We evaluated Carneiro's ‘environmental circumscription’ theory and completely rejected it. It was an insidious ethnocentric prima facie construct. Attempting to develop a viable alternative to early state formation, we focused on food procurement, production and storage. Obviously, large population aggregates (characterizing a state by archaeologists) was only possible because they were in areas of unique abundant wild/renewable food resources, supplemented with agriculture in varying degrees of development. All earliest states followed a pattern of being located near a river mouth entering a sea or ocean. Thus, we propose that such areas produced large amounts of aquatic fauna (mainly fish) and sometimes flora, and these renewable resources helped support sizeable human populations. We label our theory: Unique Resource Constellation Theory (URCT).
{"title":"Early State Formation: A Complete Rejection of the Circumscription Theory","authors":"T. Stocker, Jianyi Xi’ao","doi":"10.30884/seh/2019.02.09","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.30884/seh/2019.02.09","url":null,"abstract":"We evaluated Carneiro's ‘environmental circumscription’ theory and completely rejected it. It was an insidious ethnocentric prima facie construct. Attempting to develop a viable alternative to early state formation, we focused on food procurement, production and storage. Obviously, large population aggregates (characterizing a state by archaeologists) was only possible because they were in areas of unique abundant wild/renewable food resources, supplemented with agriculture in varying degrees of development. All earliest states followed a pattern of being located near a river mouth entering a sea or ocean. Thus, we propose that such areas produced large amounts of aquatic fauna (mainly fish) and sometimes flora, and these renewable resources helped support sizeable human populations. We label our theory: Unique Resource Constellation Theory (URCT).","PeriodicalId":42677,"journal":{"name":"Social Evolution & History","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2019-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43008279","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The nomadic empires of Inner Asia are a unique historical phenomenon. Large mountain and steppe territories allowed hundreds of thousands of nomadic families to pursue their economic activities, creating the conditions that led to their integration into big imperial communities. The long border in the South with empire-civilization and world-system center China was one of the major ‘challenges’ for steppe people, the ‘answer’ to which was often the creation of semi-peripheral imperial polities, as only the common military capacity of the Inner Asia stockbreeders guaranteed them at least temporary military and political equality and even supremacy during periods of weakening of the Middle Kingdom. The established opinion on the similarity of the nomadic empires in this region is mostly the result of a long period of research on nomadic economies, social and political structures, and the relations between nomads and China (evolutionism, positivism, Marxism). In the last few decades, the concept of multi-linearity (non-linearity) of sociogenesis and politogenesis has been applied to this field of study, allowing us to focus on the peculiarities of the Inner Asia nomadic empires, creating a solution to the old issues surrounding the nature of the power systems among nomads, the existence or absence of statehood, and the typology of imperial structures according to their level of complexity.
{"title":"Political Complexity in Nomadic Empires of Inner Asia","authors":"S. A. Vasyutin","doi":"10.30884/seh/2019.02.05","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.30884/seh/2019.02.05","url":null,"abstract":"The nomadic empires of Inner Asia are a unique historical phenomenon. Large mountain and steppe territories allowed hundreds of thousands of nomadic families to pursue their economic activities, creating the conditions that led to their integration into big imperial communities. The long border in the South with empire-civilization and world-system center China was one of the major ‘challenges’ for steppe people, the ‘answer’ to which was often the creation of semi-peripheral imperial polities, as only the common military capacity of the Inner Asia stockbreeders guaranteed them at least temporary military and political equality and even supremacy during periods of weakening of the Middle Kingdom. The established opinion on the similarity of the nomadic empires in this region is mostly the result of a long period of research on nomadic economies, social and political structures, and the relations between nomads and China (evolutionism, positivism, Marxism). In the last few decades, the concept of multi-linearity (non-linearity) of sociogenesis and politogenesis has been applied to this field of study, allowing us to focus on the peculiarities of the Inner Asia nomadic empires, creating a solution to the old issues surrounding the nature of the power systems among nomads, the existence or absence of statehood, and the typology of imperial structures according to their level of complexity.","PeriodicalId":42677,"journal":{"name":"Social Evolution & History","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2019-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42962012","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The article is devoted to the custom of artificial deformation of skull which was practiced by the early nomads of the late Sarmatian time in the steppe zone of Eastern Europe. The issues of spread, origin and functional load of this custom are being resolved on the basis of the mass paleoanthropological materials from the burial mounds in the Southern Urals, the Lower Volga and the Lower Don region. The data show that the proportion of deformed skulls varies from 50 per cent to 100 per cent while the dating of the complex, where the materials with deformation marks come from, has shown that no gradual penetration occurred in the late Sarmatian society. Due to the fact that the late Sarmatian society had some peculiar features (e.g., children were not buried under the mounds and only part of women had this kind of privilege and also the high injury level of the skeletons caused by hostilities) it is possible to consider that the custom of the artificial deformation was a constant symbol of intra-group solidarity and inter-group cultural differences. One can hardle define the connection between the practice of deformation and such phenomena as fashion and esthetics, since along with the late Sarmatians a large number of settled and nomadic tribes practiced this custom.
{"title":"Reconsidering the Issue of Eastern Migrations in Connection with the Artificial Cranial Deformation Practices among the Late Sarmatians","authors":"Maria A. Balabanova","doi":"10.30884/seh/2019.02.10","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.30884/seh/2019.02.10","url":null,"abstract":"The article is devoted to the custom of artificial deformation of skull which was practiced by the early nomads of the late Sarmatian time in the steppe zone of Eastern Europe. The issues of spread, origin and functional load of this custom are being resolved on the basis of the mass paleoanthropological materials from the burial mounds in the Southern Urals, the Lower Volga and the Lower Don region. The data show that the proportion of deformed skulls varies from 50 per cent to 100 per cent while the dating of the complex, where the materials with deformation marks come from, has shown that no gradual penetration occurred in the late Sarmatian society. Due to the fact that the late Sarmatian society had some peculiar features (e.g., children were not buried under the mounds and only part of women had this kind of privilege and also the high injury level of the skeletons caused by hostilities) it is possible to consider that the custom of the artificial deformation was a constant symbol of intra-group solidarity and inter-group cultural differences. One can hardle define the connection between the practice of deformation and such phenomena as fashion and esthetics, since along with the late Sarmatians a large number of settled and nomadic tribes practiced this custom.","PeriodicalId":42677,"journal":{"name":"Social Evolution & History","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2019-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41294842","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Nomads were the Mongolic and Turkic peoples that inhabited vast territories of Inner Asia, including natural areas from the desert to the tundra, from highlands to steppe plains. The development of this diverse space is one of the debated issues in the history of nomadic societies, which still remains relevant. A wide range of ecological zones led to the formation of a rich worldview which created mythological, ethnic, and symbolic images of spaces. For each particular natural zone there was formed a particular mechanism for comprehending and developing territories.
{"title":"The Idea of Space among the Nomads of Great Steppe","authors":"M. Sodnompilova, B. Nanzatov","doi":"10.30884/seh/2019.02.02","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.30884/seh/2019.02.02","url":null,"abstract":"Nomads were the Mongolic and Turkic peoples that inhabited vast territories of Inner Asia, including natural areas from the desert to the tundra, from highlands to steppe plains. The development of this diverse space is one of the debated issues in the history of nomadic societies, which still remains relevant. A wide range of ecological zones led to the formation of a rich worldview which created mythological, ethnic, and symbolic images of spaces. For each particular natural zone there was formed a particular mechanism for comprehending and developing territories.","PeriodicalId":42677,"journal":{"name":"Social Evolution & History","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2019-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41345056","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The article addresses one of the fundamental issues in the theory of revolutions – the problem of classification of revolutions. The existing approaches distinguish revolutions depending on their self-proclaimed mission-theory (formational, modernization, and civilizational) and peculiar features – alleged driving forces, ideological vector, etc. The author proposes to rely in systematization on the phenomenon itself, rather than on the theoretical basis that this phenomenon should correspond to. From our point of view, a comparative analysis of revolutions based on their algorithm allows determining their sort and type. We propose an approach to comparative analysis of revolutions which is based on two criteria related to the subject of research, namely: an algorithm of a revolution (stages, phases, and developmental vector) and the problems it resolves. Based on these principles, the author concludes that there are two sorts of revolutions, each of which is further subdivided into three types. From the very beginning revolutions manifested themselves as a civilization-scale phenomenon and attracted social thought and researchers across the world. With every revolutionary outbreak, the significance of revolutions would increase while the studies of revolutions became more and more relevant. The attempts to comprehend the differences and similarities between revolutions, i.e. to delineate a primary typology, appeared in the early eighteenth century and allowed making conclusions that the Glorious Revolution of 1688 in England was in no way similar to its predecessor of the years 1640−1653. Following the onset of the Great French Revolution in the late eighteenth century, it was observed that it fundamentally differed from the two British and the American revolutions, which, in turn, were strikingly dissimilar from each other (Burke 1852: 366; Burke 1869: 80–81; Guizot 1854: 114–116). Meanwhile, the 1789–1799 events in France started to be referred to as a ‘Great Revolution’ (Burke 1852: 125). Shults / On Classification of Revolutions: An Attempt at a New Approach 245 A classification requires repeated occurrences of the same events which can be and should be compared with each other. Since the Reformation seems to be the most similar event in terms of its significance and scale prior to the first revolutions the latter would inevitably be compared to it, with the Reformation referred to as a religious revolution, and the revolutions in England, America and France, as political revolutions (Comte 1896: 189–190; Guizot 1854: 3; Tocqueville 2011: 19–20). In the 1820–1830s, the ideas concerning political and social revolutions start to emerge in the European social thought, which considered the events related to state takeovers as political revolutions, while state reforms were regarded as social revolutions (Hörmann 2011: 62–65). These approaches were mostly associated with the desire to establish and demonstrate that political revolutions had a neg
{"title":"On Classification of Revolutions: An Attempt at a New Approach","authors":"E. Shults","doi":"10.30884/seh/2019.02.13","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.30884/seh/2019.02.13","url":null,"abstract":"The article addresses one of the fundamental issues in the theory of revolutions – the problem of classification of revolutions. The existing approaches distinguish revolutions depending on their self-proclaimed mission-theory (formational, modernization, and civilizational) and peculiar features – alleged driving forces, ideological vector, etc. The author proposes to rely in systematization on the phenomenon itself, rather than on the theoretical basis that this phenomenon should correspond to. From our point of view, a comparative analysis of revolutions based on their algorithm allows determining their sort and type. We propose an approach to comparative analysis of revolutions which is based on two criteria related to the subject of research, namely: an algorithm of a revolution (stages, phases, and developmental vector) and the problems it resolves. Based on these principles, the author concludes that there are two sorts of revolutions, each of which is further subdivided into three types. From the very beginning revolutions manifested themselves as a civilization-scale phenomenon and attracted social thought and researchers across the world. With every revolutionary outbreak, the significance of revolutions would increase while the studies of revolutions became more and more relevant. The attempts to comprehend the differences and similarities between revolutions, i.e. to delineate a primary typology, appeared in the early eighteenth century and allowed making conclusions that the Glorious Revolution of 1688 in England was in no way similar to its predecessor of the years 1640−1653. Following the onset of the Great French Revolution in the late eighteenth century, it was observed that it fundamentally differed from the two British and the American revolutions, which, in turn, were strikingly dissimilar from each other (Burke 1852: 366; Burke 1869: 80–81; Guizot 1854: 114–116). Meanwhile, the 1789–1799 events in France started to be referred to as a ‘Great Revolution’ (Burke 1852: 125). Shults / On Classification of Revolutions: An Attempt at a New Approach 245 A classification requires repeated occurrences of the same events which can be and should be compared with each other. Since the Reformation seems to be the most similar event in terms of its significance and scale prior to the first revolutions the latter would inevitably be compared to it, with the Reformation referred to as a religious revolution, and the revolutions in England, America and France, as political revolutions (Comte 1896: 189–190; Guizot 1854: 3; Tocqueville 2011: 19–20). In the 1820–1830s, the ideas concerning political and social revolutions start to emerge in the European social thought, which considered the events related to state takeovers as political revolutions, while state reforms were regarded as social revolutions (Hörmann 2011: 62–65). These approaches were mostly associated with the desire to establish and demonstrate that political revolutions had a neg","PeriodicalId":42677,"journal":{"name":"Social Evolution & History","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2019-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46772235","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
For many years scholars have interpreted the large polities of pastoral nomads of Inner Asia as having different levels of complexity (pre-state, early state, feudal society, nomadic civilization, etc.). The present article discusses the debates of recent decades within the post-Marxist and postmodern approaches as well as the polemics about the relation between internal and external factors, about the hierarchy and heterarchy, periodization and complexity levels. Many important issues give rise to a new wave of debates. However, there is still no consensus on a number of fundamental issues. We call to a new phase in nomadic studies (nomadology) – the transition from the great theories to the middle-range theories. We also give comments on some articles of the present special section.
{"title":"Social Complexity, Inner Asia, and Pastoral Nomadism","authors":"N. Kradin","doi":"10.30884/seh/2019.02.01","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.30884/seh/2019.02.01","url":null,"abstract":"For many years scholars have interpreted the large polities of pastoral nomads of Inner Asia as having different levels of complexity (pre-state, early state, feudal society, nomadic civilization, etc.). The present article discusses the debates of recent decades within the post-Marxist and postmodern approaches as well as the polemics about the relation between internal and external factors, about the hierarchy and heterarchy, periodization and complexity levels. Many important issues give rise to a new wave of debates. However, there is still no consensus on a number of fundamental issues. We call to a new phase in nomadic studies (nomadology) – the transition from the great theories to the middle-range theories. We also give comments on some articles of the present special section.","PeriodicalId":42677,"journal":{"name":"Social Evolution & History","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2019-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44598613","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
One of the greatest challenges for the study of cultural evolution is an explanation of processes and mechanisms of transmission of cultural traits. Darwinian approach is a promising and useful research program. However, it is worth asking in what extent Darwinian account can provide appropriate and reliable explanation for origin and transmission of religious components. In this paper we would like to discuss some benefits and weaknesses of this approach for the study of religion. It seems that Darwinian approach fails to explain transmission of acquired traits and non-random variation. We can look for biological benefits provided by religious affiliation when trying to explain it in terms of survival and reproduction. However, we assume that biological evolutionary explanation cannot explain ultimately some unique human traits like religiosity. Biological evolutionary account can explain a number of similarities between humans and nonhuman animals in some basic behavioral patterns (similarity by homology). The focal point is if this approach can provide reliable explanation for specifically human cultural phenomena that only analogically can be found among some social animals, especially social insects, like in the case of mechanism of eusociality. The key idea of our paper is that Darwinian approach to religion might explain only small part of human religiosity, and reliable explanation should combine Darwinian and cultural evolution, and cognitive account.
{"title":"What is Right and What is Wrong in the Darwinian Approach to the Study of Religion","authors":"K. Szocik","doi":"10.30884/seh/2019.02.11","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.30884/seh/2019.02.11","url":null,"abstract":"One of the greatest challenges for the study of cultural evolution is an explanation of processes and mechanisms of transmission of cultural traits. Darwinian approach is a promising and useful research program. However, it is worth asking in what extent Darwinian account can provide appropriate and reliable explanation for origin and transmission of religious components. In this paper we would like to discuss some benefits and weaknesses of this approach for the study of religion. It seems that Darwinian approach fails to explain transmission of acquired traits and non-random variation. We can look for biological benefits provided by religious affiliation when trying to explain it in terms of survival and reproduction. However, we assume that biological evolutionary explanation cannot explain ultimately some unique human traits like religiosity. Biological evolutionary account can explain a number of similarities between humans and nonhuman animals in some basic behavioral patterns (similarity by homology). The focal point is if this approach can provide reliable explanation for specifically human cultural phenomena that only analogically can be found among some social animals, especially social insects, like in the case of mechanism of eusociality. The key idea of our paper is that Darwinian approach to religion might explain only small part of human religiosity, and reliable explanation should combine Darwinian and cultural evolution, and cognitive account.","PeriodicalId":42677,"journal":{"name":"Social Evolution & History","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2019-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44084544","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The post-development theorists argue that certain characteristics of the ‘Western’ ways of talking about and representing the non-West should be understood as ideological projections rather than as scientific knowledge about people and places elsewhere. To these theorists, the ways of conceiving and representing development that are closely bound to the North's development agencies and programs reveal more about the selfaffirming ideologies of the Global North than insights into the peoples of the rest of the world. In addition, the post-development scholars take up the position that development has less to do with human improvement and more to do with human control and domination. This theory suggests that societies at the local level should be allowed to pursue their own development path as they perceive it without the influences of global capital and other modern choices, and thus a rejection of the entire paradigm from Eurocentric model and the advocation of new ways of thinking about the non-Western societies. However, this developmental model for the societies of the Global South, especially Africa, is inefficient because it is a kind of cultural relativism, which is capable of veering into fundamentalism and does not allow for mutual borrowing. The thrust of this study lies basically in presenting that a combination of cultural knowledge and Western development theories through an adaptation of post-development model is needed for development and social order in Africa. This means that an all-inclusive model encapsulating life promotion and centred on human should be adopted as a development model for Africa. Social Evolution & History / September 2019 230 A CONCEPTUAL ANALYSIS OF POST-DEVELOPMENT THEORY In the 1990s, the post-development theorists argued against modernization and development for its reductionism, universalism, and ethnocentricity, that is, examining development from the ‘top-bottom’ approach, which identifies that societies of the Global South should borrow essentially from the developed societies. While the post-development theorists proffer the discussion to be seen and examined from the ‘bottom up’ approach as Gilbert Rist writes that, ‘it is recognised that “development” has to be built “from the bottom up”, and that its medium-range objectives may vary from one society to the next’ (Rist 2008). This approach of the post-development theorists lies in the interest not in development alternatives, but in alternatives to development and thus a rejection of the entire paradigm from Eurocentric model and the advocation of new ways of thinking about the non-Western societies. Post-development suggests that we allow societies at the local level to pursue their own development path as they perceive it without the influences of global capital or other modern choices and forces. Post-development theorists like Rist, Escobar, Rahnema, Bawtree, Kothari, and Minogue among others based their discourse on the critical analysis of de
{"title":"The Inadequacy of Post-Development Theory to the Discourse of Development and Social Order in the Global South","authors":"Felix O. Olatunji, Anthony I. Bature","doi":"10.30884/seh/2019.02.12","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.30884/seh/2019.02.12","url":null,"abstract":"The post-development theorists argue that certain characteristics of the ‘Western’ ways of talking about and representing the non-West should be understood as ideological projections rather than as scientific knowledge about people and places elsewhere. To these theorists, the ways of conceiving and representing development that are closely bound to the North's development agencies and programs reveal more about the selfaffirming ideologies of the Global North than insights into the peoples of the rest of the world. In addition, the post-development scholars take up the position that development has less to do with human improvement and more to do with human control and domination. This theory suggests that societies at the local level should be allowed to pursue their own development path as they perceive it without the influences of global capital and other modern choices, and thus a rejection of the entire paradigm from Eurocentric model and the advocation of new ways of thinking about the non-Western societies. However, this developmental model for the societies of the Global South, especially Africa, is inefficient because it is a kind of cultural relativism, which is capable of veering into fundamentalism and does not allow for mutual borrowing. The thrust of this study lies basically in presenting that a combination of cultural knowledge and Western development theories through an adaptation of post-development model is needed for development and social order in Africa. This means that an all-inclusive model encapsulating life promotion and centred on human should be adopted as a development model for Africa. Social Evolution & History / September 2019 230 A CONCEPTUAL ANALYSIS OF POST-DEVELOPMENT THEORY In the 1990s, the post-development theorists argued against modernization and development for its reductionism, universalism, and ethnocentricity, that is, examining development from the ‘top-bottom’ approach, which identifies that societies of the Global South should borrow essentially from the developed societies. While the post-development theorists proffer the discussion to be seen and examined from the ‘bottom up’ approach as Gilbert Rist writes that, ‘it is recognised that “development” has to be built “from the bottom up”, and that its medium-range objectives may vary from one society to the next’ (Rist 2008). This approach of the post-development theorists lies in the interest not in development alternatives, but in alternatives to development and thus a rejection of the entire paradigm from Eurocentric model and the advocation of new ways of thinking about the non-Western societies. Post-development suggests that we allow societies at the local level to pursue their own development path as they perceive it without the influences of global capital or other modern choices and forces. Post-development theorists like Rist, Escobar, Rahnema, Bawtree, Kothari, and Minogue among others based their discourse on the critical analysis of de","PeriodicalId":42677,"journal":{"name":"Social Evolution & History","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2019-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47659622","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Immanuel Maurice Wallerstein (1930–2019)","authors":"C. Chase-Dunn, H. Inoue, T. D. Hall","doi":"10.30884/seh/2019.02.15","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.30884/seh/2019.02.15","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":42677,"journal":{"name":"Social Evolution & History","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2019-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48187009","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：