to the completing Agrarian Revolution in Europe due to the distribution of iron and iron tools in farming. Here the distribution of iron and plow farming along with the usage of iron for military purposes led to the emergence of ancient civilization. This generated the convergence between the East and the West (let us recall that many Greek wise men and philosophers studied in Babylonia and Egypt). As a result Europe began to catch up with Asia in the level of urbanization, development of public administration, military arts, culture, and science, and to outpace it in some respects (as evidenced by the well-known campaign of Alexander the Great, and Roman victories). As a result Europeans became more initiative and creative in many spheres than the former leaders in the East. In general, the described divergence brought the rise of a belt of Hellenistic empires at the end of the 4th and 3rd centuries BCE which later would realize the phenomenon in cultural and political spheres.
However, their decline along with the development of the Chinese and Indian centers of the World System at the end of the 1st millennium BCE and the beginning of the 1st millennium CE makes us speak about new divergence between the East and the West which is manifested in establishing various new types of culture, philosophy, science, and political systems. This divergence cannot be considered ‘great’ since it did not create any large gap between societies, still one may speak about some superiority of the West over the East in terms of the military and state superiority until the decline of the Western Roman Empire.
Another important convergence (between the 12th and 4th centuries CE) is connected with the rise of Europe whose developmental level had strongly decreased after the fall of the Western Roman Empire and barbarization during the period of the Dark Ages of the 1st millennium CE (between the 7th and 9th centuries). This rise in different spheres was largely promoted by an active borrowing, adaptation and creative development of the achievements of the Middle East, North Africa, China, India and other Asian societies (Al-Hasan and Hill 1991: 278–280; Ashtor 1978: 295; Raychaudhuri and Habib 1982: 47–52, 285; Elvin 1973: 85, 113–130, 167; Lal 1988: 48; Mokyr 1990: 23–24; Needham 1981: 13–14; Watson 1981: 29–30; Pacey 1990; Hall 1980; Goldstone 2009; Grinin and Korotayev 2015). This period lasting from the 12th to the 15th centuries can be extended in some aspects also to the 11th century, and even much earlier if to account the military borrowings resulting in the creation of well-known heavy knightly cavalry (see, e.g., Cardini 1987). The same also refers to some technological innovations like watermills, etc.
Speaking about the current great
convergence, when countries of the South begin to catch up with those of the
North, one should note that together with imitation and introduction of western
technologies, the catching-up countries of Asia become more and more actively
involved in technological and other innovations. This can be evidenced, for
example, by the increasing number of patentable inventions in Asia (first of
all, in East Asia) in nano- and microtechnologies which are technologies of the
future technological paradigm (see
Fig. 4).
Thus, the great convergence arises as a simple borrowing of technologies and institutes, and then there starts a creative adaptation to peculiar conditions along with active learning from the more advanced societies. Powerful innovations result in higher developmental rates and then in a significant divergence. Thereafter, the innovations made by the region that takes the lead become a model and material for subsequent borrowings.
Thus, divergences and convergences between the East and the West, alternating over thousands years, at the same time reveal a similarity between Western and Eastern societies. This similarity allows them to adopt and adapt many of each other's achievements. This similarity does not predetermine success or backwardness of separate civilizations and regions.[12] But on the other hand, it shows that the catching-up societies do not (and probably cannot) simply imitate the advanced societies. A successful convergence can take place only under the conditions of a really creative adaptation and transformation.
* * *
Even a brief analysis of systemic properties of the Afroeurasian world-system and of the current planetary World System show their infinite aspects, as well as their efficiency and fruitfulness for the explanation of the complex processes of historical globalization. During the whole period of historical globalization one can observe a close correlation between such important phenomena as technological transformations, spatial expansion of contact area, urbanization, and political integration. There is also a correlation between the above-mentioned variables and the struggle for political hegemony, which promoted the formation of the world order in different periods of historical globalization (Grinin, Ilyin, and Andreev 2016). The above-mentioned approach also enriches our perceptions of the ‘structure’ of historical process and the course of globalization, and of the rhythms of development of the World System which are expressed in synchrony and asynchrony, in divergence and convergence, as well as in increasing integration or its weakening, among others.
References
Adams R. 1966. The Evolution of Urban Society: Early Mesopotamia and Prehistoric Mexico. Chicago: Aldine.
Adams R. M. 1981. Heartland of Сities. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Al-Hasan A. Y., and Hill D. R. 1991. Science and Techniques in Islam. Paris: Unesco.
Allen R. C. 2009. The British Industrial Revolution in Global Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Andrade T. 2016. The Gunpowder Age: China, Military Innovation, and the Rise of the West in World History. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Ashtor E. 1978. Underdevelopment in Pre-Industrial Era. The Case of Declining Economies. The Journal of European Economic History 7(2–3): 285–310.
Balter M. 2006. The Goddess and the Bull. Catalhoyuk: An Archaeological Journey to the Dawn of Civilization. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
Barfield T. J. 1989. The Perilous Frontier. London: Blackwell.
Barkan O., and McCarthy J. 1975. The Price Revolution of the Sixteenth Century: A Turning Point in the Economic History of the Near East. International Journal of Middle East Studies 6(1): 3–28.
Berezkin Yu. E. 2007. On the Structure of History: The Temporal and Spatial
Constituents. History and Mathematics:
The Conceptual Space and Trends for the Search / Ed. by P. V. Turchin, L. E. Grinin, S. Yu. Malkov, and A. V. Korotayev, pp. 88–98. Moscow: LKI/URSS. In Russian (Березкин Ю. Е. О
структуре
истории: временные и пространственные составляющие. История и математика: концептуальное
пространство и направления поиска / Ред. П. В. Турчин, Л. Е. Гринин, С. Ю. Малков, А. В. Коротаев, с. 88–98. М.: ЛКИ/УРСС).
Bernal J. D. 1965. Science in History. 3rd ed. New York: Hawthorn Books.
Bernbeck R., and Pollock S. 2005. A Cultural-Historical Framework. Archaeologies of the Middle East: Critical Perspectives / Ed. by S. Pollock, and R. Bernbeck, pp. 11–40. Oxford: Blackwell.
Blockmans W. T. 1989. Preindustrial Europe. Theory and Society 18(5): 733–755.
Bondarenko Ye. S. 2006. The Information Field of the Neolithic Middle
East. Istoriya
i sovremennost' 2: 47–66. In Russian (Бондаренко Е. С. Информационное поле неолита Ближнего Востока.
История и современность 2: 47–66).
Cardini F. 1987. Origins of Medieval Knighthood. Transl. from Italian. Moscow: Progress. In Russian (Кардини Ф. Истоки средневекового рыцарства / пер. с итал. М.: Прогресс).
Carneiro R. L. 1970. A Theory of the Origin of the State. Science 169: 733–738.
Carneiro R. L. 2012. The Circumscription Theory: A Clarification, Amplification, and Reformulation. Social Evolution & History 11(2): 5–30.
Chase-Dunn Ch. 2014. Continuities and Transformations in the Evolution of World-Systems. Journal of Globalization Studies 5(1): 11–31.
Chase-Dunn Ch., and Hall Th. D. 1997. Rise and Demise: Comparing World-Systems. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Chase-Dunn Ch., and Manning S. 2002. City Systems and World-Systems. Cross-Cultural Research 36(4): 379–398.
Chase-Dunn Ch., Niemeyer R., Alvarez A., Inoue H., and Love J. 2010. Cycles of Rise and Fall, Upsweeps and Collapses: Changes in the Scale of Settlements and Polities since the Bronze Age. History & Mathematics: Processes and Models of Global Dynamics / Ed. by L. E. Grinin, P. Herrmann, A. V. Korotayev, and A. Tausch, pp. 64–91. Volgograd: ‘Uchitel’.
Chernykh E. N. 1992. Ancient Metallurgy in the USSR: The Early Metal Age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Childe V. G. 1950. The Urban Revolution. The Town Planning Review 21(1): 3–17.
Childe V. G. 1952. New Light on the Most Ancient East. 4th ed. London: Routledge & Paul.
Claessen H. J. M. 2002. Was the State Inevitable? Social Evolution & History 1(1): 101–117.
Claessen H. J. M., and Skalník P. (Eds.) 1978. The Early State. The Hague: Mouton.
Claessen H. J. M., and Skalník P. (Eds.) 1981. The Study of the State. The Hague: Mouton.
Claessen H. J. M., and van de Velde P. (Eds.) 1987. Early State Dynamics. Leiden: Brill.
Cipolla C. M. (Ed.) 1976. The Industrial Revolution. 1700–1914. London – New York: Harvester Press – Barnes & Noble.
Downing B. 1992. The Military Revolution and Political Change. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Duffy M. (Ed.) 1980. The Military Revolution and the State, 1500–1800. Exeter: University of Exeter Publications.
Dyakonov I. M. (Ed.) 1983. History of the Ancient East. The Origin of the Most Ancient Class Societies and the First Centres of the Slave-holding Formation. Vol. 1. Moscow: Nauka. In Russian (Дьяконов И. М. (Ред.) История древнего Востока. Зарождение древнейших классовых обществ и первые очаги рабовладельческой формации. Ч. 1. Месопотамия. М.: Наука).
Dyakonov I. M. 2000. City-States of Sumer. History of the Orient / Ed. by V. A. Yakobson, Vol. 1, pp. 45–57. Moscow: Vostochnaya literatura. In Russian (Дьяконов И. М. Города-государства Шумера. История Востока. Т. 1. Восток в древности / Ред. В. А. Якобсон, с. 45–57. M.: Восточная литература).
Elvin M. 1973. The Pattern of the Chinese Past. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Frank A. G. 1993. Bronze Age World System Cycles. Current Anthropology 34(4): 383–419.
Frank A. G. 1998. ReORIENT: Global Economy in the Asian Age. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Frank A. G., and Gills B. K. (Eds.) 1993. The World System: Five Hundred Years of Five Thousand? London: Routledge.
Frank A. G., and Thompson W. R. 2005. Afro-Eurasian Bronze Age Economic Expansion and Contraction Revisited. Journal of World History 16: 115–172.
Galbraith J. K. 1967. The New Industrial State. New York: Signet.
Girenko N. M. 1991. The Sociology of the Tribe. Leningrad: Nauka. In Russian (Гиренко Н. М. Социология племени. Л.: Наука).
Goldstone J. A. 1984. Urbanization and Inflation: Lessons from the English Price Revolution of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries. The American Journal of Sociology 89(5): 1122–1160.
Goldstone J. 1988. East and West in the Seventeenth Century: Political Crises in Stuart England, Ottoman Turkey and Ming China. Comparative Studies in Society and History 30: 103–142.
Goldstone J. A. 1991. Revolution and Rebellion in the Early Modern World. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Goldstone J. A. 2002. Efflorescences and Economic Growth in World History: Rethinking the ‘Rise of the West’ and the British Industrial Revolution. Journal of World History 13: 323–389.
Goldstone J. A. 2008а. Capitalist Origins, the Advent of Modernity, and Coherent Explanation: A Response to Joseph M. Bryant. Canadian Journal of Sociology / Cahiers canadiens de sociologie 33(1): 119–133.
Goldstone J. A. 2008b. Why Europe? The Rise of the West in Global History, 1500–1850. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Goldstone J. A. 2009. Why Europe? The Rise of the West in World History. 1500–1850. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Grinin A. L., and Grinin L. E. 2015a. Cybernetic Revolution and Forthcoming Technological Transformations (The Development of the Leading Technologies in the Light of the Theory of Production Revolutions). Evolution: From Big Bang to Nanorobots / Ed. by L. E. Grinin, and A. V. Korotayev, pp. 251–330. Volgograd: ‘Uchitel’.
Grinin A. L., and Grinin L. E. 2015b. The Cybernetic Revolution and Historical Process. Social Evolution and History 14(1): 125–184.
Grinin L. E. 2003. The Early State and its Analogues. Social Evolution & History 2(1): 131–176.
Grinin L. E. 2004. The Early State and Its Analogues: A Comparative Analysis. The Early State, Its Alternatives and Analogues / Ed. by L. E. Grinin, R. L. Carneiro, D. M. Bondarenko, N. N. Kradin, and A. V. Korotayev, pp. 88–136. Volgograd: ‘Uchitel’.
Grinin L. E. 2007a. Production Revolutions and Periodization of History: A
Comparative and Theoretic-Mathematical Approach. Social Evolution & History 6(2):
75–120.
Grinin L. E. 2007b. Production Revolutions and Periodization of History. Vestnik Rossiiskoi Akademii Nauk 77(4): 309–315. In Russian (Гринин Л. Е. Производственные революции и периодизация истории. Вестник Российской Академии наук 77(4): 309–315).
Grinin L. E. 2008. Early State, Developed State, Mature State: The Statehood Evolutionary Sequence. Social Evolution & History 7(1): 67–81.
Grinin L. E. 2009. The State and Historical Process: The Political Cut of the Historical Process. 2nd ed. Moscow: LIBROKOM. In Russian (Гринин Л. Е. Государство и исторический процесс. Политический срез исторического процесса. 2-е изд., испр. и доп. М.: ЛИБРОКОМ).
Grinin L. E. 2011. The Evolution of Statehood. From Early State to Global Society. Saarbrücken: Lambert Academic Publishing.
Grinin L. E. 2012. Macrohistory and Globalization. Volgograd: Uchitel.
Grinin L. E., and Grinin A. L. 2015. From Biface to Nanorobots. The World is on the Way to the Epoch of Self-Regulating Systems (History of Technologies and the Description of Their Future). Moscow: ‘Uchitel’. In Russian (Гринин Л. Е., Гринин А. Л. Oт рубил до нанороботов. Мир на пути к эпохе самоуправляемых систем (история технологий и описание их будущего). М.: Моск. ред. изд-ва «Учитель»).
Grinin L. E., and Grinin A. L. 2016. Forthcoming Cybernetic Revolution and Technological Transformations. Credo New 86(2). In Russian (Гринин Л. Е., Гринин А. Л. 2016. Грядущая кибернетическая революция и технологические трансформации. Credo New 86(2).
Grinin L. E., and Korotayev A. V. 2006. Political Development of the World System: A Formal Quantitative Analysis. History & Mathematics: Historical Dynamics and Development of Complex Societies / Ed. by S. Yu. Malkov, L. E. Grinin, and A. V. Korotayev, pp. 49–101. Moscow: KomKniga.
Grinin L. E., and Korotayev A. V. 2009a. Social Macroevolution: The Genesis and Transformation of the World-System. Moscow: LIBROKOM. In Russian (Гринин Л. Е., Коротаев А. В. Социальная макроэволюция: генезис и трансформация Мир-Системы. М.: Либроком).
Grinin L. E., and Korotayev A. V. 2009b. Social Macroevolution: Growth of the World System Integrity and a System of Phase Transitions. World Futures 65(7): 477–506.
Grinin L. E., and Korotayev A. V. 2012a. Afroeurasian World-System: Genesis, Transformations, Characteristics. Routledge Handbook of World-Systems Analysis / Ed. by S. Babones, and Ch. Chase-Dunn, pp. 30–39. London: Routledge.
Grinin L. E., and Korotayev A. V. 2012b. Emergence of Chiefdoms and States: A Spectrum of Opinions. Social Evolution & History 11(2): 191–204.
Grinin L., and Korotayev A. 2013a. Globalization and the World System Evolution.
Evolution: Development within Big History,
Evolutionary and World-System Paradigms / Ed. by L. E. Grinin, and A. V. Korotayev, pp. 30–68. Volgograd:
‘Uchitel’ Publishing House.
Grinin L. E., and Korotayev A. V. 2013b. The Origins of Globalization. Globalization. Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow / Ed. by J. Sheffield, A. Korotayev, and L. Grinin, pp. 1–29. Litchfield Park, AZ: Emergent Publications.
Grinin L., and Korotayev A. 2014a. Origins of Globalization in the Framework of the Afroeurasian World-System History. Journal of Globalization Studies 5(1): 32–64.
Grinin L. E., and Korotayev A. V. 2014b. Globalization Shuffles Cards of the World Pack: In Which Direction is the Global Economic-Political Balance Shifting? World Futures 70(8): 515–545.
Grinin L. E., and Korotayev A. V. 2014. The Inflationary and Deflationary Trends in the Global Economy, or ‘the Japanese Disease’ is Spreading. Journal of Globalization Studies 5(2): 152–173.
Grinin L., and Korotayev A. 2015. Great Divergence and Great Convergence. A Global Perspective. New York: Springer.
Grinin L. E., and Korotayev A. V. 2016. Middle East, India and China in Globalization Processes. Moscow: Uchitel. In Russian (Гринин Л. Е., Коротаев А. В. Ближний Восток, Индия и Китай в глобализационных процессах. Москва: Учитель).
Grinin L. E., Ilyin I. V., and Andreev A. I. 2016. World Order in the Past, Present, and Future. Social Evolution & History 15(1): 58–84.
Hall A. R. 1980. Scientific Method and the Progress of Techniques. The Cambridge Economic History of Europe. Vol. 4. The Economy of Expanding Europe in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries / Ed. by E. E. Rich, and C. H. Wilson, pp. 96–154. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Hall Th. 2014. Toward Comparative Globalizations: Globalization in Historical Retrospective and World-System Analysis. Journal of Globalization Studies 5(1): 3–10.
Hall T. D., Chase-Dunn C., and Niemeyer R. 2009. The Roles of Central Asian Middlemen and Marcher States in Afroeurasian World-System Synchrony. The Rise of Asia and the Transformation of the World-System / Ed. by G. Trinchur, pp. 69–82. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Press.
Harris M. 1997. Culture, People, Nature: An Introduction to General Anthropology.7th ed. New York, NY: Longman.
Harvey D. 1996. Justice, Nature and the Geography of Difference. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Hathaway J. 1998. Egypt in the Seventeenth Century. Vol. 2. The Cambridge History of Egypt / Ed. by M. Dalypp, pp. 34–58. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ilyushechkin V. P. 1986. The Estate-Class Society in the History of China. Moscow: Nauka. In Russian (Илюшечкин В. П. Сословно-классовое общество в истории Китая. М.: Наука).
Ilyushechkin V. P. 1990. The Exploitation and Property in the Estate-Class Societies. Moscow: Nauka. In Russian (Илюшечкин В. П. Эксплуатация и собственность в сословно-классовых обществах. М.: Наука).
Ilyushechkin V. P. 1996. The Theory of Stage Development of Society (History and Subjects). Moscow: Izdatel'stvo Vostochnaya literatura. In Russian (Илюшечкин В. П. Теория стадийного развития общества (история и проблемы). М.: Восточная литература).
Jaspers K. 1953. The Origin and Goal of History. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Kenyon K. M. 1981. Excavations at Jericho. Vol. 3. Jerusalem: British School of Archaeology.
Korotayev A. V., and Grinin L. E. 2006. Urbanization and Political Development of the World System: A Comparative Quantitative Analysis. History & Mathematics: Historical Dynamics and Development of Complex Societies / Ed. by P. Turchin, L. Grinin, V. de Munck, and A. Korotayev, pp. 115–153. Moscow: KomKniga/URSS.
Korotayev A., and Grinin L. 2012. Global Urbanization and Political Development of the World System. Globalistics and Globalization Studies / Ed. by L. Grinin, I. Ilyin, and A. Korotayev, pp. 28–78. Moscow – Volgograd: Moscow State University – Uchitel.
Korotayev A., and Grinin L. 2013. Urbanization and Political Development of the World System. ENTELEQUIA revista interdisciplinar 15 (especial 2013): 197–254.
Kottak C. Ph. 1980. The Past in the Present; History, Ecology and Cultural Variation in Highland Madagascar. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Lal D. 1988. The Hindu Equilibrium. Vol. 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lamberg-Karlovsky C. C., and Sabloff J. A. 1979. Ancient Civilizations. The Near East and Mesoamerica. Menlo Park, CA: The Benjamin/Cummins.
Marks R. B. 2002. The Origins of the Modern World. A Global and Ecological Narrative. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Marx K. 1963. Theories of Surplus-Value. Vol. 26, Part 2. Collected Works / Ed. by K. Marx, and F. Engels. Moscow: Gosudarstvennoye izdatel'stvo politicheskoy literatury. In Russian (Маркс К. Теории прибавочной стоимости. Собр. соч. / Ред. К. Маркс, Ф. Энгельс. Т. 26, ч. 2. М.: Государственное издательство политической литературы).
Marx K. 1972 [1969]. Theories of Surplus Value. 3 vols. London – Moscow: Lawrence & Wishart – Progress Publishing.
Masson V. M. 1980. The Early Agricultural Societies and the Formation of the Urban Settlements. Early Farmers. The Ethnographic Essays / Ed. by N. A. Butinov, and A. M. Reshetov, pp. 178–185. Leningrad: Nauka. In Russian (Массон В. М. Раннеземледельческие общества и формирование поселений городского типа. Ранние земледельцы. Этнографические очерки / Ред. Н. А. Бутинов, А. М. Решетов, с. 178–185. Л.: Наука).
Masson V. M. 1989. The First Civilizations. Leningrad: Nauka. In Russian (Масон В. М. Первые цивилизации. Л.: Наука).
McNeill W. H. 1982. The Pursuit of Power. Technology, Armed Force and Society since A.D. 1000. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Mellaart J. 1975. The Neolithic of the Near East. London: Thames and Hudson.
Modelski G., and Thompson W. R. 1996. Leading Sectors and World Power: The Coevolution of Global Economics and Politics. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press.
Mokyr J. 1990. The Lever of Riches: Technological Creativity and Economic Progress. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mokyr J. 2010. The Enlightened Economy: An Economic History of Britain, 1700–1850. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Needham J. 1981. Science in Traditional China. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Oppenheim L. A. 1968. Ancient Mesopotamia. Portrait of a Dead Civilization. Chicago – London: The University of Chicago Press.
Pacey A. 1990. Technology in World Civilization. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Pollock S. 2001. Ancient Mesopotamia. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Pomeranz K. 2000. The Great Divergence: China, Europe, and the Making of the Modern World Economy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Pomeranz K. 2002. Beyond the East-West Binary: Resituating Development Paths in the Eighteenth-century World. Journal of Asian Studies 61(2): 539–590.
Raychaudhuri T., and Habib I. (Eds.) 1982. The Cambridge Economic History of India. Vol. 1. C. 1200 – c. 1750. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rothman V. S. 2004. Studying the Development of Complex Society: Mesopotamia in the Late Fifth and Fourth Millennia BC. Journal of Archeological Research 12(1): 75–119.
Sahlins M. D. 1972. Stone Age Economics. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Schultz E. A., and Lavenda R. H. 1998. Anthropology. A Perspective on the Human Condition. 2nd ed. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.
Sorokin P. A. 1960. Mutual Convergence of the United States and the U.S.S.R. to the Mixed Sociocultural Type. International Journal of Comparative Sociology 1(2): 143–176.
Taagepera R. 1978a. Size and Duration of Empires: Systematics of Size. Social Science Research 7: 108–127.
Taagepera R. 1978b. Size and Duration of Empires: Growth-Decline Curves, 3000 to 600 B.C. Social Science Research 7: 180–196.
Taagepera R. 1979. Size and Duration of Empires: Growth-Decline Curves, 600 B.C. to 600 A.D. Social Science History 3: 115–138.
Taagepera R. 1997. Expansion and Contraction Patterns of Large Polities: Context for Russia. International Studies Quarterly 41: 475–504.
Thompson W. R. 1988. On Global War: Historical-Structural Approaches to World Politics. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press.
Turnbaugh W. A., Nelson H., Jurmain R., and Kilgore L. 1993. Understanding Physical Anthropology and Archaeology. 5th ed. Minneapolis, MN: West Publishing Company.
Vasilyev L. S. 1993. History of the East. Vol. 1. Moscow: Vysshaya shkola. In Russian (Васильев Л. С. История Востока. Т. 1. М.: Высшая школа).
Vries P. 2003. Via Peking back to Manchester. Britain, the Industrial Revolution, and China. Leiden: Brill.
Vries P. 2010. The California School and Beyond: How to Study the Great Divergence. History Compass 8: 730–751.
Wallerstein I. 1974, 1980, 1988. The Modern World-System. 3 vols. New York: Academic Press.
Wallerstein I. 1987. World-Systems Analysis. Social Theory Today / Ed. by A. Giddens, and J. Turner, pp. 309–324. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Wallerstein I. 2004. World-Systems Analysis: An Introduction. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Watson A. M. 1981. A Medieval Green Revolution. The Islamic Middle East, 700–1900: Studies in Economic and Social History / Ed. by A. L. Udovitch, pp. 29–58. Princeton: The Darwin Press.
Wenke R. J. 1990. Patterns in Prehistory. New York – Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wong R. B. 1997. China Transformed: Historical Change and the Limits of the European Experience. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Wright H. T., and Johnson G. 1975. Populations, Exchange, and Early State Formation in Southwestern Iran. American Anthropologist 77: 267–289.
Zablotska Yu. 1989. History of the Middle East in Ancient Times (from the First Settlements to the Persian Conquering). Moscow: Nauka. In Russian (Заблоцка Ю. История Ближнего Востока в древности (от первых поселений до персидского завоевания). М.: Наука).
* This article is a redrafted version of the paper ‘Origins of Globalization in the Framework of the Afroeurasian World-System History’ (2018) published in Comparing Globalizations: Historical and World-Systems Approaches / Ed. by Th. D. Hall.
[1] Barfield (1989) argues that large steppe confederacies usually cycle synchronously with the rise and fall of the large sedentary agrarian states that they raid. These cycles are a hypothesized mechanism of systemic linkages between East and West Asia (Ibid.). Such synchronized processes within the Afroeurasian world-system have been also detected by the students of the Bronze Age and earlier periods (Chernykh 1992; Frank 1993; Frank and Thompson 2005). One can also mention as salient examples of such synchronized processes the Axial Age transformations of the 1st millennium BCE (Jaspers 1953) or the military revolution and formation of a new type of statehood in Europe and Asia in the late 15 – 16th centuries CE that produced a colossal influence upon the formation of the modern World-System (see McNeill 1982; Grinin 2012; Grinin and Korotayev 2015). The asynchrony of a number of processes is explained in the last section of the article.
[2] To a certain extent this idea can be conveyed by the term ‘emergence’, which in systems theory means a process whereby larger entities, patterns and regularities arise through interactions among smaller or simpler entities that themselves do not exhibit such properties.
[3] This aspect of the World System congruent with capitalism satisfies rather well Wallerstein's notion of the world-system (Wallerstein 1974, 1980, 1987, 1988, 2004), since its development involved mass movements of bulk goods throughout its territory, especially in the New World. About the Industrial revolution see, e.g., Cipolla 1976; Allen 2009; Goldstone 2009; Mokyr 2010; for our approach see Grinin 2007a; Grinin L. and Grinin A. 2015, 2016; Grinin and Korotayev 2015).
[4] See also Lamberg-Karlovsky and Sabloff 1979; Masson 1980; 1989: 33–41; Oppenheim 1968; Zablotska 1989: 34–38; Bondarenko 2006: 50; Mellaart 1975; Wenke 1990: 326–330; Turnbaugh et al. 1993: 464–465; Harris 1997: 146; Schultz and Lavenda 1998: 214–215; Balter 2006.
[5] Early states are insufficiently centralized and they politically organize the societies with underdeveloped social, class and, frequently, administrative-political structures. Analogues of early state are various forms of complex stateless societies that are comparable to early states in terms of their size, sociocultural and/or political complexity, functional differentiation, and the scale of tasks they have to accomplish, but lacking at least one of the necessary features of the early state (for more details about early states see Claessen and Skalník 1978, 1981; Claessen and van de Velde 1987; Grinin 2004, 2011, 2012; about the analogues of early state see Grinin 2003, 2004, 2011, 2012).
Developed states are the formed centralized states of Late Antiquity, Middle Ages, and Early Modern period, which politically organize societies with distinct estate-class stratification (for more details see Grinin 2008, 2012; Grinin and Korotayev 2006).
[6] The mature states of the industrial epoch politically organize the societies where estates have disappeared, the bourgeois and working classes have formed, nations have developed, and representative democracy has proliferated (see Grinin 2008, 2012; Grinin and Korotayev 2006).
[7] So does the convergence. When in the 1960s Pitirim Sorokin (1960) and John Galbraith (1967) started the discussion on the convergence between socialism and capitalism they meant the similarity outlined only in some spheres (in particular this is a consolidation of the role of the state in social security of citizens in capitalist society that resembled socialism).
[8] Though, we should also note that the Creto-Mycenean civilization rose in the 2nd millennium BC; however, it was not ‘western’ in proper civilizational sense of the word yet, and more likely it was intermediate between the East and the West.
[9] One can hardly call this divergence a great one, since the rise observed during that epoch was not so large-scale in evolutionary terms compared to that of the 4th – 3rd millennia BC. There was no revolutionary breakthrough in technologies either, though certain achievements in agriculture were evident, e.g., advanced selection in China. Consequently, we observe no population revolution similar to the one brought by the Agrarian revolution.
[10] But similar to the convergence of the 5th – 11th centuries this convergence can hardly be considered to be a great one.
[11] But one of the differences in the described great divergences was that there was no radical gap in individual labor capacity between hunting and gathering, on the one hand, and farming, on the other. A hunter-gatherer could have even higher capacity than the farmer (Marshall Sahlins not without a reason called many modern European primitive societies ‘affluent societies’ [Sahlins 1972]). Meanwhile, the distinction in labor productivity between an industrial worker and a peasant in the 19th century became huge.
[12] E.g., Leonid Vasilyev (1993) is apt to such absolutization.