Ethnicity and World-Systems Analysis 57and the greater Near Eastern world-system by means of the shipping routes to the south
and east.
Another instance of the application of WSA to the Mediterranean world is Sherratt’s
(1993) discussion of world-systems linkages between central Europe, the Aegean, and
the Near East. He used the term “margin” to refer to a zone that does not interact directly
with a core, but provides materials that are critical to the operation of the system. He
pointed to the role of amber from the Baltic and various metals from central Europe in the
Mediterranean trade. The urban core of the Near East and the Aegean in the Bronze Age
stimulated the exchange of many commodities through multiple links without direct con-
tact between members from either geographical location. Sherratt suggested that parts of
this system existed in the Neolithic and continued down into historic times. This is con-
gruent with Chase-Dunn and Hall’s (1997) argument that an Afroeurasian world-system
originated about 10,000 years ago. They do not claim that there was only one system.
Rather, they claim that world-systems, or better world-system-like structures, appeared
at least that long ago. From that point, they began growing and merging, developing
into the systems we find around the time of Ur. In the Bronze Age, the trade in metals,
especially bronze, was particularly significant. Bronze made possible the integration of
“regional exchange cycles.” Sherratt suggests that the Bronze Age is aptly named, not
simply because of the artifacts, but because this metal alloy fueled the economic expansion
on which many early states depended.
Of particular importance is Sherratt’s concept of the margin “as the area of ‘escaped’
technologies and long-distance contacts based on directional exchange-cycles” (1993:
44). His margin corresponds to contact periphery in Figure 4.1. He described the Aegean
as one of several linked maritime-exchange cycles in the Mediterranean, which in the
Bronze Age witnessed the shift from “‘luxuries’ to ‘commodities’ in the context of the
emergence of palatial organisation” (45). The relatively rapid development of production
centers and the concomitant supporting organizational structures moved the peoples of
the Aegean from the status of periphery to “more equal participation in inter-regional
trade” (45). This process fostered the growth of trade in bulk materials. More recently,
he has advocated a “return to the global perspective that prevailed before the 1960s.”
He urged his colleagues to think about interaction on a continent-wide scale. Grand
reconstructions can be seen as “the outcome of human actions—distant from our own
experience but nevertheless comprehensible in terms of common human motivations,
propensities, and acts of will” (Sherratt 2006: 53). Indeed, Kardulias (1999: 70) argues,
“In reply to Sherratt’s (1993) query, ‘What would a Bronze-Age world system look like?’,
the Mycenaean world system was multi-tiered, with some central elements and activities,
while others were decentralized.” This is an example of precisely the kinds of questions
and issues that WSA helps to address, providing a number of hypotheses and putative
mechanisms driving such changes. Further study of such changes could help us achieve
a better assessment of the range and variation of these processes and relations. This also
would allow further questions about how and the degree to which peripheral or marginal
areas shaped the overall system and core areas.
Ina Berg (1999) discusses the Aegean exchange network in WSA terms. She uses
the number of contacts between regions to indicate the relative position of each in
the exchange system. Pottery is the key artifact type used to determine presence and
strength of contact, with metals and other objects used when available. She argues that a