The paper looks into the evolution of globalization at its earliest stages (from the Neolithic Revolution to the Urban Revolution). Building on the approach by Frank, Chase-Dunn, and Hall to defining the age of the World System, we view the network space of the ancient World System which secured its cohesion. This network space served to transmit and diffuse the most important innovations of that time, such as domesticates, technologies, and prestigious goods. For each of these categories we give a number of examples which, taken together, provide sufficient evidence for the emergence of the World System as early as the Neolithic Revolution (and, indeed, in close connection with it).
It is recognized widely enough that a pre-state society in order to get transformed into a state must have a certain size of territory and population, a necessary degree of sociocultural complexity and an ability to produce sufficient quantities of surplus. However, sometimes cultures significantly exceed required levels of those parameters without forming states. In addition to this, we know historically and ethnographically a considerable number of stateless societies not at all inferior to the early state societies with respect to their territory, population, sociocultural and/or political complexity. So, the question is: how to classify such societies? Compared to unquestionably pre-state societies, such as, for example, simple chiefdoms, they are not only larger in size but much more complex as well. In certain sense, they can be regarded as being at the same level of sociocultural development as early-state societies. And, since both types of societies faced similar problems and solved similar tasks, I denote complex stateless societies as early state analogues. This article is an attempt to analyze such analogues and compare them with early states.
We present a general theoretical analysis of processes and models of the formation and development of polities, starting with the level of simple chiefdoms and their analogues up to the level of the early states and their analogues. This macroevolutionary process is ge-nerally denoted here as primary (initial) politogenesis, whereas the early state formation process is regarded as a component of the politogenesis. The analysis of politogenesis is made against the wide background of late archaic and early civilizational processes.
This article considers concrete manifestations of the politogenesis multilinearity and the variation of its forms; it analyzes the main causes that determined the politogenetic pathway of a given society. The respective factors include the polity's size, its ecological and social environment. The politogenesis should be never reduced to the only one evolutionary pathway leading to the statehood. The early state formation was only one of many versions of deve-lopment of complex late archaic social systems. The author designates various complex non-state political systems as early state analogues. The early state analogue posed a real alternative to the state for a rather long period of time, whereas in many eco-logically marginal regions they could compete quite seriously with the state sometimes until recently. Thus, it was only in the final count that the state became the leading form of political organization of complex societies. The very pathways to statehood had a few versions. One may group them into two main types: ‘vertical’ and ‘horizontal’. Within the ‘vertical’ model the state formation took place in a direct way, i.e. directly from small pre-state polities to primitive statehood. Within the ‘horizontal’ model we first observe the formation of early state analogues that were quite comparable to the state as regards their complexity, whereas later those analogues were transformed into states.
This article is very closely connected with another article published in the same issue of this journal (Grinin and Korotayev2009b).
This article is devoted to the significant at all times and sounding anew in every epoch problem of the role of an individual (also a Hero, Great Man) in history, including such an aspect as the role of an individual in the process of state formation and progress. It is argued that in the age of globalization, when the humankind has found itself at the new developmental turning point, in the epoch when the influence of various individuals could affect dramatically the further development of the whole world, there is an urgent necessity to return to the analysis of this issue. In the first part of this article the history of views on this problem from the antiquity to contemporary counterfactual history is considered. In the second part the author aims at presenting the complex of factors affecting the role of individuals as a conceptual system. He suggests that depending on various conditions and circumstances and with the account of specific features of historical place and time and personal characteristics, the historical role of an individual may fluctuate from the absolutely invisible up to the greatest one. A conclusion is made that the weaker and less stable is a society, the more destroyed are the old structures, the greater may be the personality's impact. In other words, the role of an individual is inversely correlated with society's stability and strength. The paper presents the model which includes four society's state phases: 1) stable society of the monarchic type; 2) social pre-revolutionary crisis; 3) revolution; 4) creation of a new order. It is shown that a personality's greatest influence is observed at the third and fourth stages while at the first stage the influence is usually considerably weaker.
The article explored the history of Chukotka's people during the late Tsarist and early Soviet periods focusing on regional interaction patterns between indigenous and non-indigenous actors, and their change after the establishment of the new regime. The restriction and ultimate abolition of free trade in the region resulted in dissatisfaction voiced by Chukotka's pre-Soviet elites. Much attention was devoted to individual actors who were members of the regional transcultural elites during the period under study such as Frank, a Luoravetlan (Chukchi) shaman from Uelen and possibly Rytkheu's grandfather, and several non-native traders who integrated into indigenous societies and became part of the elites. The new authorities first compromised and negotiated with these people including them into the Soviet system of self-government, but then opted for excluding the pre-Soviet elites from most regional interactions. The overall policy was inconsistent and had much to do with the major shifts in Soviet politics. The article is based on the less explored indigenous and non-indigenous sources.