In this article, we explore the typological distinction between primary and secondary states. We outline a methodology for exploring variability in the formation and organization of secondary states that integrates aspects of traditional neoevolutionary approaches, Marcus's “dynamic model,” Blanton et al.'s “dual‐processual model,” and world‐systems theory. We discuss the development of the Minoan and Mycenaean states of the Bronze Age Aegean and argue that they arose via different mechanisms of secondary state formation, through direct and indirect contact with neighboring societies in the Eastern Mediterranean, Near East, and Egypt. We argue that a model that measures state formation along several different theoretical dimensions encourages archaeological exploration of secondary states along varied historical trajectories, in different (pre)historic contexts.
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 240 citations exist upstream.