Traditional models of pastoral complexity in Eurasia have been primarily concerned with the interaction between nomadic populations and settled states, particularly in the Near East (Bates and Lee 1977; Rowton 1973), Central Asia (Vinogradova and Kuz'mina 1996; Hiebert 2002), and East Asia (Barfield 1993, 2001; Di Cosmo 1994). Researchers looked to the borders of Eurasia, because they assumed that the center was relatively homogeneous (politically, culturally, and economically) in the Bronze Age. Political activities were visible, supposedly, only when groups with diametrically opposed political institutions clashed. This border-focused research strategy, however, is based upon several linked assumptions. First, the type of political organization is associated with subsistence strategy, especially in the case of pastoralists. Second, it is assumed that certain types of subsistence strategies lead to more- advanced forms of politics (i.e., farmers have states, but pastoralists do not). Third, it is argued that politics cannot be understood without history, meaning that researchers who are serious about understanding Bronze Age political complexity need the textual sources from the early states on the fringe of Eurasia.

Politics, however, is just one aspect of social organization, which is determined by the economic, cultural, and ecological underpinnings of each society. What we study, as archaeologists, is the unique way power plays out on the ground.