Kharyssa Rhodes asks about the relationship between peer polity
interaction and world-systems analysis.
there are a number of issues, but basically these approaches are quite
compatible. the peer polity hypothesis argues that states emerge in a
context of competition and cooperation with other states, early state
modules. it was formulated in part as a reaction to the assumption that
all polity interactions are hierarchical or exploitative, which was
thought to be an implication of world-systems analysis.
the important point here is that it does not make sense to assume either
hierarchy or co-evolution but to examine the specific case to see how
the system is working. tom hall and argue that core/perphery hiearchies
should not be assumed, but rather they should be demonstrated. indeed we
study world-systems in which there were no core/periphery hiearchies
(e.g. C. Chase-Dunn and K.M. Mann, The Wintu and their Neighbors: A very
Small World-System in Northern California (University of Arizona Press
1998).
http://coleman.soc.jhu.edu/cd/books/cdbooks.htm
But Renfrew and Cherry find mostly co-evolutionary relationships because
they do not look at relations of the early states with less powerful
nomadic or farming societies. This is why it is necessary to examine the
whole set of nested networks and to ask the question about hierarchy for
each network. The conceptual apparatus that Tom Hall and I worked out
for doing this is explained in our Rise and Demise: Comparing
World-Systems (Westview 1997) and the archaeological literature on
world-systems is reviewed in T.D. Hall and C. Chase-Dunn, 1993 "the
world-systems perspective and archaeology: forward into the past."
Journal of Archaeological Research 1:2:121-143.
you asked.
chris