When compared with first-generation states, empires constitute an increase in territorial extent, administrative complexity, and ethnic differentiation, although the development of empires does not appear to involve the kind of qualitative social reorganization seen in the emergence of chiefdoms and states. In attempting to arrive at a meaningful definition of the term ‘empire’, it is useful to distinguish between modern empires that have thrived in the capitalist world system and those that flourished before transoceanic colonial systems developed. Such early empires have typically been identified on the basis of supra-state administrative characteristics; essentially, an early empire is a state that has developed an administrative apparatus capable of governing other states, or of transcending ethnic affiliation (much in the way that a state constitutes organization beyond that of the kin group). Each of these classificatory criteria has its weaknesses - the state-administration haracteristic imposes an artificial distinction between the nascent macroregional tendencies of first-generation states, while the multiethnic criterion may be difficult to evaluate archaeologically.
Empires are territorially expansive, although they do not necessarily pursue continuous or uniform
Territorial control. The distinction may be made between a highly integrated core or heartland region and a much larger scattering of peripheral or provincial regions linked to varying degrees to the imperial core. Most imperial core regions constitute centralized states that formed and consolidated and were then transformed during subsequent phases of imperial territorial expansion and provincial administrative consolidation. Provincial regions are bound to the core through a suite of dynamic strategies that vary over space and time. Researchers distinguish between direct/indirect control and hegemonic/ territorial control, but such dyads fail to capture the complexity of imperial negotiations.
The Elaboration of Regional Elite Networks
Rapid imperial expansion and decline are partially due to the emergence of a macroregional elite culture. This is the result of previous periods of state integration and the rise of complex elite hierarchies that intermarry and share certain cultural elements. Successful imperial administration requires more pronounced bureaucratic structures, as well as a tolerance of local cultural and religious practices, which are organized under an overarching imperial ideology. Due to their scale and the limits of information exchange in the ancient world, early empires tend to be polities that tolerate a more indirect control over political economy and religion. Military force and judicial force are still treated as state monopolies, although many empires use mercenaries or client kingdoms to achieve stability in frontier regions.
Cycles of Imperial Development
Because they depend so heavily on intermediate elites, empires are more fluid sociopolitical arrangements, and they are prone to form and collapse more rapidly than first-generation states. The ruling elite - and the overall imperial identity - can often be replaced without requiring substantial transformations to lower-order administration, or to the social organization religion, and economy of local communities. Some empires are known to have risen and balkanized in a single generation, and without written documents these political changes might be difficult to detect archaeologically. As the organizational scope reaches macroregional scale and imperial ideologies and elite identities become more idiosyncratic and restricted socially, it might be argued that the study of imperial societies becomes more appropriately the subject of history than archaeology. At the very least, the written record assumes a much more significant role in identifying and interpreting such polities.
World History
