The Limits of World Systems Theory for the Study of Prehistory

7/29/2019 The Limits of World Systems Theory for the Study of Prehistory

1/15

Pre-ColumbianWorld Systems

Edited byPeter Nl Peregrine andGary MI ~e i nmanMonographs in World Archaeology No. 26

PREHISTORYRESSMadison Wisconsin


2/15

forfns 1Prel

n the 1980s many archaeologists grew weary of aculturalecology that directed analysis to local,envi-ronmentally ciraumscribed regions. Cultural

ecology had (and continues to be) a very productivesource of information about prehistoric diet and adap-tation, but after20years of such research some scholarsargued that we needed to take a broader view to under-stand prehistory. Instead of limited studies of indi-I Iidual river valleys many archaeologists adopted sametype of world-systems approach for their research onprehistory. Whether they embraced a specific world-systems theory, such as Immanuel Wallerstein's, ormerely espoused a more generalized world-systemsperspective these archaeologists were drawn to a visionof a prehistory driven by economic interconnections(Blanton et 81.1981; Baugh 1982, 1984; Plog et al. 1982;Blantoi;Kohl I and,987).An expansive view of an interconnected prehistory

isvaluable for archaeology, and indeed predates the useI of world-systems theory in archaeology. However,prehistoric developments often do not fit the expeda-tions of a world-systems theory or the assumptions of aworld systems perspective.This is clearly the case in theprehistory of the Hohokam of southernArizona.In thiscase the region was never as economically or politically

integrated as the world-systems model would assumeA worldsystems approach with its emphasis on functionally integrated interregional systems fails to capturthe dynamic and often contradictory interplay of sociarelations at various scales that shaped this prehistoryThe antithetical peer polity perspective, that retreats tothe myopia of processes in a single region, also fails tocapture this dynamic and contradictory interplay. Inplace of these oppositional positions archaeologistshould ask about processes of uneven development insocial relations at various scales in specific historicasequences to arrive at understandings of how longrange interactions and local developments interrelatedin prehistory.

World-Systems:TheoriesandPerspectivesThe core notions of the world-systems approachincluding the broad inter-regional perspective and thenotion of uneven developmentin prehistory, were nonew to archaeology. Archaeologists have long talkedabout key and dependent areas (Palerm and Wolf1957), cores and buffers (Rathje 1971), and heartlandand hinterlands(R.M.darns 1965). Even in culturaecology some archaeologists advanced models of


3/15

52 Pre-Columbian World-Svstemsregions linked through relations of symbiosis (Sandersand Price 1968).A world-systems approach differedfrom these earlier notions because it directed archaeol-ogists to ponder how the growth of cores stems fromthe creation of peripheries and nudged the focus ofanalysis from diffusion and adaptation to exploitationand dependency.World-systems theory originated in the work ofImmanuel Wallerstein (1974,1978,1980,1989), but hasgrown considerably beyond his formulations. At themost general level Wallerstein's ideas incorporate aworld-systems perspective that can be found in thework of many other researchers including some whopreceded him. n the 1990s some archaeologists havemoved away from Wallerstein's model to considerother world-systems theories, especially that of Halland Chase-Dunn (this volume). Other archaeologistshave reacted to the popularity of a world-systems-----------p p r o ~ i y a d ~ a t m gpeer polity interaction as analternative to worldsystems models.

lived entities lasting hundreds of years. Woeconomies derive from a functional and geograpdivision of labor but differ from world empires in thlack of an over-arching centralized governmeAccording to Wallerstein, before the advent of tmodern world-system, world economies had alwabeen fragde and short lived. Either they developed inworld empires or they were enveloped by a woempire. What makes the modem capitalist woeconomy unique is that it has lasted for 500 years.In this formulation Wallerstein overgeneralizes frthe European experience. Archaeologists, historiaand anthropologists have found that the variationnon-capitalist economic sys ems is far greater thWallerstein allows and that many of his generalizatiabout types of world-systems are incorrect.Philip Kohl (1989) evaluated the applicabilityWallerstein's t h e o r v f o r t h d h l l z e A ~ t 4 sand found many problems with applying it to this caHe found much evidence for world economies and li

Wallerstein's Theory of World-SystemsIn the first volume of his monumental work TheModem World System I, Immanuel Wallerstein (1974:3)identifies two great watersheds in the history of theworld, the neolithic revolution and the creation of themodem world. The goal of Wallerstein's theory ofworldsystems is to account for the rise of capitalism andthe modem world that it created.This is a European tale.He gives some consideration to the world empire of

Rome that preceded the creation of Europe, and to thegreat world empires Europe encountered such as theOttoman and the Chinese. In Wallerstein's story, Europegobbles up the non-capitalist economies that occupiedmost of the globe and transforms them intofunctionallyrelated components of the modem world-system. Theirprior form is less important to Wallerstein than the rolethey come to play in the European-centered world-system. Wallerstein's (1974,1980,1989) great work isthusboth historical and Euro-focused (Wolf 1982).- ~ i f f ( + 9 7 8 ) M z t c t e s o m e p r m r M o n sabout world systems other than the modem. Thesegeneralizations derive from Polanyi's (1957) substan-tive economics. Wallerstein (1978) identifies fourpossible modes of production in world history: recip-rocal mini-systems, redistributive empires, a capitalistworld economy, and a hoped for socialist worldgovernment.In reciprocal mini-systems all able-bodiedindividuals engage in production, and processes ofreciprocal exchange create inequalities favoring seniormales. World empires contain a stratum of non-producers who pre-empt the surplus of others througha tribute network controlled by a centralized politicalsystem. Wallerstein sees world empires as stable long

evidence that there was an innate tendency for themcollapse quickly or change into world empires. suggests that the stability that Wallerstein sees in woempires is a consequence of him generalizing fromlimited number of cases, the Roman, Ottoman, Persiand Chinese, and not an inherent characteristic of susocietal types. Finally, Kohl concludes that in BronAge West Asia peripheries had considerable power vvis cores because the technological gap between coand peripheries was minimal or non-existent, abecause peripheries could shift relations betwemultiple, competing, cores.Amore important problem with Wallerstein's theofor prehistory is its premise that core-periphery retions will be based on economics and that all grouand relations in a world economy can be ranked. Thare questionable assumptions. A great number contrasts can be made between social groups based linguistics, culture, adaptation, religion, etc. and thedistinctions may be ranked or not (Marquardt aCrumley 1987:ll). Furthermore, inqrehistoric----ociet

tFE i6tion75fii ~ s t i n c T e ~ n ~ m i cphere has litmeaning, and long range interaction networks mdepend as much on social, political, or religious retions as economics (Renfrew 1986; Kohl 1989; C.Adams 1991; Hosler 1994).A World-Systems Perspective

Numerous archaeologists have rejected a direct appcation of Wallerstein's theory of world-systemsprehistory because it does not fit the kindsof economthat they study. But, these same individuals argue tha world-systems perspective remains useful for archaology (Kohl 1987; Shortman and Urban 1987; Peregrin


4/15

The Limits o fWor Id-Systems Theory or the Study of Prehistoy 53introductionto this volume). There can then exist manytheories within a worldsystems perspective.In the introduction to this volume, Peregrinedefinesa world-systems perspective as a way of viewing theworld that "allows one to perceive the world as a set ofautonomous political units linked into a larger func-tioningunit through economic interdependence."Thislarger unit is the "world" and it is seen as a dynamicentity constantly remaking itself. Furthermore, thisworld will always be made up of two geographicalunits, a core and a periphery, and these units willbe incompetition with each other.Peregrineargues that such a perspective is valuablein the study of prehistory for three reasons: (1) it isinherently spatial with a focus on geographicallydefined units (cores and peripheries) and the spatialrelationshipsbetween them; (2)it is multi-leveledwithlayers within layers; and, (3) it is evolutionary,proposing a topology of societal forms that a givenculture will move through under specifiedconditions.Thus, a worldsystems perspective is a highly gener-alized construct that can be applied to a great variety ofcases.At itsmost basic level it assumes that socialentitiesaresystems.Suchsystemsaremade up of interconnectedparts that form a whole so that change in one part, orsubsystem,will alter the other parts or subsystems.Theperspectiveseems topresume that suchsystemsexist todo something, e.g. exploita periphery, advance an elite,etc. and they are thereforefunctionallyintegrated.This systems logic has several implications for howscholars study, interpret, and account for cultural

change. One rarelystated implication of this ogic is thatunits in comparable position within the system, e.g.peripheralareas, will become more similar over time asthey respond and restructure themselves in response tothe demands made upon them by the system (Waller-stein personnel communication).This process suggeststhat such systemsshould become more stableover timeas their components remake themselvesto fit their rolesin the system. Theworld-systemsperspectivehowever,suggests that such stabilitywill never occur because asWallerstein (1974:347) said the life of the system "ismade up of the conflictingforceswhich hold it togetherby tension, and tear it apart as each group seeks eter-nally to remold it to its advantage". Finally, theperspec-tive is atomistic, because it accepts that social systemsarethemselvesbounded and made up of bounded units.As Chase-Durn and Hall (1991:858) argue: "Settingbounds forempiricallyexistingintersocietal interactionsis the methodological core of world-systems analysis."World-SystemsTheories

Sociologists,anthropologists, historians, and archae-ologists using a world-systems perspective have

advancednumerousworld-systemsTheories to accountfor the human history before the modem era (forexample, Ekholm and Friedman 1982, 1985; Abu-Lughod 1990;Frank 1990;Frank and Gills 1990;Chase-Dunn and Hall 1991,1993; Santleyand Alexander 1992).Some of these theories argue that a single mode ofproductionhas characterizedworld history for the last5,000 years or more, and reject the idea of qualitativechanges in this period (Ekholm and Friedman 1982,1985; Frank 1990; Frank and Gills 1990; Santley andAlexander 1992).Others, argue that transitions haveoccurred over this period with qualitatively differentmodes of production coming into existencewhile olderformsdisappeared (Chase-Dunn1989;Chase-Dunn andHall 1991,1993).Of these theorists, the substantivist world-systemsformulationsof Thomas Hall and ChristopherChase-D m ave attracted the most attention among U.S.archaeologists (this volume, also Chase-Dunn 1989;Chase-Dunn and Hall 1991;Hall 1989).Both these soci-ologistsbegin with Wallerstein's theory but substan-tially improve on it as a general theory of humanhistory.Theyboth have read extensivelyin the archae-ologicaland anthropologicalliterature, and their under-standing of non-capitalist economics is considerablyricher than Wallerstein's superficial reading of Polanyi.Hall and Chase-Dunn (thisvolume) define a worldsystem as an intersocietalnetwork in which interactionis an important condition for the reproduction of theinternal structures of the composite units and signifi-cantly affectsthe changes that occur in these locaIstruc-tures. They do not assume that all intersocietalsystemswill have core/periphery hierarchies. They argueinstead that we have to prove the existence of exploita-tion, domination and unequal exchange.They retain from Wallerstein, however, the keynotion of these intersocietal networks as systems. Ifthese networks are systems then they must consist ofregular interactingor interdependentsocieties that forma unified whole. The functioningof the system is notreducible to any of the individualsocieties that make itup, but the system can be broken down into uniqueentities and subsystems. Given this perspective Halland Chase-Dunn focus on three issues as key to under-standing world systems: (1) how do we define theboundaries of the system; (2)how do we define the sub-units that make up the system; and (3) how do wetypologize world-systems. This systems logic worksbest when economicsare being discussed.The systems logic of the worldsystems perspectiveasserts tself in allof the alternativeworld-systemstheo-ries that have been offered.In fact few if any of the alter-native theories capture the ambiguity and tensionbetween stability and change that Wallerstein so care-fully tries to build into his ideas. They are generally


5/15

54 Pre-Columbian Wo rld- Sys ernseven more systemic than the work that inspired them.Hall and Chase-Dunn's three issues clearly reflect theatomistic bases of the systems logic. All three areconcerned with defining the boundedness of units,subsystems, and the overall system.

Systems logic also structures the two revisionist fociin alternative worldsystems theory that Peregrine iden-tifies in the introduction to this volume. The first ofthese foci concerns how we define the nature ofgeographic differentiation within worldsystems.This sin part the topological question of how to define core,periphery, and semi-periphery, as well as arguments asto their universality. The second foci concerns howimportant were different aspects or sub-systems tocharacterizing world-systems and to the dynamics ofsuch systems. Here scholars debate if world-systemsmust be based on subsistence goods or if they can arisefrom prestige goods exchange. Embedded in this debateis the more fundamental issue of whether relations ofproduction should be given priority over relations ofreproduction.Archaeologists have, and can use either strong orweak readings of a world-systems approach. In a strongreading the archaeologist advocates a particular world-systems theory to interpret prehistory. In a weak readingthe archaeologist invokes a world-systems perspective,or, even more weakly, that long range interactions areimportant to understanding local developments.World-systems theories are, at their core, economicmodels that emphasize how economic interactions leadto relations of dependency and exploitation betweenbounded units that are themselves altered by these rela-tions. Despite assertions of researchers such as Hall andChase-Dunn (this volume) that world-systems may bebased on other than economic relations few if anyscholars have attempted to theorize on the form ordynamics of such systems. Equally under-theorized isHall and Chase-Dunn's assertion that world-systemscan exist in the absence of hierarchical social relations.The contention that worldsystems may-be based ona variety of relations (economics, intermarriage, religionetc), and that hierarchical social relations may or maynot be present, could lead to a very weak reading of theworld-systems perspective. Such a perspective comesdown to one idea: that social units must be studied asparts of interconnected systems and not in isolation. Onthe face of it this would appear to be a truism, exceptfor the fact that a large body of archaeological theoryrejects, or downplays this idea.Cultural Ecology andPeer Polity Interactions

The cultural ecology of the 1960s and 1970s stressedthe study of adaptation within environmentally defined

areas, such as valleys, basins, and plateaus that werthought to define natural and cultural ecosystem(Sanders and Price 1968; cf. Kowalewski, this volumeCultural ecologists sought to explain cultural change iterms of adaptation to this ecosystem. Exchange fromoutside the ecosystem might establish symbiotic relations between regions but the major emphasis remaineon the adaptation to a localized area. This researcprogram was very successful in reconstructing aspecof prehistoric diet and adaptation. We learned mucabout these things from it and many aspects of aecological archaeology remain basic to archaeologicaresearch. Increasingly in the 1990s, however, archaeoogists have moved towards more social and politicaconsiderations of the past.A number of archaeologists working in Europe havproposed the notion of peer polity interaction as aalternative to a world-systems approach (Renfrew1986). This alternative has been applied to regionoutside of Europe including the Southwest (Minn1989). The model of peer polity interaction puts themphasis on an intermediate scale of analysis betweethe local and the inter-regional. The stress is on interactions within a region and it is assumed that the interactions within the region are of more importance tcultural change than external links to other region.

Peer polity interaction designates the fullrange of interchanges taking place(including mitation and emulation, compe-tition, warfare, and the exchange of materialgoods and information) betweenautonomous (i.e. self governing and in thatsensepolitically independent) sociopoliticalunits which are situated beside or close toeach other within a single geographicalregion, or in some cases more widely(Renfrew 1986:l).

Renfrew (1986:7-8) proposes four hypotheses thaarchaeologists canuse to test for peer polity interaction(1)if one polity exists, then other polities of comparablsize and complexity will also exist in the same region(2)social transformations will occur in multiple politieat the same time; (3)features shared by the polities winot have a single origin or locus of invention; and (4)range of different types of interactions includinwarfare, emulation, and the flow of objects will brinabout changes.Despite the clear and fundamental disagreement othe proper scale and unit of analysis, peer polity interaction and world-systems approaches share a numbeof fundamental assumptions. Both programs begin withthe notion of bounded social units that are systemic icharacter. They differ on how broadly they define thsystem to be studied and in the degree of boundednes


6/15

fTh e Limits of World-Sys tems Theoy for the St ud y of Prehistoy 55

The HohokamArchaeologists usually divide the Formative South-west into four major cultural units; the Anasazi, theMogollon, the Patayan, and the Hohokam (Cordell1984). Hohokam remains occur in the Sonoran desert ofsouthern Arizona and along the northern frontiers ofSonora (Crown 1990; Gumerman 1991). Archaeologistsfrequently speak of the Hohokam region in terms of acore, the Phoenix basin, and a periphery extending fromFlagstaff, Arizona on the north, south to the interna-tional border and from the San Pedro river on the eastto the Gila Bend on the west (Figure 5.1) (McGuire 1991).The Hohokam range encompasses all of the LowerSonoran desert in southern Arizona. The LowerSonoran desert is part of the Basin and Range physio-graphic province, consisting of a series of drop-faultedmountain ranges divided by extensive block-faultedbasins. Low precipitation (3 to 12 inches a year acrossthe region) and summer temperatures in excessof 100Fmake the availability of water the main determinate of

agricultural production and reliability in the desert.Two perennial rivers, the Gila and the Salt, passthrough the core area. The seasonal flow of thesestreams varies greatly, but they provide well wateredfloodplains for agriculture and people could extractwater from either using minimal technology.

r between units. Both of these approaches are funda-1 mentally evolutionary.Peer polity interactiondoes not, really address or reject the use of a world-systems1 approach for the.modern world. It instead argues thattheworld-systems approachdoesnot apply to pre-statesystems, where peer polity interaction is the moreappropriatemodel.Theworld-systemsperspective and peer polity inter-

action are not so much opposingsocial theoriesas theyarguments for the importance of analysis at differentscales. Thus, there are dangers in framing an either/orchoice between a peer polity and world-systemsmodel.Renfrew's (1986)idea of peer polity interaction is anargument againsta priori assumptions of economicallyand politically defined cores and peripheries. It is,however, every bit as problematic to assume that thepolities we are dealing with in a given case are peers,as it is to a priori assume cores and peripheries. Ouranalyses need to look forboth possibilities in the study Traditioof real historical sequences such as the Hohokam ofsouthernArizona.

PrehistoryArchaeologists divide Hohokam prehistory into fourperiods; Pioneer, Colonial, Sedentary, and Classic.

Figure 5.1. The Hohokam World at the Beginning of theSedentary Period (from McGuire 1991:figure 8.1).

Considerable debate exists concerning the dating of thesequence and I have used Eighmy and McGuire's (1988)interpretation of the chronology (but see also Dean 1991).Pioneer period (AD 150-725) settlements appear prin-cipally in the core area with some late Pioneer villages inthe periphery. Core villages consisted of a handful ofshallow pithouses, usually along the flood plains of theGila and Salt Rivers. During the Pioneer period theHohokam began using irrigation agriculture, but wildplants and game continued to make up most of the diet(Gasser and Kwiatkowski 1991). Hohokam pottersproduced a red-on-grey pottery in the earliest phases ofthe period but by the end of the period they had devel-oped this ware into the typically Hohokam red-on-buffstyle. The first evidence of marine shell obtained fromthe Gulf of California appear in this period as does thetypically Hohokam ritual assemblage of censors, palettes,and long serrated projectile points. At the beginning ofthe period burial was by inhumation but the Hohokampracticed cremation by the end of the period.The aptly named Colonial period is usually dividedinto two phases, Gila Butte (AD 725-825) and the Santa


7/15

56 Pre-Columbian World-SystemsCruz (AD 825-1000). During the Gila Butte phase theHohokam tradition spread over most of southernArizona. Core area villages exist along major canals.They continued to be made up of pithouses but thesenow tended to cluster in groups around shared court-yards with an adjacent cemetery. Ballcourts appear inthis phase and at the largest sites such as Snaketowncapped platform mounds were built around centralplazas. Cremation burial has become the norm in thisphase. This basic culture assemblage continues in theSanta Cruz phase as canals are extended and more andlarger villages built.The patterns established in the Colonial periodcontinue and are elaborated in the Sedentary periodwhich contains a single phase, the Sacaton (AD 1000-1100). n this period the Hohokarn tradition reaches itsgreatest spatial extent and artistic expression (Haury1976356). A hierarchy of settlements exist with villageslacking ballcourts, villages with a single ballcourt, andvillages with multiple ballcourts, central plazas, andplatform mounds. Despite the expansion of publicarchitecture, domestic structures continue to be rela-tively ephemeral shallow pithouses little changed fromthe Gila Butte phase.Dramatic changes in the Hohokam material cultureassemblage and spatial distribution usher in the Classicperiod, which is divided into two phases, the Soho (AD1100-1300) and the Civano (AD1300-1450).In the Sohothe Hohokam regional system that extended all acrosssouthern Arizona appears to collapse and the termHohokam is best only applied to the core area. Despitethis seeming regional retraction, during the Classicperiod the Hohokam expand the canal systems in theGila and Salt basins to their greatest extent. Settlementsbecome more compact with compounds replacing thecourtyards of earlier periods and above ground adoberooms replacing pithouses. The Hohokam continued tobuild pithouse villages in marginal areas of the core andperhaps on the edges of larger settlements. During theSoho ballcourts cease to be used and platform moundsbecome residential spaces with domestic structures onthem. In the Civano some Hohokam settlements coverareas of greater than a square mile and include special-ized administrative centers such as Casa Grande.Cremation continues throughout the Classic with c emeteries near compounds but starting in the Soho indi-viduals are also buried within compounds and inspecial mortuary structures such as Clan House 1atCasa Grande.The overall distribution of Hohokam traits alsochanges dramatically in the Classic Period. During theColonial and Sedentary Periods the Phoenix Basin isclearly the center of the Hohokam world, both in thegeographic sense and because the traits used to iden-tify Hohokam appear earliest and are most elaborated

in this area (Figure 5.2). In the Classic Period thPhoenix basin continues to be the most heavily poplated region in southern Arizona with the largest anmost elaborate towns, but it has lost its centrality terms of traits. Of the various traits that define thClassic Period, such as Salado Polychrome pottery, plaform mounds, Sonoran Brownware pottery (particlarly the type Tanque Verde Red-on-brown), and cerrde trincheras sites, only the distribution of platformounds appears centered on the Phoenix basin (Figu5.3).In terms of ceramic distributions the Phoenix basis at the western edge of the Salado polychrome distbution and the Tucson Basin and Papagueria are inseparate Sonoran Brownware distribution.The large settlementsof the Classic period seem to abandoned by the late 15th century. A subsequent Polvoron phase (AD 1450-?) appears tobe the product a remnant population, sometimes living in the ruinsthe largecenters.When he Spanish first entered the arin the late 17th century they found the Salt river vall

Figure 5.2. Distribution of Hohokam Material Cultuin the Sedentary Period (from McGuire 1991:fipe 8.2


8/15

The Limits of World-Systems Theory for the Study of Prehistory 57abandoned by settled agriculturalists and only a fewvillages of O'odham (Pima) on the Gila River.Hohokam Core and Periphery

Traditionally archaeologists thought that theHohokam were a bounded linguistic and culturalgroup, that migrated into the Phoenix basin, expandedoutward, and then contracted (Haury 1976). Today,most archaeologists in southern Arizona speak of theHohokam as having been a regional system that incor-porated multiple ethnic, linguistic, and cultural groups(Crown 1990; Gumerman 1991). They work with anexplicit concept of a Hohokam core surrounded byareas that are in some sense peripheral to that core.Hohokam archaeologists tend to see developments inthese peripheral areas as originating in and dependentupon what happens in the core. The movement ofstyles, products, and items are often assumed to be oneway from the core out. These peripheries are somehowviewed as being incapable of existence, at least asFigure5.3. Distribution of Hohokam Material Culturein the Civmo Phase (From McGuire 1991:figure8.3).

Hohokam, apart from the core. Archaeologists maydiscuss the core without reference to the peripheries butthey seldom discuss peripheries without reference tothe core. At first glance the Hohokam regional systemwould appear to be a prime example of a Pre-Colurnbian world-system.

In both the traditional and the regional systems viewscholars regard the Hohokam as a bounded unit, withinternal subdivisions that change through time. Further,they assume that the nature of that unit (be it a cultureor a regional system) remains the same throughout thesequence. That is they do not entertain the idea thatformally similar distributions of artifacts may representqualitatively different social formations.Thus, n almostall current interpretations of Hohokam prehistory adistribution of ceramic styles and artifact traits is eitherseen as representing a culture or a regional system. Fewarchaeologists consider that at one time a distributionmay reflect a culture, in another a regional system, andin another still something else.Archaeologists generally regarded the Phoenix basinas the core of the system and the rest of the Hohokamrange as peripheral. The most elaborate expressions ofthe Hohokam tradition occur in the Phoenix basinincluding the largest sites, the biggest ballcourts andplatform mounds, the most extensive irrigationnetworks, the most lavish ritual objects, and the highestpercentage of red-on-buff pottery. Most of these thingsoccur in the peripheral areas but they are lesselaboratedand appear later in time than in the core. Prehistorianshave variously classified and described the peripheriesof the Hohokam with only a few systematic attempts toconsider the entire regional system (Gladwin et al. 1936;Di Peso 1956,1979; Sehroeder 1960,1979; Haury 1976;Gumerman and Haury 1979; Wilcox and Sternberg1983; Neitzel1984; Teague 1984). They recognize a set ofsub-areas which correspond to major basins and rivervalleys. These areas include the Tucson Basin, the GilaBend, the Papagueria, the San Pedro river, the Saffordarea, the Agua Fria river, the Upper Verde river, theUpper Santa Cruz river, and the Phoenix Basin. Like theHohokam in general, archaeologists regard theseperipheries as bounded units, reflecting a social unitthat changes over time.

When researchers start in the Phoenix basin and lookout at the "peripheries" they cannot help but be struckby the similarities between the Phoenix Basin and theother sub-areas. Upon examining these similarities theyeasily conclude that the Phoenix Basin was a hot areaof cultural development and the source of a commoncultural pattern and/or economy over the larger region.If researchers start with "peripheral" areas and look inthey encounter more diversity than shared similaritiesto the core. The prehistory of three peripheries, theUpper Verde, the Papagueria and the Trincheras region


9/15

58 Pre-Columbian World-Systemsillustrate the variability that existed within the system(McGuire1991).

Hohokam archaeologistsoften interpret these threeperipheries as having different cultural and economicrelationships to a Phoenix basin core. The Papagueriais generally regarded as a peripheral area in theHohokam tradition for all of its Formative periodprehistory. Many archaeologistssee the Upper Verderegion as first a periphery of the Hohokam and thenlater as the southern edge of a Sinaguaculture.The rela-tionship of the Trincherasculture of northern Sonora tothe Hohokam is highly controversial, with somescholarsclaimingthis area is part of the Hohokam tradi-tion and others maintaining it was a separate tradition.As these debates suggest, the three areas are quitedistinctivefrom each other in spite of their shared statusas Hohokam peripheries.

Throughout the history of Hohokamarchaeologyallthree of these regionshave been regarded as peripheralto a core Phoenix basin Hohokam and their prehisto-ries largely interpreted in relation to this core area.Despite this shared status the patterns of materialculture, sequence of development, and relationship tothe core differ greatly between each area.

Hohokam-style material culture appears in each ofthese areasat some point in their prehistorybut beyondthis similarity the development of each area is quitedifferent. In the Upper Verde, Hohokarn traits appearearly in the sequence but never make up a majority ofthe materialculture. In the late prehistoricmost prehis-torians would consider the area to be Sinagua, notHohokam. In the Papagueria the earliest Formativeceramicsand architecturewere virtuallyidentical to corearea assemblages.Through time the artifactassemblageof the region increasingly looks more like that of theTucson Basin than the core area. The Trincheras mate-rials are initially distinctivefrom the corebut then in thelate prehistoric the archaeology of the Altar Valley inthis area greatly resembles that of the Papagueria andthe Tucson Basin, while the rest of the region continuesas a distinctiveregion.At no time does the archaeologyof the Trincherasarea mirror that of the core.HohokamWorld-Systemsand Peer Polities

The use of either a world-systemsapproach or peerpolity interactionin theHohokamcase could be seriouslymisleading. The changes in the Hohokam regionalsystem over time do not fit very well with the expecta-tions of either approach. At a given time certain aspectsof the case appear congruent with one or the otherof themodels but at other times this congruenceis lost. At notime does eithermodel seem to capturethe variation thatexists in Hohokam prehistory. Furthermore, thesequence of change in the Hohokam archaeological

record does not conformto the expectationsof the evolu-tionary perspective that underlies both approaches.

World-systemstheory holds that diverse peripherieswill become more alike and less different,economically,politically,and culturally,due to their shared economicrelationship to a core. The concept of periphery hasanalytical value because of this convergence. Once aworld-system incorporates a region, the relationship ofthat periphery to the core will shape its developmentand therefore the core-periphery relationship becomesthe key to understanding changes in the periphery.

Hohokam prehistory offers little evidence of suchfunctional convergence. The pattern of change in factcontradicts the predictions of world-systems theory.Peripheral areas have very similar looking archaicmanifestations and look most like each other and thecore at the beginning of the Colonial period. Over timethese areasdiverge from each other and the core ratherthan converge.The Papagueria and the Upper Verdeboth start the Colonialperiod with red-on-buff pottery,Hohokam style pithouses, and other Hohokam mate-rial manifestations.By the Classic period the materialculture of both regions was greatly different from eachother and from the Phoenix basin.

Hohokam prehistory lacks functional convergencebecause southern Arizona was never as economicallyor politically integrated as the world-systems modelassumes. Few archaeologists would argue that largescale, long distance trade in basic commodities existedamong the prehistoric Hohokam. Even the models offood trade into the Papagueria do not require that theamount be more than a fraction of total subsistence tobuffer irregular supplies in the local environment.Furthermore, in this case the Papaguerian peoples mayhave traveled to the food in times of stress rather thanthe other way around. The technology available tomove foodstuffs would have allowed the regular redis-tribution of foodstuffs over distances 50 to 60 kilome-ters (Lightfoot 1979; Hassig 1988:64).Food redistribu-tion networks could have covered areas of 7,800 to11,232square kilometers. All of the Hohokam periph-eries are approximatelythis size except the Papagueriaand the Trincheraswhich are considerably larger.The Hohokamperipheries such as the upper Verde,Tonto Basin, Tucson Basin, Agua Fria and the othershad to have been primarily self-provisioning. TheHohokam must have forged the connections in theirregional system primarily through the exchange ofpreciosities. Trade in preciosities will link areasproducing cultural convergenceand dependencies thatform the locus of cultural change.

Such trade will not, however, lead to large scale func-tional convergenceand uniform peripheriesbecause thelocal economic/ecological relationsremain primary. Wecannot arrive at an adequate understanding of cultural


10/15

The Limits of Wor

e difference betweenperipheries without denying the interconnections.The boundaries that separate the peripheries from~mch ther and from the core are at best fuzzy. At thewale of the regional system the distinction between theWpper Verde and the Agua Fria appears distinct but as&e scaleis lowered the line drawn on the smaller scalemap blurs and disappears.The samecanbe said for thePhoenix Basin and the Papagueria. It is not at all clear*at the Hohokam regional system was made up of

Period to the Classicch a comparison is,

followed by a hundred years or more of reor-

begins to dominate in the southem(Doelle and Wallace 1991). In theia red-on-brown frequencies exceedhe Sedentary period. In both theagueria and the Trincheras area Sonoran

become the dominant ceramic types onlyod the Phoenix Basin is no longercenter of a Hohokam regional system but on the

eras regions appear to haveO'otam regional systemlopment of Saladoan andegional systems in the late prehistoric mightto indicate a declining role for the Phoenixhave lost its hot status as a

st extent, villages includeat least onespecializednever as economically,y or in any other way integrated as the

assumes.As a result, over time theperipheries

.Id-Systems Theory for the Study ofPrehistow 59become more distinct rather than more alike as theyshould if they were integrated into a internationaldivi-sion of labor. Thenetwork wasnot madeup of boundedunits or polities. The divisionsbetween regions werealways very fuzzy and thus these regions only existwhen the prehistory is examined at a certain scale.Finally, even as thePhoenixBasin looses itsposition as acul- and stylisticcore in theClassicPeriod itbecomesmore economically and politically more developed.Hohokamhistory in the Pioneer to Sedentaryperiodsalso does not fit the first three of Renfrew's (1986:7-8)expectations for peer polity interaction. Renfrew'sfourth condition, that a variety of interactions bringabout change,does seem to apply.My evaluation herekeys on the question of what should be the region thatRenfrew's four conditions applies to. If we define theregion narrowly, such as the Phoenix Basin then eachof the conditions can be seen, but clearly this smallerregion is embedded in larger processes that the peerpolity model does not stress.Few, if any, Hohokam archaeologistshold that thePhoenix Basin was ever under the sway of a singlepolity. Multiple social and political groups clearlyexisted in thebasin at allpoints in time. Although sometowns were bigger than othersno one town stands outat any period as the preeminent center of the basin. Inthis senseRenfrew's first condition of neighboring poli-ties of comparable scaleismet. However, if we look outside of the basin to the other parts of the Hohokamworld it is clear that the largest and most importanttowns were in the Phoenix basin.

Renfrew's second condition that polities willundergo the same transformationsat about the sametime again works in the restricted context of the basinbut not in the greater Hohokamworld. As the previousreview of Hohokamperipheriesdemonstrates, the rateand nature of changevaries across the Hohokamworld.Finally, formost of the Hohokam sequence (Pioneerto Sedentary Periods) there is a clear center or core, thePhoenix Basin, from which innovation and changeseems to originate.This s contrary to Renfrew's expec-tation that no singlelocusof innovation and change willbe identified.Thepeer polity modeldoes seem to have more appli-cability in the ClassicPeriod. At this time no clear coreexists in the Hohokam world and indeed some of ushave argued that no Hohokam world exists at all.Within the Salado Regional System there are manytowns of comparable size and no clear center. Crown(1994)has suggested that a religious cult united thisworld.

Underlying all of the debate on world-systems andpeer polity interactions is an evolutionary premise. Allof the participantsin the debate accept the idea that themodem world may be so greatly integrated that the


11/15

60 Pre-Columbian World-SystemsWorld is the proper unit of analysis. The essential issueis did a sufficient degree and kind of integration existin evolutionary more "simple" times for similarprocesses to operate in the prehistoric past? The advo-cates of peer polity interaction have been the cleareston this point suggesting that peer polity interactioncharacterizes pre-state societies and world-systemsfollow with the evolution of states.

Yet in the Hohokam sequence this evolutionarytrajectatory seems reversed. In the earliest time periods(Pioneer to Sedentary) a Hohokam world exists with acore in the Phoenix basin and peripheries filling abouthalf the modem state of Arizona. Over time this worldgradually transforms itself as the peripheries becomemore different and the Phoenix Basin less like a core.Despite this fact developmental change occurred aspopulations grew, energy capture intensified, tech-nology became more elaborate, inter-regional exchangeand economic specialization increased, and settlementpatterns more complex. In one sense these societiesseem to be evolving, yet in another they appear to bedigressing.

Beyond World-Systemsand Peer PolitiesThe limitations with the use of either a world-

systems perspective or peer polity interaction inHohokam prehistory spring from the attempt toaccount for the totality of social reality with a singletotalizing theory (Thomas 1991). These attempts reducethe rich variation of history to a handful of categories,a few processes, and a high order scale.The TroubleWith Systems

A world-systems perspective takes a systemic view,that stresses the units (cores, peripheries, and semi-peripheries) that are linked in such a system ratherthan the relations that create the units. Classificatoryterms such as core and periphery unite areas in termsof a specified set of similarities but in doing so, theymask or hide important variation between regionsplaced in the same category. The theory identifiesinequalities in the processes of economic exchange anddevelopment as the driving forces for change inhistory. In world-systems theory a social groupbecomes core because of its functional position in theinternational division of labor. A social group may,however, be central because of its position in a web ofreligious, social, economic, or political relations. Onegroup may be the center for one set of relations, e.g.

religion, while a different group in the centanother set of relations, e.g. economic.A worldsystems perspectivemaintains that prooccur in multiple functionally interrelated layers.all the world-system theories that have been advthe emphasis is on how the highest order processe

change on lower levels. People, however, live anda world of varying scales and their relations with changeas their scale of reference changes. The prothat occur at different scales are linked, but they areducible, one to another (Marquardt and Cr198T2).

I would agree that the scale of analysis definthe peer polity model is an important one for loat cultural change. The processes that occur inriver valleys or basins are often too restricted andoperating at the level of the whole of the Southwtoo grand to account for most of the changes in ptory. We also doubt that the Southwest was esingle network of peer polity interaction so at anytime multiple networks could have existed. Thismhowever, gives us little or no guidance on how exrelations articulate networks or affect process of chThe peer polity model runs the risk of being isolationism that frames research questions in that blinds us to any significant impacts long interactions may have had on the prehistory Southwest. It only gives us the idea of emulation, term for the old notion of influence, to account ranging similarities in cultural change.The notion of bounded units that change oveunderlies both the peer polity and the world-sapproach. We live in a world of bounded entities,counties, states, and nation states. A border, a linmap, defines each of these units. At least in theorstuff that makes up these units, the culture of the nthe authority of the government, or the relationseconomy, should extend evenly and completelyborder to border. Again, at least in theory there is archy to these units.They should fit neatly one the other like a set of Russian dolls. We all knomodel does not often work. We find this neat ordonly in political units, yet the model structures hoview the world so that we try and fit any sphenomena with a spatial aspect into it. This mnotion of bounded units is a creation of modem hand the invention of nation states (Anderson Smith 1991). Such bounded, nested, spatial, unimodem creations (Wolf 1982).In prehistoric casethe Hohokam, the boundaries between social gare ill defined and very fuzzy; yet we draw hardaround them to define neat units.


12/15

The Limits of WaUnevenDevelopmentandScale

A world-systems perspective points to an importantaspect of social relations, unevenness in development,and to the contradictionsthat occur from this uneven-ness. Archaeologists can take thisnotion of unevennessm d examine it as a much more multidimensionalphenomena than the world-systems theory allows. Todo so, we need to avoid a totalizing theory that uses apriori functionally related categories such a core andperiphery and that assumes that processes of socialchange arebest understood at a singlescale. Instead weneedtoexamine the unevenness of culturaldevelopmentin terms multiple dimensions and at multiple scales.Marquardtand Crumley (19872)speak of the "effec-tive scale" of research, that being "any scale at whichpattern may be recognized ormeaning inferred." As wechange the effective scale of our analysis we frame adifferent web of relations.Theunevenness in these rela-tions will disappear at a differentscaleas anew patternof unevenness appears. Social groups also live and actin a world of varying scale and their position viz-a-vizothers changesas their scale of reference changes. Ourchoice of an effectivescale, therefore, brackets an areafor study allowing us to view a particular set of socialrelationswhile denyingus access to sets visible at other

!-SustemsTheoru for the Studu o f Prehistoru 61scales.Also, we will find that some theoreticalmodelsare more informative at one scale and others at adifferent scale, so that our choice of models in part alsodepends on the scale of our analysis. The prehistoricworld we wish to understand was a complex productof the intersection of al l these scales. Thus our studiesof prehistory need to be multi-scaler. As we changescales the boundaries that seemed sharp at one levelbecome fuzzy and disappear.All of this assumes that the goal of our analyses is tounderstand history as a material socialprocess and notto build sterile generalizationsabout world-systemsinall times and places. To study this kind of history weask about the commonalities and differencesbetweensocial groups and the larger historical, environmentalcontext in which these commonalitiesand differencesemerged.Wealsoneed to look forunevenness inhistor-ical developments.Uneven development begets socialgroups that have different interests within a socialorder, and as they act to meet these interests, they createconflicts that drive social change. Sucha history shouldbe multi-scaler. As we change our scale of analysis, weframe a different set of relations; the unevenness inthese relations will disappear at a new scale as a freshpattern of unevenness appears.

ReferencesCitedAbu-Lughod, Janet1990 Before European Hegemony: The World System A.D. 1250-1350.Oxford University Press,Oxford.Adams, E. Charles1991 The Origin and Development of the Pueblo Katsina Cult. Univeristy of Arizona Press,Tucson.Adams, Robert McC.1965 The Land Behind Baghdad. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Anderson, Benedict1983 Imagined Communities. Verso, London.Baugh, Timothy G.1982 Edwards I (34BK2): Southern Plains Adaptations in the Protohistoric Period. OklahomaArchaeological Survey, Norman.1984 Southern Plains Societies and Eastern Frontier Pueblo Exchange During the Protohis-toric Period. Papers of the Archaeological Society of New Mexico 9:154-167.

Blanton, Richard E., and Gary Feinman1984 The Mesoamerican World System. American Anthropologist 86:673-682.Blanton, Richard E., Stephen A. Kowalewski, Gary Feinman, and Jill Appel1981 Ancient Mesoamerica. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Chase-Dunn, Christopher1989 Global Formation: Structures of the World -Economy. Basil Blackwell, Cambridge.Chase-Dunn, Christopher and Thomas D. Hall1991 CorePer iphery Relations i n Precapitalist Worlds. Westview Press, Boulder.


13/15

62 Pre-Columbian World-Systems1993 Comparing World-Systems: Concepts and Working Hypotheses. Social Forces 71:851-886.Cordell, Linda S.19&4 Prehistory of the Southwest. Academic Press, Orlando.

Crown, Patricia1990 The Hohokarn of the American Southwest. Journal of World Prehistory 4(2):223-255.1994 Ceramics and Ideology: Salado Polychrome Pottery. University of New Mexico Press,

Albuquerque.Dean, Jeffrey S.1991 Thoughts on Hohokam Chronology. In Exploring the Hohokam: Prehistoric DesertDwellers of the American Southwest, edited by G.J. Gurnerman, pp. 417-459. University ofNew Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Di Peso, Charles C.1956 The Upper Pima of San Cayetano del Tumacacori. Amerind Founhtion Publications 7.Dragoon.1979 Prehistory: Southern Periphery. In Southwest, edited by Alfonso Ortiz, pp. 152-161.Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 9. Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C.1983 The Northern Sector of the Mesoamerican World System. In Forgotten Places and

Things,edited by A. E. Ward, pp. 11-22. Center for Archaeological Studies, Albuquerque.Doelle ,William H. and Henry D. Wallace1991 The Changing Role of the Tucson Basin in the Hohokam Regional System. InExploring the Hohokam, edited by G.J. Gummerman, pp. 279-346. University of NewMexico Press, Albuquerque.Eighmy, Jeffery and Randall H. McGuire1988 Archaeomagnetic Dates and the Hohokam Phase Sequence. Colorado State Univers ityArchaeomagnetic Lab Technical Series 3, Ft. Collins.Ekholm, Kasja and Jonathan Friedman

1982 Capitalism, Imperialism, and the Exploitation in the Ancient World System. Review6:87-110.1985 Towards a Global Anthropology. Critique of Anthropology 5:97-119.

Frank, Andre Gunder1990 A Theoretical Introduction to 5,000 Years of World System History. Review 13:155-248.Frank, Andre Gunder and Barry K. Gills1990 The Culmination of Accumulation: Theses and Research Agenda for 5,000 of World-System History. Dialectical Anthropology 15:19-42.Gladwin, Harold S., E.W. Haury, E.B. Sayles, and Nora Gladwin1936 Excavations at Snaketown I: Material Culture. Medallion Papers 25,Flobe.Gasser, Robert E. and Scott M. Kwiatkowski

1991 Food For Thought: Recognizing Patterns in Hohokam Subsistence.In Exploring theHohokam, edited by G.J. Gurnerman, pp. 417-459. University of New Mexico Press, Albu-querque.Gumerman, George

1991 Exploring the Hohokam: Prehistoric Desert Dwellers of the American Southwest. Universityof New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.Gummerman, George C. and Emil W. Haury

1979 Prehistory: Hohokam. In Southwest, edited by AlfonsoOrtiz,pp.75-90. Handbook ofNorth American Indians, Vol. 9. Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C.Hall, Thomas D.1989 Social Change in the Southwest, 1350-1880. University of Kansas, Lawrence.Hassig, Ross1988 Structure and Growth of the Aztec Empire. Paper presented at the annual meetings ofthe Society for American Archaeology, Phoenix.Haury, Emil1976 The Hohokam:Desert Farmers and Craftsmen.University of Arizona Press, Tucson.


14/15

The Limits of World-SystemsTheoy for the Study of Prehistoy 63Hosler, Dorthy1994 The Soundsand Colors of Power. TheMIT Press, Cambridge.Kohl, Philip

1987 The Use and Abuse of World-Systems Theory.Advances in Archaeological Method andTheory, Vol. 11,edited by M.B. Schiffer, pp. 1-35. Academic Press, San Diego.1989 The Use and Abuse of World-SystemsTheory:TheCase of the "Pristine" West Asian

State. In Archaeological Thought inAmerica, ed. by CC. Lamberg-Karlovsky, pp. 241-267.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Lightfoot, Kent G.1979 Food RedistributionAmong PrehistoricPueblo Groups. The Kiva 44(4):319-340.Marquardt, William and CaroleL. Crumley

1987 TheoreticalIssues in the Analysis of Spatial Patterning.In Regional Dynamics: Burgun-dian Landscapes in Historical Perspective. edited by C.L. Crumley and W.H. Marquardt,pp.1-18. AcademicPress, Orlando.McGuire, Randall H.1991 On the Outside Looking In: TheConceptof Peripheryin Hohokam Archaeology. In

Exploring the Hohokam, edited by G.J. Gumennan, pp. 347-383. University of New MexicoPress, Albuquerque.Minnis,Paul E.

1989 The Casas Grandes Polity in the InternationalFour Comers. In The Sociopolitical Struc-ture o PrehistoricSouthwesternSocieties, edited by SteadmanUpham,K.G. Lightfoot, andR. A. Jewitt, pp. 269-305. Westview Press, Boulder.Neitzel, JillE.

1984 The Organizationof the Hohokam Regional System. American Archaeology 4(3):207-216.Palerm, Angel and Eric R. Wolf

1957 EcologicalPotentialand CulturalDevelopment in Mesoamerica. In Studiesin HumanEcology, pp. 1-37.AnthropologicalSocietyof Washington D.C.Plog, Fred

1983 Political and EconomicAlliances on the Colorado Plateaus, AD 400 - 1400.Advances inWorld Archaeology 2:289-330.Plog, Fred, Sted Upham and Phillip C. Weigand

1982 A Perspective on Mogollon-MesoamericanInteraction. InMogoIlon Archaeology:Proceedings o the 1980Conference, edited by P.H. Beckett, pp. 227-238. Acoma Books,Ramona.

Polanyi, Karl1957 The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Originsof Our Time. Beacon Press,Boston.

Rathje, William1971 The Origin and Development of Lowland Classic Maya Civilization.American Antiq-uity 36:275-285.

Renfrew, Colin1986 Introduction: Peer Polity Interaction and Socio-PoliticalChange. In Peer Polity Znterac-tion and Socio-Political Change,ed. by Colin Renfrew and J.F. Cherry, pp. 1-18. CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge.Sanders, William T. and Barbara Price1968 Mesoamerica: The Evolution of a Civilization.Random House, New York.

Santley, Robert and RaniAlexander1992 The Political Economy of Core-PeripherySystems. In Resources, Powey, and Interre-gional Interaction,edited by E. Schortmanand P. Urban, pp. 17-21.Plenum, New York.Schorhnan,Edward and Patricia Urban1987 ModelingInterregionalInteraction in Prehistory. In Advances in Archaeological Methodand Theory, Vol. 11,edited by M.B. Schiffer, pp. 37-95. Academic Press, San Diego.


15/15

64 Pre-Columbian Wo rld- Sys erns

Schroeder, Albert H.1960 The Hohokam, Sinagua, and Hakataya. Societyfor American Archaeology Archives of

Archaeology, Vol. 5.1979 Prehistory: Hakataya. In Southwest, edited by Alfonso Ortiz, pp. 100-107. Handbook o

North American Indians, Vol. 9. Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C.Smith, Anthony D.1991 National ldenfity. University of Nevada Press, Reno.

Teague, Lynn S.1984 The Organization of Hohokam Economy. InHohokarn Archaeology Along the Salt GilaAqueduct (Central Arizona Project, Vol9), ed. by L.S. Teague and P.L.Crown, pp. 187-250.Arizona State Museum, Tucson.

Thomas, Julian1991 Rethinking the Neolithic. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Upham, Stedman1982 Politics and Power. Academic Press, New York.

Wallerstein, Immanuel1974 TheModern World-System I. Academic Press, New York.1978 Civilization and Modes of Production. Theory and Society 5:l-10.1980 The Modern World-System 11.Academic Press, New York.1989 The Modem World-System 111.Academic Press, Orlando.

Whitecotten, Joseph W. and Richard A. Pailes1986 New World Pre-Columbian World-Systems.In Ripples in the Chichimec Sea: New

Considerations of Southwestern-Mesoamerican Interactions, edited by F.J. Mathian and R.H.McGuire, pp. 183-204. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale.Wilcox, David R. and Charles Stemberg

1983 Hohokarn Ballcourts and Their Interpretation. Arizona State Museum, Tucson.Wolf, Eric

1982 Europe and the People Without History. University of California Press, Berkeley.,

Documents

The Limits of World Systems Theory for the Study of Prehistory