ANTH 235: TRADE, EXCHANGE, & POWER - David Soren



ANTH 235

TRADE, EXCHANGE, & POWER

Whole exchange systems can be reconstructed – or at least the movements of goods can be traced – if the materials in question are sufficiently distinctive for their source(s) to be identified.

Numerous chemical, isotopic, and other means now exist for the precise characterization of many materials. The non-chemical techniques include, naming some of the more frequently applied in archaeology:

optical emission spectrometry

inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectrometry

atomic absorption spectrometry

X-ray fluorescence analysis

electron probe microanalysis

proton-induced X-ray emission (PIXE)

particle induced gamma-ray emission

neutron activation analysis

One of the most important reasons for studying ancient exchange systems is because of their fundamental economic role in many societies and their consequent influence on the acquisition and maintenance of POWER.

hyper-diffusion (e.g., pyramids; Egyptian, top; Mexican, bottom)

[pic]

[pic]

independent invention (example: the wheel; this one is from Choqa Zanbil, Iraq and dates to 1500-1000 BCE)

[pic]

Social structure itself has been defined as “the pattern of repeated contacts between people,” therefore social organization and exchange are simply different aspects of the same process.

Exchange is a central concept in archaeology. When referring to material goods, it is synonymous with trade. But, “exchange” can have a wider meaning, referring to all interpersonal contacts, so that most social behavior is viewed by anthropologists as an exchange of goods, non-material as well as material.

[pic]

Summary: there are LOTS of ways in which goods and ideas (and genes!) can get exchanged.

Three basic patterns of exchange (following the American economic historian, Karl Polanyi, 1886-1964):

9. reciprocity – exchanges between individuals who are more-or-less social equals

10. redistribution – implies the operation of some central controlling organization

11. market exchange – implies both a specific central location for exchange to occur and the sort of social relationship where bargaining can occur

Using archaeological data, we can distinguish a wide variety of interactions among adjacent cultural groups:

12. competition – judging your own success against that of your neighbors. “Keeping up with the Joneses.”

13. competitive emulation – trying to out-do your neighbors in conspicuous consumption. “Keeping ahead of the Joneses,” e.g., NW Coast potlatch ceremony.

14. warfare

15. transmission of innovation – the spread of technological advances

16. ceremonial exchange of valuables – transfer of marriage partners and valuable commodities to secure alliances, etc.

17. flow of commodities – not just valuables get traded; also salt, foodstuffs, etc.

18. language and ethnicity – the most effective mode of interaction is a common language. Often leads to shared ethnicity.

Two case studies in the archaeological analysis of trade and exchange:

First case study:

Distribution analysis of obsidian (volcanic glass) in Southwest Asia.

Samples of obsidian artifacts were obtained from most known early Neolithic sites in Southwest Asia dating between 6000-5000 BCE.

[pic]

Obsidian projectile point from Çatal Höyük, Turkey. This black natural volcanic glass was the economic fuel that powered early Anatolian towns like Çatal Höyük.

A rather clear picture emerged:

central Turkish obsidians were traded down the eastern Mediterranean coast as far south as Palestine

eastern Turkish obsidians found their way down the Zagros mountain range to sites in what is now Iran

a quantitative distributional study revealed a pattern of exponential fall-off as one moved away from the obsidian sources, indicating down-the-line trade

conclusion: the obsidian was being handed on down from village settlement to village settlement

only in the areas close to the sources (within 200 km) was there evidence that people were going direct to the source to collect their own obsidian

outside that area, the fall-off indicates a down-the-line system. There is no evidence of specialist middleman traders or centralized redistribution points at the time

By 5000-3000 BCE, evidence indicates the situation had changed somewhat. A new obsidian source in eastern Turkey was coming into use. Obsidian was being traded over greater distances and with some indication of limited managerial control being exerted by “central places.”

Second case study:

The Uluburun shipwreck, Turkey. A Bronze Age Phoenician trading vessel dating to the late 14th century BCE. (see image gallery and discussion at ).

The Uluburun shipwreck lies in 40-60 meters of water off the south Turkish coast, near Kaş. Excavated between 1984-1994 by Dr. George Bass and his colleagues at the Institute of Nautical Archaeology at Texas A&M University.

the ship’s cargo contained about 10 tons of copper in the form of 354 standardized ingots

the copper for these ingots was determined by lead-isotope and trace element analyses to have been mined in Cyprus

also found nearly a ton of ingots of tin – source as yet unknown (tin Sn + copper Cu = bronze)

seems evident that at the time of the wreck, the ship was sailing westwards from the eastern Mediterranean coast, taking with it tin and Cypriot copper

the ship also contained pottery storage jars (called amphorae) still holding traces of a turpentine-like resin as well as olives and glass trade beads (from Iran?)

exotic goods recovered: lengths of African ebony wood, elephant and hippopotamus ivory, ostrich eggshells, Baltic amber beads from northern Europe

artifacts show unusual mixture: bronze tools and weapons from Egypt and the Levant, cylinder seals of Assyrian and Syrian types, ingots of glass (at the time a scarce and costly commodity), and a gold chalice from Scandinavia

CONCLUSIONS:

Interpretation of exchange systems requires consideration of what the likely mechanism may have been: whether reciprocal exchange, redistribution or market exchange. Nor should one forget that societies exchanged ideas and genes as well as material goods within a complete interaction sphere.

Because of their role in economics, exchange systems also impact the nature and distribution of power in ancient societies, thus in considering the roles of trade and exchange in human societies, archaeologists must constantly balance their view of tactical goals against strategic outcomes.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download