Specialization and social inequality in Bronze Age SE Arabia: analyzing the development of production strategies and economic networks using agent-based modeling

This paper investigates the role of specialized production strategies in the development of socio-economic inequalities in Bronze Age south-eastern (SE) Arabia, and particularly, the ways in which a localized, internal exchange economy may have produced stress and instability in the SE Arabian socio-economic system. While archaeological research has established that the communities of SE Arabia participated in a widespread Bronze Age exchange system that included areas of the ancient Near East, South Asia, and Central Asia, it is unclear to what degree this interaction fostered the broad-scale socio-economic changes seen in the Early Bronze Age of SE Arabia. Here we present the results of an agent-based model that suggest the nature of the internal exchange economy in SE Arabia itself may have precipitated the social conditions necessary for change by allowing individuals to profit disproportionately. We thus emphasize the importance of local production strategies in generating socio-economic change, in addition to the well-established economic and cultural contacts with the wider Bronze Age world.     

Worked and decorated shell discs from southern Arabia and the wider Near East

This article presents and discusses a corpus of worked and decorated shell discs from recently excavated archaeological sites in southern Arabia, including Dibba (northern Oman), Saruq al‐Hadid (UAE) and Sumhuram/Khor Rori (southern Oman). The artefacts are compared to a wide range of shell discs from controlled excavations in Arabia and the broader Near East in order to better understand their date, manufacture and use. The comparative study highlights the wide distribution of decorated shell discs across the ancient Near East, particularly during the early Iron Age, and the complex economic and cultural connections that underpinned the collection, crafting, exchange and significance of such items.     

Italian history and gli italiani nel mondo,part I

Abstract

Italian historians have not yet seriously grappled with the emigration of twenty‐seven million Italians as an interpretative theme. This article reviews the methodological challenges to such an undertaking. Existing works suggests that ‘Italy‐outward’ research strategies, exploration of Italian connections to its ‘diaspora’, and attention to labor recruitment and militancy, and return migration are promising approaches. Since most interpretation of Italian migration still occurs within the histories of receiving nations, Part I also provides a review of the historiography on Italian immigrants in the English‐speaking world, to be followed in Part II by a comparable review of Italians living and working in France, South America and central Europe.     

Work,Poverty and Modernity in Mayhew's London

Mayhew's understanding of work in London has not been considered a great success. His accounts of workers were sentimental and erratic and his ambivalence to political economy prevented him from fully understanding the relationship between work and poverty. As the century progressed, it was Marx and Booth who provided systematic and sustained studies of the labour question. However, as this article argues, the circulation of facts, moral judgements and guesswork that filled the pages of London Labour and the London Poor offers a fair representation of a metropolitan manufacturing economy that was characterized by uncertainty, speculation and shifting boundaries of capital and labour. In particular, Mayhew's demonization of small masters, the working poor who set up as independent producers and whom he blamed for over-competition, drew out a contradiction in contemporary understandings of capitalism: large-scale capital and well-organized labour were seen as progressive and modern but small businesses were flexible and adaptable and were for many the only hope of escaping poverty and breaking out of the ranks of labour. As such, it is Mayhew rather than Marx or Booth that best exposes the tensions between the aspirations of the working poor and the paradigms of social investigators that insisted on distinguishing capital from labour.