In his essay “Differentiated Landscapes and Non-Uniform Complexity among Bronze Age Societies of the Eurasian Steppe,” Frachetti lays out this theory in answer to traditional models of social complexity based on settled agricultural “civilizations.”¹ He writes, “One may observe that the emergence of a seemingly extensive socio-economic landscape throughout the Bronze Age stands at odds with the organizationally small-scale and locally rooted societies that occupied this vast territory. Current archaeological models of social complexity to date do not adequately fit the Bronze Age conditions evident across the Eurasian steppe zone.”² His theory attempts to take into consideration the numerous societies attested to, and suggested by, variously incongruous archaeological evidence from across the Eurasian steppe. Frachetti asks, 

But what if one cannot easily circumscribe the geographic boundaries of the participant communities or locate the growth of a shared or consistent institutional framework that applies to different populations intersecting across a shared geography? Socio-political or economic complexity cannot be charted as easily on a “functional scale of differentiation” if the societies that co-generate it subscribe to independent institutional parameters or exhibit non-uniform definitions of general institutions to begin with.³

Using Douglass North’s definition of “institutions” as “‘the humanly defined constraints that shape human interaction’”, Frachetti proposes a model that describes how variously complex societies made up of “differentiated populations” develop modes of interaction across a common geographic region.⁴ This work is concerned with describing, and attempting to understand, how social systems developed among ancient Eurasian steppe populations. This fact makes the use of his theory particularly interesting, because this is the context out of which the worship of Ahura Mazda seems to arise. 

Central to Frachetti’s model is the importance of responsive strategizing and pragmatism in the development (or adoption) of institutions in any given society. The key to describing “non-uniform complexity” is understanding the significance of flexibility, negotiability, and adaptability in these societies. This is connected directly to the concept of “Environmental Pragmatism” mentioned in the previous chapter. A fairly clear example of this concept, regarding the role of environmental pressures on the development of mobility (and often pastoralism) among various steppe-based societies, seems to have found acceptance among anthropologists before Frachetti. Although such developments are subject to many more variables, it is reasonable to say that this is, ultimately, an example of economic and social systems pragmatically generated (or adopted) in response to particular environmental contexts. Integral to Frachetti’s theory is the idea that this responsiveness, that underlies the economic development of mobility in a context of limited resources (those that might facilitate settlement), could reasonably be assumed to underlie other developments. 

The Non-Uniform Complexity Theory does not focus on particular developments, but on the idea that processes of social/cultural development function within what seems to be an ever-ready responsiveness. This kind of pragmatism works at different scales across interactions and networks. Frachetti writes “Non-uniformity is the result of some general institutional codes being homogenized between diverse groups or re-shaped among them for strategic purposes, while other institutions remain individually or specifically defined. Thus, for each participant community, its degree of organizational consolidation or fragmentation vis-à-vis its neighbors depends on the scalar cohesion of various institutional structures and the periodic willingness of those communities to adopt or develop similar constraints to their modes of interaction.”⁵ Frachetti argues that the contingent nature of development makes institutional complexity among steppe populations difficult to assess using tools that have been proposed for use in examining ancient settled agricultural societies.⁶ Frachetti notes “Complexity among steppe communities is better evaluated in terms of institutional integration or fragmentation at the interstices of diverse populations whose economic and political interests co-exist geographically but are not necessarily bound by a shared sense of society.”⁷ It is important to emphasize the connection between this description of a diverse social landscape of “economic and political interests” and the heterogenous environmental landscape within which they “co-exist geographically.” 

Consider the fact that Frachetti does not make any claims about fundamental biological differences between steppe populations and groups of humans living in different regions. His theory is not predicated on innate predispositions particular to the genetic pool of steppe dwelling peoples. The reason that Frachetti’s theory applies to the current investigation is because this work is based on species-wide human traits of responsiveness and pragmatism. These traits are exercised by complex environmental and socio-cultural conditions that serve as pressures in the region. Frachetti writes, “the Bronze Age landscape of the steppe may be depicted as a ‘jigsaw puzzle’ of fluctuating socio-economic arenas that served to link otherwise discrete and localized pastoral populations. Pastoralist strategies, by definition, contribute to a heightened degree of variation in mobility and subsistence strategies, in settlement ecology, and in commercial activity – both within and across regions.”⁸ This emphasis on “heightened variation” in strategies that are connected to the environmental and socio-economic “jigsaw puzzle” is key to the inquiry taken up in this dissertation. Frachetti’s theory is broad enough to include religious institutions but, in contrast to the present investigation, he does not focus on this category of developments. Nevertheless, the “Non-Uniform Complexity Theory” can be used as a lens through which the points of comparison in this dissertation can be examined.