In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

37 Chapter 3 o Becoming Wari Globalization and the Role of the Wari State in the Cotahuasi Valley of Southern Peru Justin Jennings T he Middle Horizon (AD 600–1000) was a pivotal period in pre-Columbian Peru. The period was marked by an unprecedented increase in the interregional flow of prestige goods, staple items, andideas(e.g.,Burgeretal.2000;Lechtman1980;Shady Solís 1982, 1988). Arsenic bronze, for example, was introduced and produced extensively across the country; flexed burial became more common; and the Quechua and Aymara languages were likely more widely spoken (Heggarty 2008; Isbell 1997; Lechtman 2003, 2005). This increased interregional exchange was paralleled by thedramaticdevelopmentoftheWaristateinAyacucho, the spread of a Wari-derived artistic style throughout Peru, and the construction of a handful of peripheral sites that were likely built and occupied by settlers from the Wari heartland (Isbell and Schreiber 1978; Jennings and Craig 2001; Menzel 1977; Schreiber 1992). The relationship between the Wari state and the period’s surging interregional interactions has been a subject of considerable debate since the Wari culture was first identified in the 1930s (see my introduction to this volume). As the chapters in this volume demonstrate, cultural change and Wari influence in Middle Horizon Peru was far from uniform. Archaeologists have typically tried to explain this variability through either a peer polity model, where Wari was only one of many interacting cultures during the period (e.g., Shady Solís 1982, 1988; Topic 2003; Topic and Topic 2000; Torero 1974), or an imperial model, where Wari controlled much of Peru through a variety of administrative strategies (e.g., Isbell 1991; Lumbreras 1974; Schreiber 1992; Williams and Isla 2002). Both of these models find some support in the archaeological record, but I argue that a third model may help us better explain the nature of Wari influence away from Ayacucho. I suggest that the Middle Horizon can best be understood as an early period of globalization. The word globalization might seem quintessentially modern—evoking images of the Internet, sweatshops , or new age music. Many scholars use the term to describe how the recent significant increase in the crosscultural flow of information, goods, and individuals has transformed the relationships that people have with each other (e.g., el-Ojeili and Hayden 2006:13; Eriksen 2007:14; Held and McGrew 2000:3; Inda and Rosaldo 2008:4; Tilly 1995:1–2; Tomlinson 1999:2). I agree with these scholars, but I argue that many of the sweeping cultural changes associated with globalization today have occurred repeatedly in human history. The spread of Wari is one example. The rapid urbanization of the Wari capital was the spark that globalized the Middle Horizon by forging new relationships between people 38 JUSTIN JEN NINGS who interacted both with the Wari state and with each other. In this chapter, I discuss the possibility of ancient globalization, introduce a globalization model for Wari culture, and look at how a globalization model helps us better understand the nature of Wari-local interactions in the Cotahuasi Valley of southern Peru. Ancient Globalization? I am not the first to argue for a connection between ancient and modern interregional interaction (e.g., Elkholm and Friedman 1985; Hall and Chase-Dunn 2006; LaBianca and Scham 2006; Nederveen Pieterse 2004). Archaeologists are most familiar with the attempts to make this connection based on the world systems approach. Pioneered in the 1970s, the approach describes global capitalism through a core-periphery model of systematic, structural connection between rich and poor nations (Wallerstein 1974). The potential application of the approach to earlier periods was quickly noted (Schneider 1977), and most of the scholars who have spent considerable time exploring the possible ramifications of interregional interactions tend to be either world system theorists or people arguing against these theorists (e.g., Abu-Lughod 1989; ChaseDunn and Anderson 2005; Chase-Dunn and Hall 1997; Frank 1993; Frank and Gills 2000). Since archaeologists are often best positioned to evaluate the evidence for ancient world systems, they were quickly drawn into these debates (e.g. Algaze 1993; Blanton and Feinman 1984; Stein 1999). After almost three decades of engagement with the idea, the world systems approach is now losing favor among many archaeologists and other scholars. There is a growing realization that ancient political economies could not work the same as modern ones (see chapters in Stein 2005b). Transportation hurdles were too high, state bureaucracies were too weak, specialization was too shallow, and exchange networks were too limited. A rejection of...

Share