The use and abuse of world systems theory: the case of the “pristine” West Asian state

Abstract

Kohl takes issue with Wallersteins assertion that the modern world is qualitatively different thatn the ancient world. He cites Schneider's criticism that Wall dismisses tooo easily the external economic linkages forged by non-westernn politicla empires and denigrates importance of long distance exchange of luxory goods. Ekholm and Friedmand (1982) reject the formal economic stance that Wall employs reject homo economicus preferring the primitivist, that accumulation and control lof abstract wealth was an ancient phenmom. Kohl rejects many dichotomi4s such as local and long distance and staples and luxory. He calls for a comparison of how ancient and modern world systems differ, which is what he does with an example . Kohl's Ancient Political Economy Differences between Modern and Ancient 1. the extent to which wealth was transferred from colony to imperial capital -not strictly quantifiable, but many people accumulated wealth as a result of ancient long distance exchange. 2. The concept that ancient is politicla and ideological and not economic is false because of the interdependence of the three variables. He says differences are of scale 3. Like others , suggests that prestige goods were a significant target of wealth accumulation. Shows how 'orices' and value of things fluctuated over time suggeswting some evaluation process of supply and demand. 4. Argues that Bronze age world system was multicored and interlocking. 5. Peripheries between cores were not powerless in dictating the terms of exchange., may withdraw from exchange or chose to interact with another core. 6. not necessary that periphery suffered from a technology gap. And technologies are easily transferrable, unlike some technologies of the modern world. Conclusions: Wallersteins model cannot be applied litterly to the Bronze age world system, but that doesn't mean that the search for interconnections and structural interaction among societies is unproductive. "Rather the task now is to determine how and why interactuions at different, archaeologically attested stages of cultural development both resembled and differed fom those of today. The model cannot be appllied literally to earlier social formations, but its necessary alteration may help us better understandthe development and character of prestate and early state societies and force us to write total histories of the past."