User:Ssapplet/sandbox

Article Evaluation
The article I am evaluating is 'Complex society': Complex society


 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?

All three sections could be improved. The introductory section needs citations for its statements. The 'Concept' section can be expanded to provide a fuller definition, and the citation technique can be improved. The 'Controversy' section has no references or sources, and thus might need to be removed entirely.


 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

The 'Concept' section that expands on the definition of a complex society only has one poorly attributed reference/source. For a fairer framing I'd like to see at least one other source cited. The 'Controversy' section has no sources or citations, and given it represents an ideological position, it would appear biased towards that position without any supporting references.


 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

Patricia Crone's development of the definition appears to be a significant scholarly contribution to the theory, but is not referenced in the article.


 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?

The only reference leads to a book publishing online store, which does not meet the standards of Wikipedia, thus it likely will have to be removed.


 * Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?

As noted above, the only reference is not an appropriate reference. It references a seriously and reliable scholarly work, but the link does not expand on the material presented in the article.


 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?

The article has not been seriously edited in a few years, thus there is much material that can be added to make it richer.


 * Check out the Talk page of the article. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?

The only discussion about this article is two comments posted 10 and 7 years ago. One rejecting a proposition to move it into the 'civilization' article, and the other suggesting that more anthropological and archaeological references be incorporated.


 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?

The article is not rated, and is not a part of any WikiProjects.


 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Not really, just is sparse compared to the reading material we've been given on the topic in class. And the 'controversy' section was not thoroughly covered in our readings.

Complex Society Intro
A complex society is a concept is shared by a range of disciplines such as anthropology, archaeology, history and sociology to describe a stage of social formation. The concept was formulated by scholars attempting to understand how modern states emerged, specifically the transition from small kin-based societies to large hierarchically structured societies. A ‘complex society’ is characterized by features such as:


 * state with a large population wherein its economy is structured according to specialization and a division of labor. These economic features spawn a bureaucratic class and institutionalize inequality.
 * Archaeologically, features such as big architectural projects and prescribed burial rites.

The term is mostly used as short hand to indicate a society with intricate political organization and the use of technology to expand economic production.

The Emergence of Complex Societies

Before human beings developed complex societies, they lived in primitive societies. The historical consensus is that complex societies emerged from primitive societies around 4000-2000 BCE in Egypt, Mesopotamia, the Indus Valley and China. According to traditional theories of how states emerged, the initial spark for the development of complex societies was an agricultural surplus. This economic specialization leads to divisions of labor. The economic transition from an agricultural economy to a division of labor is the most basic explanation of how societies go from primitive to complex.

Before the rise of complex societies there was little need for a strong, centralized state government. The increase in populations in these societies meant that the society was too big to rely on interpersonal and informal connections to resolve disputes. This meant there was a need for a hierarchical authority to be acknowledged as the final arbiter in such scenarios. This judicial authority was also able to claim military, economic and religious authority. Often a claim to one realm was enough to support political ambitions in other realms. This hierarchical decision making structure became the state, which distinguishes primitive from complex societies.

Alternative Theories for the Rise of Complex Societies

In a 2009 paper Turchin and Gavrilets argue that the emergence of complex societies is a response to the existential threat of violent warfare. They build upon the work of Karl Jaspers' conception of the Axial Age, whereby in the era 800 - 200 BC human societies undergo a revolutionary shift. The central mechanism which pushes societies into a complex stage is the intensity of the warfare. When war takes place across a metaethnic frontier, such as between agricultural and nomadic peoples, is when warfare is sufficiently intense to shift the society into a different state. Within the Axial Age, an increase in warfare intensity between the steppe peoples and the Persian and Chinese peoples forged the Achaemenid Persian empire and the Han Chinese empire, both complex societies.

This theory has been extended to explain the rise of complex states in Africa and Asia also. The colonization of these places by European powers functioned as a metaethnic frontier in which warfare met the necessary level of intensity.

History
Historians have emphasized the maritime connectivity of the Southeast Asian region whereby it can be analyzed as a single cultural and economic unit, as has been done with the Mediterranean basin. This region stretches from the Yangtze delta in China down to the Malay Peninsula, including the South China Sea, Gulf of Thailand and Java Sea. It is argued that many of the peoples connected in this trade network had more in common with one another than their inland neighbors, thus the utility of analyzing it as a single cultural and economic unit. However, this maritime Southeast Asian region differed from the Mediterranean in that there was a single dominant political and economic power driving trade and exchange, China.

Age of Commerce
Historian Anthony Reid argues that this Southeast Asian region entered an ‘age of commerce’ between the early 1400’s and the 1600’s. This age of commerce sparked the multicultural and transnational dynamics which forged the region into a single maritime unit. Demand for Southeast Asian products and trade was partially driven by the increase in China’s population in this era, whereby it doubled from 75 to 150 million. The naval expeditions of Zheng He between 1405 and 1431 also played a critical role in opening up the Southeast Asian region to increased trade.

China’s role in Southeast Asian maritime trade can also be seen in the growing Hokkien diaspora which emigrated to various cities in the region throughout this period. Despite not having the official sanction of the Chinese government these communities formed business and trade networks between cities such as Melaka, Hội An and Ayutthaya.

Sino-Southeast Asian trade had been going on since at least the 9th century, but their prominence in Southeast Asian port cities greatly expanded in this era. Many of these Chinese businesspeople integrated into their new countries, becoming political officials and diplomats.

-- Ssapplet (talk) 16:50, 3 July 2018 (UTC)