FEINMAN Et Al. 2010, Preindustrial Markets and Marketing. Archaeological Perspectives

AN39CH11-Feinman ARI 12 August 2010 20:47
ANNUAL
REVIEWS Further Preindustrial Markets
Click here for quick links to
Annual Reviews content online,
including:
and Marketing:
• Other articles in this volume
• Top cited articles
• Top downloaded articles
Archaeological Perspectives
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2010.39:167-191. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
• Our comprehensive search

Gary M. Feinman1 and Christopher P. Garraty2
by b-on: Universidade de Coimbra (UC) on 02/18/11. For personal use only.
1
Department of Anthropology, The Field Museum, Chicago, Illinois 60605-2496;
email: gfeinman@fieldmuseum.org
2
Statistical Research, Inc., Tucson, Arizona 85712; email: cpgarraty@yahoo.com
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2010. 39:167–91 Key Words

First published online as a Review in Advance on economic anthropology, exchange, marketplaces, preindustrial
June 14, 2010
economies
The Annual Review of Anthropology is online at
anthro.annualreviews.org Abstract
This article’s doi: Markets are key contemporary institutions, yet there is little agreement
10.1146/annurev.anthro.012809.105118
concerning their history or diversity. To complicate matters, markets
Copyright c 2010 by Annual Reviews. have been considered by different academic disciplines that approach
All rights reserved
the nature of such exchange systems from diametrically opposed per-
0084-6570/10/1021-0167$20.00 spectives that impede cross-disciplinary dialogue. This paper reviews
the theoretical and methodological issues surrounding the detection,
development, and significance of markets in the preindustrial past. We
challenge both the view that marketing is natural and the perspective
that market exchange is unique to modern capitalist contexts. Both of
these frameworks fail to recognize that past and present market activ-
ities are embedded in their larger societal contexts, albeit in different
ways that can be understood only if examined through a broadly shared
theoretical lens. We examine the origins, change, and diversity of prein-
dustrial markets, calling for multiscalar, cross-disciplinary approaches
to investigate the long-term history of this economic institution.
167
[B]road concepts such as “markets” and “states,” exchange, neither one nor the other says a word;
or “socialism” and “capitalism,” do not take us she who arrives presents the item she brought
very far in thinking about patterns of order in hu- and the other, seated, looks at it. If she is inter-
man society . . . . Markets are diverse and complex ested, she takes it into her hand. Judging that it
entities. Markets for different types of goods and is too little, she squeezes it and looks at the rest
services may take on quite different characteristics. of what the other has brought to sell, which is a
Some may work well under impersonal conditions. signal that she likes what is offered, but that the
Others may depend upon personal considerations quantity is too small, that she demands more.
involving high levels of trust among trading part- And in this manner they haggle with each other
ners. In other words, the options are much greater until she feels that what she is offered is suffi-
than we imagine, and we can see this is true if we cient; and if the one who is standing does not
don’t allow our minds to be trapped within nar- want to offer more, she reclaims her item and
rowly constrained intellectual horizons. (Ostrom moves on to the next merchant, still without
2003, p. 1) saying anything.”

As documented by these sources (see also

Cortés 1977), it has long been recognized
INTRODUCTION that the Aztec marketplace at Tlatelolco was
[W]e turned to look at the great market place crowded, stocked with a wide array of local and
and the crowds of people that were in it, some exotic goods (Sahagún 1950–1982, book 10,
buying and others selling, so that the mur- pp. 65–78), and stood at the apex of a hierar-
mur and hum of their voices and words that chical network of marketplaces (Berdan 1985;
they used could be heard from more than a Blanton 1996, pp. 68–80). At the same time,
league off. Some of the soldiers among us who Torquemada (1943, p. 580) provided perspec-
had been in many parts of the world, in Con- tive on how prices were set, while evidencing
stantinople, and all over Italy, and in Rome, economic transfers that took place between in-
said that so large a market place and so full of dividuals who seemingly were not close social
people, and so regulated and arranged, they associates. Various currencies, including cop-
had never beheld before (Dı́az del Castillo per axes, reams of cloth, and cacao seeds, were
1956, pp. 218–19). used in this system of markets (Berdan 1982,
p. 43), and the apparent counterfeiting of cacao
Upon entering the Basin of Mexico in pods hints at a motive to profit (Oviedo y Valdés
the sixteenth century, Dı́az del Castillo and 1851–1855, p. 316; Sahagún 1950–1982, book
other Spanish conquerors were awestruck by 10, p. 65). Observations such as these make clear
the bustling central Aztec marketplace at that Aztec markets were not qualitatively differ-
Tlatelolco, which shared an island location ent from more modern ones, leading us to ques-
with the Aztec imperial capital, Tenochtitlán tion the unbridgeable chasm that some scholars
(now Mexico City). Another account (López have posited between the operational principles
de Gómara 1966, p. 160) related that this mar- of ancient and modern economies.
ketplace was “so large . . . that it will hold sev- Yet, despite the size and complexity of the
enty thousand or even one hundred thousand Aztec market system, the critical role of market
people, who go about buying and selling . . . not activities in the prehispanic Mesoamerican
only from the vicinity, but from farther off.” world has received relatively little attention
This latter account situates this central mar- in anthropological archaeology, particularly
ket on an island in Lake Texcoco, the hub of a before the past two decades (Blanton 1983;
network of smaller markets scattered in towns Braswell 2010; Feinman & Nicholas 2004,
around the lake in the Basin of Mexico. A third 2010; Garraty 2009; Hirth 1998, 2009; Smith
account (Torquemada 1943, p. 580) documents 2010; Stark & Ossa 2010). Neither the
marketplace transactions: “[A]pproaching the historical roots of this system (Blanton 1996,
168 Feinman · Garraty

Minc 2006) nor the nature of marketplace ex- Smith 2004). Prior to a recent contribution
change in other regions of Mesoamerica before (Garraty & Stark 2010), few archaeological vol-
the Spanish Conquest have been thoroughly umes have tackled premodern markets and mar-
Market exchange:
investigated (but see Braswell 2010, Braswell ketplaces in comparative perspective (compare economic transactions
& Glascock 2002, Dahlin et al. 2010, Feinman Hodges 1988), an intellectual lacuna that is where the economic
et al. 1984, Feinman & Nicholas 2004, Hirth hard to understand without delving into the forces of supply and
1998, Nichols et al. 2002, Pluckhahn 2009, disciplinary histories and rigidified cross-field demand are highly
visible and where
Stark & Ossa 2010). Rather, most studies of academic boundaries that have tended to seg-
prices or exchange
Mesoamerican economies take the existence regate much of economics from the study of equivalences exist
of markets largely for granted and devote economic history (Findlay 2005, p. 19; Solow
little attention to their scale, structure, level 1985, 2005) and has fostered a basic decommer-
of integration, or role in domestic economic cialization of ancient economies (Adams 1974;
strategies. In the case of the Aztecs, most analy- Oka & Kusimba 2008, p. 345).
ses have stressed the links between marketplace In archaeology, the limited attention given
exchange and other mechanisms of distribution, to market exchange and marketplaces owes
such as tribute and long-distance merchant much to the broad influence of Polanyi (1944,
activities (Berdan 1977, 1983), as well as po- 1947; Polanyi et al. 1957) and those who
litical oversight of market activities (Carrasco translated and developed key tenets of his
1978; 1983, pp. 73–79; Hassig 1982; Hicks approach in economic anthropology (e.g.,
1987; Kurtz 1974). In fact, the importance of Bohannan & Dalton 1962; Dalton 1961, 1968,
ancient Mesoamerican markets generally has 1975, 1978; Sahlins 1972) and classics (Finley
been downplayed in synthetic treatments of 1999). Although the longstanding formalist-
the region’s economies (e.g., Carrasco 1978, substantivist debate in economic anthropology
2001; Sanders et al. 1979, pp. 404–5). When has been declared over (Halperin 1984, Isaac
pre-Hispanic Mesoamerican economies have 1993), its unfortunate legacies include the
been considered, emphasis has been placed tendency among archaeologists to view the
on the presumed lack or limited scope of land issue of preindustrial market development and
and labor markets rather than on the sizable the relative nature and degree of market ex-
volume of marketplace exchange for nonfactor change through the optic of an oversimplified
commodities (e.g., food, craft goods), price- “market/no-market dichotomy” (Wilk 1996,
setting mechanisms, or the degree of economic pp. 3–14; 1998, p. 469). Perhaps, related to
commercialization (Carrasco 1978, 1983). these conceptual limitations and despite recent
Despite the recognized importance of mar- advances (Abbott 2010, Feinman & Nicholas
ketplaces in many regions of the preindustrial 2010, Hirth 1998, Minc 2006, Stark & Garraty
world (e.g., Blanton & Fargher 2010; Claessen 2010), archaeologists still lack a sophisticated
1978, table 2), such as Greece (Morris 1994, set of procedures or toolkit for unequivocally
p. 366; Osbourne 1991, pp. 136–40), Rome (de detecting marketplaces, market exchange,
Ligt 1993; Geraghty 2007; Greene 2000; Storey and the diversity of market-related activities,
2004; Temin 2001, 2004, 2006), Mesopotamia especially when investigating times and places
(Gledhill & Larsen 1982, Hudson 2002, where documentary sources do not exist (Hirth
Silver 1983), medieval Europe (Grantham 1998, Stark & Garraty 2010).
1999), China (Shen 2003; Tao 1999, pp. 119– Nevertheless, despite these conceptual and
20), and Africa (Curtin 1984, p. 58; Fleisher methodological hurdles, the historical diversity
2010; Law 1992; Uzoigwe 1972), archaeolog- and importance of preindustrial marketplace
ical syntheses have devoted insufficient atten- exchange and market systems has begun to gain
tion to early markets compared with other is- greater attention in a number of disciplines
sues relevant to premodern economies, such as over the past two decades (e.g., Friedland &
tribute or craft production (Minc 2006, p. 82; Robertson 1990, Garraty & Stark 2010, Lie
www.annualreviews.org • Preindustrial Markets and Marketing 169

1997). With the contemporary global financial well aligned with those outlined in other disci-
crisis, the core tenets of economic theory are plines (Dilley 1992b, pp. 1, 13; 1996; Swedberg
also undergoing an unprecedented reevaluation 1994, 2005). The challenge here is to develop
Marketplaces:
physical places in (e.g., Arnsperger & Varoufakis 2006, Buiter a set of working definitions that neither stultify
which market 2009, Cassidy 2009, Dequech 2007–2008, research nor become the central focus of aca-
exchanges are Hodgson 2009, Krugman 2009) that even in demic discussion and that encourage analytical
generally conducted at these early stages has opened the door for practice as well as dialogue across a range of dis-
customary times
greater communication among social scientific ciplines. We seek definitions that neither nar-
Market concept or disciplines concerning market operations, rowly equate the market with Euro-American
model: an idealized
development, and diversity (Ensminger 2002, capitalism nor are so broad that they subsume
conception that an
economic (market) p. xviii). In the face of these intellectual shifts, all human exchange, which extends back more
system is the the time is appropriate to take stock of what than 12,000 years (Bar-Yosef 2002, p. 367).
cumulative effect of is known about preindustrial marketplaces and We find that many existing definitions of
market transactions market exchange (Swedberg 2005, p. 249). We market-related concepts tend to be overly broad
between self-interested
approach this topic by first offering a series of or restrictively narrow for the purpose of un-
buyers and sellers
working definitions. We then briefly discuss derstanding preindustrial market systems. For
the history of theoretical debates across the instance, Bitzenis & Marangos (2007, p. 604)
social sciences to take stock of the present broadly describe the market as “a process in
state of knowledge, while also outlining recent which individuals interact with one another
conceptual reconsiderations that broaden the in pursuit of their separate economic objec-
opportunity for cross-disciplinary dialogue. tives.” In a similar vein, Gravelle & Rees (1992,
We review recent archaeological approaches p. 3) see that “a market exists whenever two
toward the identification of marketplaces and or more individuals are prepared to enter into
market exchange (see also Stark & Garraty an exchange transaction, regardless of time or
2010). Final sections look forward to criti- place.” Yet, Bitzenis & Marangos (2007, p. 604)
cal issues for future studies of preindustrial adopt a much narrower definition of the con-
markets, as ideas regarding the origins of and cept of market economy, dichotomously con-
variation in market exchange systems require trasting such economies with state-controlled
a long-term historical perspective (Braudel or planned economies and thus conflating mar-
1985). ket exchange systems with the presence of a
“free,” self-regulating market. This definition
exemplifies a longstanding and erroneous per-
KEY DEFINITIONS spective that presumes an oppositional and an-
It is paradoxical that at a time when markets per- tagonistic relationship between “public” state
vade almost all aspects of our lives and economic and “private” market aspirations and objectives
theory is applied to research issues across the (a topic we explore below).
academic spectrum (e.g., Becker 1976, Levitt Ironically, Polanyi (1944, p. 68), whose
& Dubner 2005), the market still can be de- ideas often are juxtaposed with those of neo-
scribed as “the hollow core at the heart of eco- classical economists, likewise adopted a narrow
nomics” (Lie 1997, p. 342). Economists as well definition of market exchange as “an economic
as other scholars have devoted relatively little system controlled, regulated, and directed
attention to defining and methodically distin- by markets alone.” He further adds, “All
guishing market exchange, marketplaces, mar- goods and services, including the use of land,
ket systems, and the market model (Barber labor and capital, are available for purchase in
1977, p. 19; Coase 1988, pp. 7–8; North 1977, markets and have, therefore, a price” (Polanyi
p. 710; Pryor 1977, p. 31; Rosenbaum 2000; 1957a, p. 247). For Polanyi (1944, pp. 43,
Swedberg 1994, p. 257). In addition, the con- 54–55; 1957a, pp. 247, 266–69), consequential
cepts that economists do employ often are not market exchange did not exist prior to the

advent of Western capitalism (e.g., Humphreys practices (haggling), the relationships between
1969, pp. 166, 184), a development that he exchange participants (Dequech 2003, Uzzi
placed in nineteenth-century England. In 1997), as well as negotiations over price setting
part, the writings of Polanyi and his associates involving sellers, merchants, guilds, and trade
(e.g., Dalton 1975, pp. 86–91; Sahlins 1972, groups, or by governing officials (Alexander
p. 300; compare Cook 1966) erroneously & Alexander 1991; Alexander 1992; Block &
prompted an analytical dichotomy between Evans 2005, pp. 506–8). We have amplified
recent Euro-American market systems and Pryor’s perspective to recognize the influence
other non-Western (as well as pre-nineteenth- of social mechanisms on market price formation
century European) economies in the disciplines (Braudel 1985, p. 227; Minor 1965, pp. 51–53;
of anthropology, archaeology, and ancient Swedberg & Granovetter 2001, p. 13).
history (Blanton & Fargher 2010; Hejeebu & Our definition of market exchange is broad,
McCloskey 1999, p. 291). in accord with the wide temporal and spatial ex-
Our definitions are broader than Polanyi’s tent of this practice (Abbott 2010, Hirth 2010,
but narrower than the above conceptualization Kohler et al. 2000, Lewis 1989). In this regard,
by Gravelle and Rees, as we recognize that we also recognize that in all economies, ancient
marketplaces and market exchange have a long or modern, market exchange, when present,
history and must encompass significant empiri- coexists with other modes of transfer and ex-
cally documented variability. We conceptualize change (e.g., Davis 1992, p. 25; Pryor 1977), as
market exchange as economic transactions it did in Aztec times (Berdan 1977). Also impor-
where the forces of supply and demand are visi- tant for clarifying our broad definition is how
ble and where prices or exchange equivalencies market exchange compares with the concept
exist. In theory, market exchanges may be of barter. Barter has been variously defined as
atomized/impersonal or personal/embedded interpersonal transactions without formal me-
(Granovetter 1985). However, in practice (as dia of exchange (Humphrey 1985, Humphrey
we discuss in the next section), all market & Hugh-Jones 1992) and as informal and ad
transactions presuppose social relationships hoc exchanges in which commonly held no-
among the parties to an exchange and so are tions of value equivalencies are initially absent,
embedded (Barber 1995, Lie 1991, McCloskey but ultimately achieved (Blanton 2009). Both
1997), albeit to greatly varying degrees and definitions have merit. In our view, sporadic
in distinct ways. Our definition owes much exchanges based on supply-demand principles
to Pryor (1977, p. 437, see also pp. 31–33, theoretically can transpire in an ad hoc fash-
104–8), and we follow his usage of “visible” ion without formal media of exchange, but the
as meaning that important changes in relative increasing scale of market participation and es-
prices, salient shifts in quantities or availability tablishment of “rules” of market conduct tend
of goods offered or sought, or the quality to give rise to more formalized arenas for mar-
of marketed goods available create palpable ket transactions based on widely shared percep-
modulations in supply and demand forces that tions of price and value, possibly facilitated by
are perceptible to market participants. formal media of exchange (although not neces-
Pryor’s definition isolates the economic sarily by currencies).
realm, but market transactions also presuppose For archaeologists and ancient historians,
a social context that situates relationships key research questions focus on increasing par-
between parties to an exchange (Bestor 2001; ticipation in market exchange, which prompts
Fischer 2009; Plattner 1989a, p. 171). The the emergence of a market institution, includ-
dissemination of supply-demand information ing a system of rules, customs, and a physical
is multifaceted and responsive to a variety and legal infrastructure (North 1990, 1991).
of social considerations, including notions of Once socially institutionalized, market ex-
value and fairness, word of mouth, bargaining changes become more archaeologically visible,

but this process is neither natural nor inevitable. rarely, if ever, conforms to actual practice (Fox
Our definition of market exchange does not 2009).
presuppose a link between the frequency of
market exchange and any scalar demographic
threshold or level of social complexity. Market ADAM SMITH, KARL POLANYI,
exchange may become institutionalized even in AND EMBEDDEDNESS
small-scale, middle-range societies as exempli- To understand why marketplace exchange has
fied by Abbott’s (2010, Abbott et al. 2007) re- been insufficiently considered and given little
cent argument for market exchange in prehis- significance in preindustrial economies, it is
toric Arizona. When we speak of the physical necessary to review the paradigmatic clashes
infrastructure, the most direct example is the that stretch across disciplines and frame the
marketplace, which we define as arenas where topic. In anthropology and archaeology, the
face-to-face market exchanges are conducted writings of Polanyi (1944, 1947, 1957a) have
at customary times and places. Economically long sat at the epicenter of this discussion,
linked marketplaces across regional landscapes while Polanyi’s close associate Moses Finley
are defined as market systems (Christaller 1966; (1999) largely set the debate for the ancient
Forman & Riegelhaupt 1970, p. 189; Skinner Mediterranean world. The influential works
1964; C. Smith 1974, 1976), which can take a of Polanyi (Block 2003; Halperin 1984, 1994;
wide variety of spatial configurations. Humphreys 1969) were in part a reaction to
On the basis of this perspective, we define what he viewed as the dehumanizing and cul-
markets as social institutions predicated on turally specific tenets of classical and neoclas-
the market exchange of alienable commodities sical economic theories (Polanyi 1944, p. 163).
(Garraty 2010). The social context pertains Often traced to Adam Smith (1976), classical
to the networks of relationships involved economics has adopted a positivist approach
in market exchanges and the establishment underpinned by methodological individualism
of prices (e.g., Dequech 2003, Uzzi 1997). and the view that humans, governed by self-
By acknowledging the social embeddedness interest, have a natural capacity for “market
of markets (Granovetter 1985), we do not rationality.” In contrast, Polanyi argued that
negate the fundamental role of self-interested models grounded in individual self-interest and
economic behavior in market exchange (see market mentality are solely the product of mod-
also Hirth 2010, Plattner 1989b), although ern capitalism and that “market society was
these basic individual interests often may be born in England” (Polanyi 1944, p. 30).
“satisficed” with other considerations and the In these contrasting frameworks lie the
minimization of risk (Bowles 1998, Henrich roots of the long-standing dichotomy between
et al. 2005, Levitt & List 2008, E. Ostrom the study of past and present economies.
2000). In formulating these definitions, we have When it came to non-Western economies,
decoupled market-based economic practices Polanyi (1944, pp. 115–117) not only rejected
from what may be considered the ideological economists’ reliance on self-interested indi-
model or concept of the market employed vidualism, but also argued “that never before
in mainstream economics (Alexander 1992, our own time were markets more than acces-
Carrier 1997, Dilley 1992a). The latter is the sories of economic life” (Polanyi 1944, p. 68).
idealized conception that an economic (market) Polanyi (1947) asserted that recent Western
system is just the cumulative effect of atomistic economies were qualitatively distinct from
market transactions between individual buyers other economic systems and outlined criteria
and sellers who act based solely on personal for distinguishing recent Euro-American mar-
self-interest and independent of social rela- ket systems from other economies, including
tionships. This conception, which generally is the commoditization of labor and land, the
applied to recent Western economic systems, presence of universal money, and perceived

inefficiencies of information flows regarding economic action functions relative to societal

market conditions in the past (see also Dalton customs and values (Evensky 2005).
1968). Polanyi and his associates (Bohannan At the same time, the advent of new insti-
& Dalton 1962, Carrasco 1982, Dalton 1968) tutional economics (North 1977, 1990, 1991,
also grounded this binary distinction in Williamson 1975, 1985) signals a recognition
what we now know are romanticized views that institutions, such as firms and govern-
of preindustrial societies, which perceived ments, have a key role (along with individuals)
component households as largely self-sufficient in the establishment of order (definitions of
economically and sociopolitical integration as property, affirmation of contracts) necessary for
more centralized, less multivocal (contentious) the operation of modern Western economies
than it often actually was (e.g., Blanton & (Nee 2005; Williamson 1975, 1985) as well
Fargher 2008; Brumfiel 1992; Goldstone as others (e.g., Acheson 2002, Ensminger
2002, p. 328; Smith 2004). The generations of 2002). More recently, modeling at the scale
scholars guided by his perspectives certainly of the individual has begun to expand beyond
recognized preindustrial and non-Western simple self-interest to include considerations of

marketplace exchange (Bohannan & Dalton cooperation, social transmission, and collective
1962; Polanyi 1944, pp. 54–55; 1957a, p. 257), management of resources (Bowles 1998, Mans-
but they also starkly contrasted these economic bridge 1990, Ostrom 2000). These recent the-
systems to those of the modern West, which oretical developments point to the prescience
they viewed as dominated by self-regulating, of some of Polanyi’s key arguments concerning
“free” markets, autonomous of sociopolitical the social embeddedness of economic action,
institutions (Humphrey & Hugh-Jones 1992, but not solely for ancient and non-Western
pp. 2–3; McCloskey 1997; compare Block economies (Block 1991, Hodgson 2007).
2003). With Granovetter’s (1985) recognition that
The unpacking of the issues behind this all economies—past and present, Western
intellectual chasm provides avenues for serious and non-Western—were embedded, the differ-
cross-disciplinary dialogue. The centrality of ences between market systems become more a
the “hidden hand” (entirely free self-regulated matter of degree (i.e., the quantity and com-
market exchange) in Adam Smith’s legacy to plexity of information) than of kind. Follow-
economics (Kennedy 2009, Lubasz 1992) has ing in this vein, new-economic sociologists
come into question. Although such notions of (Fligstein & Dauter 2007; Lie 1997; Swedberg
the self-regulating market (that freely and effi- 1991, 2005) have probed the various ways and
ciently moves to broad economic betterment) differing extents that economies are embed-
are central to recent streams of economic ded in social, cognitive, cultural, structural, and
thought (Friedman 1982; compare Harvey political contexts (Barber 1995, Beckert 2009,
2005; Krugman 1999, 2009; Stiglitz 1999), Dequech 2003, Krippner 2001, Krippner &
other economists have become less comfort- Alvarez 2007, Uzzi 1997, Zukin & DiMaggio
able with this view, pointing to the critical 1990). These range from interplays between
and essential role of government in the market mental processes and economic rationality to
societies of the contemporary West, especially the role of ongoing interpersonal relations and
during times of economic crisis (Baker 2009, trust in economic transactions to the ways in
Hodgson 2009, Krugman 2009, Polanyi-Levitt which economic institutions are shaped by the
2006). Furthermore, as Hejeebu & McCloskey struggle for power. Placing market systems in
(2004, p. 139) explain, most economists have this broader societal context opens a range of
fixated on Smith’s “hidden hand” argument comparative questions, while challenging the
in The Wealth of Nations but failed to appre- stark economic dichotomy drawn between the
ciate his broader discussion of ethical and West and the rest of the world (Blanton &
social mores. Clearly, Smith recognized that Fargher 2008, p. 9; Carrier 1992).

In sum, by using an idealized notion of con- In anthropology and archaeology (Fried

temporary Euro-American economies as self- 1967, pp. 116–18; Sahlins 1958, p. 5, 1972;
regulating (and not embedded), Polanyi and Service 1975), Polanyi’s ideas were crystallized
his associates established a false metric against into a tripartite configuration of economic
which they compared economies of the past, systems that tended to situate reciprocal
thereby underplaying the importance of mar- exchange with egalitarian societies, redistribu-
kets in history. As Hejeebu & McCloskey (2004, tive economies with hierarchically organized
pp. 138–39) assert, the recognition that market preindustrial societies, and market exchange
exchanges have a long history and broad geo- with Western capitalism (Dalton 1968,
graphic scope clearly does not subscribe one to p. xiv; Polanyi 1957a). As a consequence, the
the extreme “position that the undoubted exis- economies of preindustrial complex societies
tence of ancient, archaic, or precolonial markets were thought to be broadly redistributive
means that Gilgamesh, when not at war, had (Dalton 1975, pp. 92–95; compare Earle 1977;
the same consumption bundle in his thoughts Feinman & Neitzel 1984, p. 73; Smith 2004),
as a member of Sam’s Club. The logic, which a characterization at the foundation of the
is seen, for example, in the Polanyi-inspired overly stark dichotomy between command
work of the great classicist Moses Finley, is this: (or planned) economies and “free” market
Markets exhibit dot.coms and Sam’s Clubs. systems. In this comparative synthesis, Service
Therefore, if ancient Rome does not exhibit (1975, p. 302) viewed the economies of ancient
dot.coms and Sam’s Clubs, it must have lacked states as “an organismic redistributional system
markets.” that . . . typically involves complex adminis-
tration.” In large part, his view reflected the
characterization by Bohannan & Dalton (1962)
of African market systems in which they de-
PREINDUSTRIAL MARKETS: fined well-integrated markets as solely those in
EMPIRICAL DEBATES which most households rely on the marketplace
To date, debates over the nature and role of the for all or most of their needed and desired
market in the past largely have been framed by provisions. From this vantage, well-integrated
Polanyi’s (1944, pp. 47, 55; 1957a, pp. 250–56) market systems would not have been present
contrast between reciprocity, redistribution, in most of the world until the latter half of the
and market exchange. Whereas reciprocity de- twentieth century (Hirth 2010).
scribes face-to-face exchanges of equal amounts As a result of this rigid taxonomic fram-
of value between social associates, redistribu- ing, arguments for pre-Hispanic Mesoameri-
tion constitutes a centralized pattern of trans- can market exchange generally have either pro-
fer in which goods move to a central authority posed methods to detect market transactions
and then later are reapportioned out (Bohannan and marketplaces (e.g., Feinman & Nicholas
1963, pp. 231–32; Polanyi 1957a, pp. 250–56; 2010, Garraty 2009, Hirth 1998) and/or out-
Sahlins 1972). Polanyi (1960, p. 331) was careful lined the emergence or existence of economic
to contrast reciprocity, redistribution, and mar- transfer patterns that could not easily be sub-
ket exchange as three modes or mechanisms of sumed under meaningful definitions of reci-
economic allocation that potentially could co- procity or redistribution (e.g., Blanton 1983;
occur in specific contexts. Yet, he also stressed Blanton et al. 1993, pp. 211–17; Feinman et al.
that economies tended to be organized by one 1984; Stark & Ossa 2010). It is revealing of
of these integrative patterns at any given time Polanyi’s influence that Mesoamericanists have
(Polanyi 1957a, pp. 254–55; 1960, p. 330), as- been struggling to distinguish between archae-
serting that “each of the three patterns is ca- ological signatures of market exchange and
pable of integrating the economy, ensuring its redistribution, despite an absence of histor-
stability and unity” (Polanyi 1960, p. 330). ical evidence that redistribution was ever a

critical mechanism for large-scale provisioning centralized storage facilities (compare Hassig
of everyday domestic goods (Hirth 1998, p. 455; 1985, p. 107) leave the economic importance of
Stark & Garraty 2010), except possibly dur- marketplaces and market exchange in ancient
Regional market
ing times of crisis (Duran 1994, pp. 238–41; Mesoamerica hard to dismiss, although the system: economically
Hassig 1985). Several scholars have gone so pre-Aztec origins, history, diversity, geographic linked system of
far as to classify the extensive, Aztec regional breadth, and interconnection with other modes marketplaces across a
market system as a large-scale, state-run redis- of transfer all remain under debate. The Inca regional landscape;
may have different
tributive network (Carrasco 1982, 1983, 2001; economy, with greater evidence for state stor-
spatial arrangements
Sanders et al. 1979). Others (e.g., Wolf 1982, age and labor tribute, has been presented as
pp. 75–77, 79–88; see also Wittfogel 1957) at- a nonmarket contrast to that of the Aztec
tribute the pre-Hispanic Mesoamerican econ- (Stanish 1997, 2010), yet the possibility and
omy to the tributary mode that also was engi- extent of marketplace exchange in the Andean
neered almost entirely by a ruling elite, and yet world has been too readily discounted and re-
there are growing indications that market ex- mains to be deciphered (Earle 1985, Stark &
change had a long and significant history in the Garraty 2010).

region. In the Mediterranean basin and neigh-
In this regard, recently discovered murals boring regions, dominant metanarratives con-
depicting common people at the Classic pe- cerning ancient economies have long re-
riod Maya site of Calakmul (Carrasco Vargas volved around Finley’s writings (Greene 2000;
et al. 2009) are intriguing. In these paint- Morris 2003; Morris & Manning 2005, p. 15).
ings, dated preliminarily to the seventh century, Although granting markets a more significant
Maya commoners serving tamales and ladling role than Polanyi did (Bang 2007, p. 10),
maize gruel to others are described in associ- Finley’s text-dominated conceptions basically
ated glyphic texts as “maize-bread person” and adopt a simplified view of past economic
“maize-gruel person.” Other persons are gener- systems—domestic self-sufficiency, domina-
ically tagged with “salt-person,” “maize-grain tion by centralized political institutions, a
person,” clay-vessel person,” and “tobacco- largely agrarian economy sustained by slave la-
person.” Although the mode of these transfers bor, limited trade or potential for growth or
is not described, the range of specialists circu- innovation—emphasizing binary contrasts with
lating goods and the proximity of these painted modern European economies (Greene 2000;
panels to Calakmul’s North Plaza, an area that Scheidel & von Reden 2002, p. 3). Subsequent
was previously noted as a possible marketplace debates have been less focused on the broad
(Folan et al. 2001), is suggestive that the mecha- patterns of economic integration (i.e., redis-
nism was market exchange (Dahlin et al. 2010). tribution versus market exchange) than in an-
For the rise of the later Aztec empire, where thropological archaeology, yet many of the the-
more ample textual accounts supplement ar- matic debates parallel those in other disciplines
chaeology, the richer empirical foundations (Snell 1997; Storey 2004; Temin 2001, p. 181,
have enabled preliminary analyses of shifting 2006). As research moves beyond the false
degrees of market participation, changing flows primitivist-modernist dichotomy advanced by
of goods, and discussions of the complex in- Finley, significant developments have recog-
terplays between political institutions and mar- nized the complexity of the ancient Greek bank-
kets (e.g., Blanton 1985, 1996; Garraty 2006; ing system (Cohen 1992), a marketplace system
Minc 2009; Nichols et al. 2002; Smith 2010). of exchange in the Roman world that operated
Robust documentary accounts of marketplace according to principles of supply and demand
exchange for the late pre-Hispanic era (even (Paterson 1998, p. 156–57), wage labor and cap-
beyond the Aztec heartland; Pohl et al. 1997), ital markets at the time of the early Roman
the identification of currencies (Smith 1980, Empire (Temin 2006), and a significant level
p. 877), and the rarity of evidence for large of monetization (DeCecco 1985, Kim 2002).

Kessler & Temin (2007, p. 330) argue that “the 1982). The absence of such agreement stems
Roman market rivaled early modern European from the growing realization that agricultural
and colonial American markets in terms of in- expansion, factor markets, economic growth,
stitutional complexity and, perhaps, efficiency” innovations in transport, standard coinage or
(compare Bang 2007). currencies, handicraft production, and rises
Just as the binary oppositions between for- in commercialization all began in Europe
malist and substantivist, primitivist and mod- long before the 1800s (Braudel 1985; Britnell
ernist, command economies and free markets, 1993; Bryant 2006; Campbell 2009; van Bavel
as well as redistribution and market exchange 2006, 2008; van Bavel et al. 2009), and many
have proven to be analytically unproductive, of these processes and developments were
also untenable is the once axiomatic notion of not entirely unique to Europe (Allen 2009;
a transformational past that sets off the past Frank 1998; Pomeranz 2000, pp. 7–8, 2008;
two centuries of Euro-American capitalism as Saito 2009; Wong 1997). Immediately before
qualitatively unique or exceptional from every- 1800, the performance of grain markets in
thing that came before (Block 2000, p. 97). Western Europe were comparable to those
The complex, embedded meanings and roles in China, thus neither market efficacy nor
of currencies and money across time (Hudson breadth is necessary and sufficient to account
2004, Keister 2002, Maurer 2006, Melitz 1970) for subsequent European industrialization
are particularly illustrative of the weaknesses (Shiue & Keller 2007). Nevertheless, we
of such dichotomous categorical thinking remain “vitally interested in what enabled the
(e.g., Dalton 1961, pp. 12–13; Polanyi 1957a, West to transform the history of human power
pp. 264–66). We advocate approaches that nei- for however short a period” (Hall 2001, p. 494),
ther deny that each historical context has dis- but theoretical visions that privilege a single
tinctive features, nor gloss over the analytically economically rational modernity, isolated and
important differences between the economies exceptional, are not apt to yield ready answers
of the recent West from those that came before to that multifaceted question (Eisenstadt 2000;
(Goldstone 2002, p. 327; Hall 2001, p. 494). Goldstone 2002, 2008; Sugihara 2003).
But those differences must be studied and
documented through comparable theoretical
lenses rather than simply assumed or ignored ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHODS
(Pomeranz 2000, p. 8). The historical circum- OF DETECTING MARKET
stances leading to the construction of modern EXCHANGE
capitalism were long and sinuous (Abu-Lughod We argue above that Polanyi’s widespread in-
1989; Biddick 1990; Goldstone 2002, p. 329; fluence, particularly his narrow definition of
Lie 1993; Maurer 2006, p. 29; van Bavel et al. market exchange, has been largely responsi-
2009) rather than a punctuated outcome of ble for the dearth of scholarly attention to
a transformational event that set off unprece- preindustrial markets among archaeologists.
dented change in nineteenth-century England Nowhere is this inattention more apparent
or the simple result of a natural process (Block than in methodological approaches to detecting
2000). market activities in the archaeological record.
On the basis of detailed historical analyses, Especially since Hirth’s (1998) influential study
there is anything but consensus on a specific of market exchange in the central Mexican cen-
“hinge point” (the timing or causes) that ter of Xochicalco, however, archaeologists have
marked the advent of European market capi- become increasingly aware of the need to de-
talism (e.g., Abu Lughod 1989; Biddick 1990; velop reliable methods to address this issue.
Braudel 1985; de Vries 2001; Frank 1998; Hirth (1998; 2009, pp. 89–90) describes
Goldstone 2002; Goody 2004; Polanyi 1944; four approaches to detecting market exchange.
Pomeranz 2000, 2002; Wallerstein 1974; Wolf The contextual approach infers the presence

of a market system based on logical inference, the configurational approach is predicated on

such as the assumption that a market system empirical inference. Nevertheless, it remains
is necessary to provision a large urban cen- difficult to rule out alternate, nonmarket
ter or system of centers (e.g., Stanish 2010), hypotheses of plaza function.
but these arguments are predicated on conjec- Hirth (1998) espouses a distributional ap-
ture rather than empirical evidence. The spatial proach to detecting market exchange, on the
approach involves inferences about market ex- basis of the spatial effects of marketplace provi-
change by comparing observed empirical pat- sioning at the level of households. Unlike other
terns against idealized spatial configurations. exchange mechanisms, marketplace transac-
Renfrew (1975, 1977), for instance, developed tions entail equal commodity access to all
various “falloff curves”—idealized patterns of households, regardless of social rank (Hirth
decline in artifact frequencies with increased 1998, p. 455). It also produces a larger-scale
distance from a locus of exchange—for mar- and more even distribution of goods among
ket exchange and other exchange mechanisms, households than is likely achievable through
which he intended for comparison with em- nonmarket provisioning (Garraty 2009). The
pirical data. Similarly, archaeologists have ap- distributional approach is empirically rigorous
plied central place theory to detect market sys- and quantifiable, as variability in artifact fre-
tems by comparing observed settlement hierar- quency and diversity can be measured among
chies on a landscape to geographer Christaller’s households of different social ranks and over
(1966) idealized hexagonal lattices of evenly a large area. Yet, various confounding factors
spaced market retail centers (e.g., Blanton 1996, potentially muddle its effectiveness; for exam-
Hodder & Orton 1976, Johnson 1972). Neither ple, households of different ranks (or across a
of these spatial approaches is readily testable region) may procure (or manufacture) similar
or quantifiable, however, and similar to contex- goods for social reasons (e.g., to express a shared
tual approaches, they ultimately rest on logical social identity), creating similar household ar-
inferences. tifact composition, even if a market institution
The configurational approach seeks to is absent.
detect physical evidence of marketplaces. In addition to Hirth’s four approaches,
Although speculative, many Mesoamerican Stark & Garraty (2010) suggest a fifth: the
archaeologists have inferred possible market- regional production-distribution approach,
places on the basis of architectural features, which considers the distributional scale of
such as rock alignments to demarcate stalls, or quotidian craft goods (e.g., pottery, stone
on spatial configurations of roads, platforms, tools) in relation to their locations and scales of
and plazas (e.g., Becker 2003; Blanton 1978, production to evaluate the likelihood of market
p. 63; Chase & Chase 2004; Millon 1973). One dissemination relative to other, nonmarket
recent study attempts to detect a marketplace mechanisms. As they (Stark & Garraty 2010)
through multiple lines of evidence, including explain, this approach considers “whether ar-
a comparative examination of soil chemistries ticles used regularly in commoner households
from a modern marketplace in Guatemala and across a region, but which were produced in
from a plaza in the ancient Maya center of particular settlements or specialist households,
Chinchucmil posited to have housed market could be efficiently supplied through redistri-
vendors (Dahlin et al. 2007, 2010). Hirth bution or other centrally administered forms of
(2009) also considers multiple lines of evidence product provisioning” (p. 43). They conclude
to detect a market plaza at Xochicalco and that, with rare exceptions, only a market system
infers possible stone-tool production for is likely to have accommodated this scale of dis-
market exchange through an analysis of minute semination. In this sense, their approach could
lithic debitage embedded in the plaza floor. be characterized as contextual in that interpre-
Unlike the two approaches described above, tation is based on logical inference that negates

alternate hypotheses rather than “positive” LOOKING FORWARD: KEY

empirical indicators of market activity. COMPARATIVE QUESTIONS
All five approaches suffer from the prob- With new theoretical and methodological per-
lem of equifinality: It is rarely, if ever, pos- spectives, archaeologists can now begin to for-
sible to rule out alternate exchange mecha- mulate more targeted questions concerning the
nisms for observed archaeological patterns. In variability of markets across time and space as
response to this problem, Feinman & Nicholas well as shifts in their dynamism and breadth
(2010) employ a multiscalar approach to infer over a long-term history (e.g., Braudel 1985,
the presence of a market system in the Valley of Collins 1990). Dimensions of market diversity
Oaxaca, Mexico, during the first millennium. include their interplay with other institutions,
They consider evidence at the household, site, such as governing authorities, and the rela-
and regional scales, and in so doing, they in- tive significance/breadth of market exchange—
corporate elements of each of the approaches degree of commercialization—in specific eco-
described above. Their approach thus combats nomic settings (Smith 2004, pp. 75–76).
the problem of equifinality by marshaling evi- Degree of commercialization highlights the ex-
dence in support of market activity at various tent to which different commodities are inte-
analytical scales. grated and removed from market channels over
The multiscalar approach is vital for future a long span, which underscores the dynamism
efforts to detect market exchange. Ultimately, of market processes. For example, commercial
however, a more important objective is to development in Europe is frequently depicted
move beyond detecting the presence/absence as a linear process of increasing commodifica-
of market exchange (Wilk 1998) and develop tion of goods and services (Polanyi 1944; Thrift
sophisticated tools and techniques for assess- 2000, p. 96) and of markets “colonising ever
ing variability in market system structure and more areas of daily life” (Williams 2002, p. 221),
organization. For this task, one potentially pro- but historical evidence illustrates both expan-
ductive tactic is to record carefully the archae- sion and contraction of commercial integration
ological signatures of organizationally different (Braswell 2010, Lie 1991, Williams 2002). Con-
market systems in well-documented contexts sider that in Western economies since the early
and use these data as a basis for inferring market 1800s slaves, child labor, and purchases of po-
structure and organization in earlier, undocu- litical office have been legally decommodified.
mented contexts. Another vital objective is to The dynamic process of commercial expansion
investigate how market exchange articulates and contraction partly reflects changing so-
with other, nonmarket exchange mechanisms cial attitudes and moral perceptions concerning
within a broader economy. This task will alienability and transferability of specific classes
require studies of distributional variability of goods or labor (Thompson 1971, 1991).
among various goods or classes of goods to dis- It is also time for a more nuanced exami-
cern which items were or were not integrated nation of the prevailing notion that political
into market channels. Ideally, archaeologists power and the extent of commercialism are in-
will creatively refine and tailor their methods versely related (e.g., Blanton et al. 1993; Smith
to the ideas and concepts they wish to explore 2004, p. 93; Trigger 2003, pp. 342–55; compare
rather than rigidly confine them to accommo- Blanton & Fargher 2010; Block & Evans 2005;
date perceived limits of archaeological data. Fligstein 1996; Garraty 2006; Greif 2006;
Methods of detecting variability among prein- Schoenberger 2008). Rather than seeing these
dustrial markets will be crucial to implement forces as fundamentally oppositional, we may
comparative research and, ultimately, create examine the range of ways that such institutions
cross-cultural models that capture the dynamic are interlinked and how these relations are
processes and trajectories of early market manifest at different socioeconomic scales
development in different times and places.

(Garraty 2010). Were resources collected by strategy to wrest power from land-holding
political authorities and, if so, through what elites (Eisenstadt 1969, 1980), (c) a mecha-
mechanisms? How did variation in the internal nism to encourage agrarian production to meet
governance of polities correlate with their urban food needs (Hicks 1987, pp. 99–101),
market relations (Blanton & Fargher 2008, (d ) a means to control the long-distance cir-
2010; Eisenstadt 1969, p. 27; 1980)? In many culation of goods through the marketplace
past societies, political elites were purveyors (Hodder 1965), or (e) an instrument for con-
of market exchange and commercial expansion verting tribute booty into other resources
(e.g., Blanton et al. 1993, p. 196; Fleisher 2010). through market conversion (Carrasco 1978;
Additional studies of past market systems may Garraty 2010, pp. 20–21; Hirth 1998). Many
reveal that political-market relations were of these works actually discuss the reproduc-
as frequently collaborative as antagonistic tion or expansion of markets rather than the
(Garraty 2006; Hudson 1996, 2002, 2004). origins of market exchange, and so political in-
A problem that has been addressed but de- stitutions may have been less formidable dur-
serves more concerted attention concerns the ing the earliest stage of market development
origins and institutionalization of market ex- (e.g., Abbott 2010, Abbott et al. 2007). In real-
change. In many regions of the globe, this is- ity, market formation and expansion both may
sue requires exploration through archaeological stem from top-down and bottom-up dynamics,
investigation because the advent of market ex- and explanations for this socioeconomic pro-
change and marketplaces predates the first tex- cess may require approaches that transcend a
tual sources. To date, proposed models for the single scale.
beginnings of this economic practice have taken Different scales of analysis are crucial to un-
a bottom-up or top-down perspective (Berry derstand preindustrial market development and
1967, pp. 108–11; Blanton 1983, p. 55; Hirth change (Feinman and Nicholas 2010). Hirth
2010; C. Smith 1976, pp. 44–45). In part, these (2010) identifies the household as the proper
different hypotheses stem from distinct scalar unit of analysis for understanding these pro-
and disciplinary vantages (Reeves 1989, pp. 58– cesses. For Hirth, market participation in the
60). The former builds on Adam Smith’s eco- past hinged on household-level decisions to ob-
nomic frames and sees the emergence of mar- tain necessary or desired goods, and thus the
ket activities stemming from the local practices long-term development and sustainability of
of individual economic actors or traders who— preindustrial markets rested on the capacity of
spurred by population growth (Skinner 1964), the market to provide domestic goods continu-
the division of labor, and/or agricultural inten- ally and at a reasonable price. In contrast, Greif
sification (Blanton 1983, pp. 56–58)—respond (2006), drawing on ideas and concepts from
to expanded movements of goods through the the new institutional economics, emphasizes
order of the market. A similar perspective em- the broader, institutional requirements for mar-
phasizes increased market participation among ket development: “Socially beneficial institu-
households to supply domestic goods more effi- tions promote welfare-enhancing cooperation
ciently through a single market location rather and action. They provide the foundations of
than relying on multiple nonmarket channels markets by efficiently assigning, protecting, and
(Hirth 2010). altering property rights; securing contracts; and
Top-down approaches stem from the work motivating specialization and exchange” (Greif
of Polanyi (1957b), viewing markets as inher- 2006, p. 4). These positions differently define
ently unstable and requiring governmental in- and situate the proper scale of analysis for study-
tervention to sustain them. Such perspectives ing early market development and growth, but
envision the developmental role of govern- for us, both positions merit consideration. To-
ing institutions as (a) a basis for setting prices gether they illustrate the importance of under-
(Hudson 1996), (b) a competitive political standing market processes from the perspective

of both the microeconomic scale of household market institutions fare in contexts beset by im-
decision making and the macroeconomic scale perial collapse (Schoenberger 2008, pp. 675–
of institutions that define the social conditions 76; Tainter 1988, pp. 18–21), revolution
and “rules of the game” (North 1990, p. 3) in (Skinner 1985), or other transformative gov-
which those decisions were made. ernmental changes (e.g., Braswell 2010). Again,
Another, less frequently considered scale of we reference the Classic-Postclassic (ca. A.D.
analysis focuses on the extrahousehold forms of 900) transition in ancient Mesoamerica (Berdan
organization and cooperation that play a role et al. 2003, p. 316; Blanton & Feinman 1984;
in the spread of supply and price information Blanton et al. 1993, pp. 207–17; Feinman 1999;
and create conditions for efficient market ex- Masson et al. 2006, p. 198), which was set off
change at the level of a marketplace or net- by the collapse of early cities, such as Teoti-
work of marketplaces (e.g., Cook 1976, Plattner huacan, Monte Albán, and the Classic Maya
1989c). This scale draws attention to the so- centers, and ultimately culminated in increas-
cial parameters of market-information flows ing exchange volumes and commercialization

and interpersonal relationships among mar- during the subsequent Postclassic period (900–
ket patrons that facilitate smooth market op- 1520). Likewise in the post-Roman European
erations (e.g., Davis 1992, pp. 65–74). It also world, a relatively brief economic contraction
highlights the need to understand how mar- may have been followed by a revival of mar-
ket actors establish informal social networks ket activities that was underway by the eighth
(Granovetter 1985) or formal legal constraints century across Europe (McCormick 2001;
(Williamson 1975, 1985) to circumvent malfea- Schoenberger 2008, pp. 676–89).
sance or opportunism stemming from unequal
access to market information. In peasant mar-
kets, for instance, many market goers estab- CONCLUSION
lished personalized relationships with trusted The financial crisis of 2008–2009 has brought
associates, including kin or ethnic affiliates (e.g., a new urgency and lens to economic thinking
Geertz 1978, Landa 1999, Schwimmer 1979), on markets (e.g., Cassidy 2009, Fox 2009,
to minimize the risk of impropriety or duplicity Krugman 2009). No longer can anyone with
(Plattner 1989c). a rational perspective view modern markets as
An even broader vantage examines the always self-correcting or inexorably efficient.
regional scale of market development and the Likewise, when the U.S. government owns (or
formation of a commercialized landscape with recently owned) major shares of top companies
multiple nodes and a well-defined hierarchy in automobile manufacture, insurance, and
of higher- and lower-order market centers. banking, it is not necessary to focus on “minor
The broadest conceivable scale concerns the details” such as farm subsidies, the tax code,
international (possibly global) context of com- and contract law to realize that the so-called
mercial interaction focused on the dynamics pinnacle of the free market, i.e., the modern
of systemic expansion and articulation among American economy, is anything but disembed-
polities or conglomerations of polities on an ded from a larger political and societal context:
inter-regional scale (Wallerstein 1974), which Modern Western markets are neither free nor
for pre-Hispanic Mesoamerica has been pivotal qualitatively exceptional from all other markets
for explaining the development and spread in space and time. Although markets across
of commercial institutions after the Classic- time and space unquestionably differ signifi-
Postclassic transition (ca. A.D. 900) (Blanton cantly in highly important and multiple ways,
& Feinman 1984, Feinman & Nicholas 2010, there also are clear indications that they share
Smith & Berdan 2003, Stark & Ossa 2010). certain structural elements and practices. The
Further research also is needed on how sole means through which scholars will be able
and why markets fail (Cassidy 2009) and how to define and understand those similarities and

differences is through dedicated comparative People—Western or non-Western, ancient or

studies using a broadly shared, multiscalar modern—should not be envisioned as slavish
paradigmatic approach that recognizes that all pawns to power and incapable of acting in their
markets are embedded. To probe the dynamics own best interests (Attwood 1997). At the same
of market systems, scholars must consider both time, economic actors across time and space
market participants and the wider societal con- participate in larger sociocultural contexts that
texts in which those participants exchange and limit and shape their actions (Guiso et al. 2006).
engage. Market behaviors are thus an intermediation
With the ongoing reevaluation of key as- between rational individual actions and the so-
pects of economic theory and free market ide- cietal customs, constraints, and political real-
ology, as well as the doubt it casts on some of ities in which specific economic institutions
the metrics applied by Polanyi and associates, are embedded (e.g., Blanton & Fargher 2009,
social scientists and historians appear ready for p. 135). As a consequence, scholars can no
new dialogues regarding market exchange and longer ignore that economic networks are em-
markets, past and present. Notions of the free bedded in larger societal settings that en-
market as anything more than an ideal con- compass organizations, associations, and power
struct and the hyperindividualizing model of structures that extend well beyond individual
“Homo economicus” now appear incongruent actors.
with empirical reality (Levitt & List 2008). As We conclude our discussion with a plea for
a consequence, the stark dichotomies in regard a multiscalar approach to preindustrial mar-
to markets and economic behavior drawn be- kets that situates these investigations under a
tween current Western peoples and all oth- broader comparative frame. By definition, such
ers, which have framed debate for centuries, an approach requires communication, compar-
clearly do not rest on solid empirical ground- ison, and a basis of understanding that extends
ing. At the individual level, members from many well beyond traditional disciplinary boundaries.
diverse cultures potentially act rationally, but We suspect that only through greater dialogue
they tend to do so with a wider set of con- and debate in this direction will the history and
siderations than basic self-interest (Bowles & diversity of markets finally get their intellectual
Gintis 2006, Henrich et al. 2005, Stanish 2010). due.
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The authors are not aware of any biases that might be perceived as affecting the objectivity of this
review.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank the editors for the opportunity to prepare this contribution. Some of our thoughts for
this paper were stimulated by conversations and the circulation of papers for the volume edited by
Garraty & Stark (2010). Richard E. Blanton, Linda M. Nicholas, James Phillips, and Barbara L.
Stark provided helpful suggestions on an earlier draft. We also are grateful to Linda M. Nicholas
for her editorial assistance.
LITERATURE CITED
Abbott DR. 2010. The rise and demise of marketplace exchange among the prehistoric Hohokam of Arizona.
See Garraty & Stark 2010, pp. 61–83

Abbott DR, Smith AM, Gallaga E. 2007. Ballcourts and ceramics: the case for Hohokam marketplace exchange
in the Arizona desert. Am. Antiq. 72:461–84
Abu-Lughod JL. 1989. Before European Hegemony: The World System A.D. 1250–1350. New York: Oxford
Univ. Press
Acheson JM. 2002. Transaction cost economics: accomplishments, problems, and possibilities. In Theory in
Economic Anthropology, ed. J Ensminger, pp. 27–58. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira
Adams R McC. 1974. Anthropological perspectives on ancient trade. Curr. Anthropol. 15:239–49
Alexander J, Alexander P. 1991. What’s a fair price? Price-setting and trading partnerships in Javanese markets.
Man 26:493–512
Alexander P. 1992. What’s in a price? Trading practices in peasant (and other) markets. See Dilley 1992b,
pp. 79–96
Allen RC. 2009. Agricultural productivity and rural incomes in England and the Yangtze Delta, c. 1620–c.1820.
Econ. Hist. Rev. 62:525–50
Arnsperger C, Varoufakis Y. 2006. What is neoclassical economics? Post-autistic Econ. Rev. 38(1):1–9
http://www.paecon.net/heterodoxeconomics/ArnsbergerVaroufkis38.htm
Attwood DW. 1997. The invisible peasant. In Economic Analysis Beyond the Local System, ed. RE Blanton, PN
Peregrine, D Winslow, TD Hall, pp. 147–69. Lanham, MD: Univ. Press Am.
Baker D. 2009. Free market myth. Boston Rev. Jan./Feb. http://bostonreview.net/BR34.1/baker.php
Bang PF. 2007. Trade and empire—in search of organizing concepts for the Roman economy. Past Present
195:3–54
Barber B. 1977. Absolutization of the market. In Markets and Morals, ed. G Dworkin, G Bermant, PG Brown,
pp. 15–31. Washington, DC: Hemisphere Pub.
Barber B. 1995. All economies are “embedded”: the career of a concept and beyond. Soc. Res. 62:387–413
Bar-Yosef O. 2002. The Upper Paleolithic revolution. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 31:363–93
Becker GS. 1976. The Economic Approach to Human Behavior. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
Becker MJ. 2003. Plaza plans at Tikal: a research strategy for inferring social organization and processes of
culture change at Lowland Maya sites. In Tikal: Dynasties, Foreigners, and Affairs of State, ed. JA Sabloff,
pp. 253–80. Santa Fe, NM: SAR Press
Beckert J. 2009. The great transformation of embeddedness: Karl Polanyi and the new economic sociology.
In Market and Society: The Great Transformation Today, ed. C Hann, K Hart, pp. 38–55. Cambridge:
Cambridge Univ. Press
Berdan FF. 1977. Distributive mechanisms in the Aztec economy. In Peasant Livelihood: Studies in Economic
Anthropology and Cultural Ecology, ed. R Halperin, J Dow, pp. 91–101. New York: St. Martin’s
Berdan FF. 1982. The Aztecs of Central Mexico. New York: Holt, Rinehart, Winston
Berdan FF. 1983. The reconstruction of ancient economies: perspectives from archaeology and ethnohistory.
See Ortiz 1983, pp. 83–95
Berdan FF. 1985. Markets in the economy of ancient Mexico. See Plattner 1985, pp. 339–67
Berdan FF, Kepecs S, Smith ME. 2003. A perspective on Late Postclassic Mesoamerica. In The Postclassic
Mesoamerican World, ed. ME Smith, FF Berdan, pp. 313–17. Salt Lake City: Univ. Utah Press
Berry BJL. 1967. Geography of Market Centers and Retail Distribution. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall
Bestor TC. 2001. Markets: anthropological aspects. In International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral
Sciences, ed. NJ Smelser, PB Baltes, pp. 9227–31. Amsterdam: Elsevier
Biddick K. 1990. People and things: power in early English development. Comp. Stud. Soc. Hist. 32:3–23
Bitzenis A, Marangos J. 2007. Market economy. In International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, ed. WA
Darity Jr., pp. 604–5. Detroit: Macmillan Ref.
Blanton RE. 1978. Monte Alban: Settlement Patterns at an Ancient Zapotec Capital. New York: Academic
Blanton RE. 1983. Factors underlying the origin and evolution of market systems. See Ortiz 1983, pp. 51–66
Blanton RE. 1985. A comparison of market systems. See Plattner 1985, pp. 399–416
Blanton RE. 1996. The Basin of Mexico market system and the growth of empire. In Aztec Imperial Strategies,
ed. FF Berdan, RE Blanton, E Boone, M Hodge, ME Smith, E Umberger, pp. 47–84. Washington, DC:
Dumbarton Oaks
Blanton RE. 2009. Variation in economy. In MyAnthroLibrary, ed. CR Ember, M Ember, PN Peregrine.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson-Prentice Hall. http:www.myanthrolibrary.com

Blanton RE, Fargher L. 2008. Collective Action in the Formation of Pre-Modern States. New York: Springer
Blanton RE, Fargher L. 2009. Collective action in the evolution of premodern states. Soc. Evol. Hist. 8:133–66
Blanton RE, Fargher L. 2010. Evaluating causal factors in market development in premodern states: a com-
parative study with some critical comments on the history of ideas about markets. See Garraty & Stark
2010, pp. 207–26
Blanton RE, Feinman GM. 1984. The Mesoamerican world system. Am. Anthropol. 86:673–82
Blanton RE, Kowalewski SA, Feinman GM, Finsten LM. 1993. Ancient Mesoamerica: A Comparison of Change
in Three Regions. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press
Block F. 1991. Contradictions of self-regulating markets. In The Legacy of Karl Polanyi: Market, State, and
Society at the End of the Twentieth Century, ed. M Mendell, D Salée, pp. 86–106. New York: St. Martin’s
Block F. 2000. Remarx: deconstructing capitalism as a system. Rethink. Marxism 12:83–98
Block F. 2003. Karl Polanyi and the writing of The Great Transformation. Theory Sociol. 32:275–306
Block F, Evans P. 2005. The state and the economy. See Smelser & Swedberg 2005, pp. 505–26
Bohannan PJ. 1963. Social Anthropology. New York: Holt, Rinehart, Winston
Bohannan P, Dalton G. 1962. Introduction. In Markets in Africa, ed. P Bohannan, G Dalton, pp. 1–26.
Evanston, IL: Northwestern Univ. Press
Bowles S. 1998. Endogenous preferences: the cultural consequences of markets and other economic institu-
tions. J. Econ. Lit. 36:75–111
Bowles S, Gintis H. 2006. The evolutionary basis of collective action. In The Oxford Handbook of Political
Economy, ed. BR Weingast, DA Whitman, pp. 951–67. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press
Braswell GE. 2010. The rise and fall of market exchange: a dynamic approach to ancient Maya economy. See
Garraty & Stark 2010, pp. 127–40
Braswell GE, Glascock MD. 2002. The emergence of market economies in the Maya world: obsidian ex-
change in Terminal Classic Yucatán, Mexico. In Geochemical Evidence for Long-Distance Exchange, ed. MD
Glascock, pp. 33–52. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey
Braudel F. 1985. Civilization and Capitalism, Fifteenth-Eighteenth Century, Vol. 2: The Wheels of Commerce.
London: Fontana
Britnell RH. 1993. The Commercalisation of English Society 1000–1500. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press
Brumfiel EM. 1992. Distinguished lecture in archaeology: breaking and entering the ecosystem—gender,
class, and faction steal the show. Am. Anthropol. 94:551–67
Bryant JM. 2006. The West and the rest revisited: debating capitalist origins, European colonialism, and the
advent of modernity. Can. J. Sociol. 31:403–44
Buiter W. 2009. The unfortunate uselessness of most ‘state of the art’ academic monetary economics. Vox.
Mar. 6; http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/3210
Campbell BM. 2009. Factor markets in England before the Black Death. Continuity Change 24:79–106
Carrasco P. 1978. La economia del México prehispánico. In Economı́a, Polı́tica e Ideologı́a, ed. P Carrasco,
J Broda, pp. 15–74. Mexico City: Instit. Nac. Antropol. Hist.
Carrasco P. 1982. The political economy of the Aztec and Inca states. In The Inca and Aztec States: 1400–1800,
ed. G Collier, R Rosaldo, J Wirth, pp. 23–42. New York: Academic
Carrasco P. 1983. Some theoretical considerations about the role of the market in ancient Mexico. See Ortiz
1983, pp. 67–82
Carrasco P. 2001. Economic organization and development. In The Oxford Encyclopedia of Mesoamerican Cul-
tures: The Civilizations of Mexico and Central America, ed. D Carrasco, 1:363–66. Oxford: Oxford Univ.
Press
Carrasco Vargas R, Vázquez López VA, Martin S. 2009. Daily life of the ancient Maya recorded on murals at
Calakmul, Mexico. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 106:19245–49
Carrier JG. 1992. Occidentalism: the world turned upside-down. Am. Ethnol. 19:195–212
Carrier JG. 1997. Meanings of the Market: The Free Market in Western Culture. Oxford: Berg
Cassidy J. 2009. How Markets Fail: The Logic of Economic Calamities. New York: Farrar, Straus, Giroux
Chase AF, Chase DZ. 2004. Exploring ancient economic relationships at Caracol, Belize. In Research Reports
in Belizean Archaeology, Vol. 1, ed. J Awe, J Morris, S Jones, pp. 115–27. Belmopan: Inst. Archaeol. Nat.
Inst. Cult. Hist.

Claessen HJM. 1978. The early state: a structural approach. In The Early State, ed. HJM Claessen, P Skalnı́k,
pp. 533–96. The Hague: Mouton
Coase RH. 1988. The firm, the market, and the law. In The Firm, the Market, and the Law, ed. RH Coase,
pp. 1–31. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
Cohen EE. 1992. Athenian Economy and Society: A Banking Perspective. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
Collins R. 1990. Market dynamics as the engine of historical change. Sociol. Theory 8:111–35
Cook S. 1966. The obsolete “antimarket” mentality: a critique of the substantive approach in economic
anthropology. Am. Anthropol. 68:323–45
Cook S. 1976. The “market” as location and transaction: dimensions of marketing in a Zapotec stoneworking
industry. In Markets in Oaxaca, ed. S Cook, M Diskin, pp. 139–68. Austin: Univ. Texas Press
Cortés F. 1977. His Five Letters of Relation to the Emperor Charles V, 1519–1526. Glorietta, NM: Rio Grande
Press
Christaller W. 1966 [1933]. Central Places in Southern Germany, trans. CW Baskin. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall
Curtin P. 1984. Cross-Cultural Trade in World History. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press
Dahlin BH, Jensen CT, Terry RE, Wright DR, Beach T. 2007. In search of an ancient Maya market. Lat.
Am. Antiq. 18:363–84

Dahlin BH, Bair D, Beach T, Moriarty M, Terry R. 2010. The dirt on food: ancient feasts and markets among
the lowland Maya. In Pre-Columbian Foodways, ed. JE Staller, MD Carrasco, pp. 191–232. New York:
Springer
Dalton G. 1961. Economic theory and primitive society. Am. Anthropol. 63:1–25
Dalton G. 1968. Introduction. In Primitive, Archaic, and Modern Economies, ed. G Dalton, pp. ix–lii. Garden
City, NY: Anchor Books
Dalton G. 1975. Karl Polanyi’s analysis of long-distance trade and his wider paradigm. In Ancient Civilization
and Trade, ed. JA Sabloff, CC Lamberg-Karlovsky, pp. 63–132. Albuquerque: Univ. New Mexico Press
Dalton G. 1978. Comment: what kinds of trade and markets? Afr. Econ. Hist. 6:134–38
Davis J. 1992. Exchange. Minneapolis: Univ. Minn. Press
DeCecco M. 1985. Monetary theory and Roman history. J. Econ. Hist. 45:809–22
de Ligt L. 1993. Fairs and Markets in the Roman Empire: Economic and Social Aspects of Periodic Trade in a
Pre-Industrial Society. Amsterdam: JC Gieben
Dequech D. 2003. Cognitive and cultural embeddedness: combining institutional economics and economic
sociology. J. Econ. Issues 37:461–70
Dequech D. 2007–8. Neoclassical, mainstream, orthodox, and heterodox economics. J. Post Keynesian Econ.
30:279–302
de Vries J. 2001. Economic growth before and after the industrial revolution: a modest proposal. In Early
Modern Capitalism: Economic and Social Change in Europe 1400–1800, ed. M Prak, pp. 177–94. New York:
Routledge
Dı́az del Castillo B. 1956. The Discovery and Conquest of Mexico, 1517–1521. New York: Farrar, Straus, Cudahy
Dilley R. 1992a. Contesting markets: a general introduction to market ideology, imagery, and discourse. See
Dilley 1992, pp. 1–34
Dilley R, ed. 1992b. Contesting Markets: Analysis of Ideology, Discourse, and Practice. Edinburgh: Edinburgh Univ.
Press
Dilley R. 1996. Market. In Encyclopedia of Cultural Anthropology, ed. D Levinson, M Ember, pp. 728–32. New
York: Henry Holt
Durán D. 1994 [1581]. The History of the Indies of New Spain. Norman: Univ. Okla. Press
Earle TK. 1977. A reappraisal of redistribution: complex Hawaiian chiefdoms. In Exchange Systems in Prehistory,
ed. TK Earle, JE Ericson, pp. 213–32. New York: Academic
Earle TK. 1985. Commodity exchange and markets in the Inca state: recent archaeological evidence. See
Plattner 1985, pp. 369–97
Eisenstadt SN. 1969. The Political Systems of Empires: The Rise and Fall of Historical Bureaucratic Societies. New
York: Free Press
Eisenstadt SN. 1980. Cultural orientations, institutional entrepreneurs, and social change: comparative analysis
of traditional civilizations. Am. J. Sociol. 85:840–69

Eisenstadt SN. 2000. Multiple modernities. Daedalus 129:1–29

Ensminger J. 2002. Introduction: theory in economic anthropology at the turn of the century. In Theory in
Economic Anthropology, ed. J Ensminger, pp. ix–xix. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira
Evensky J. 2005. Adam Smith’s Moral Philosophy: A Historical and Contemporary Perspective on Markets, Law,
Ethics, and Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press
Feinman GM. 1999. The changing structure of macroregional Mesoamerica: the Classic-Postclassic transition
in the Valley of Oaxaca. In World-Systems Theory in Practice: Leadership, Production, and Exchange, ed.
PN Kardulias, pp. 53–62. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield
Feinman GM, Blanton RE, Kowalewski SA. 1984. Market system development in the prehispanic Valley of
Oaxaca, Mexico. In Trade and Exchange in Early Mesoamerica, ed. KG Hirth, pp. 157–78. Albuquerque:
Univ. New Mexico Press
Feinman G, Neitzel J. 1984. Too many types: an overview of prestate societies in the Americas. Adv. Archaeol.
Meth. Theory 7:39–102
Feinman GM, Nicholas LM. 2004. Unraveling prehispanic highland Mesoamerican economy: production,
exchange, and consumption in the Classic period Valley of Oaxaca. In Archaeological Perspectives on Political
Economy, ed. GM Feinman, LM Nicholas, pp. 167–88. Salt Lake City: Univ. Utah Press
Feinman GM, Nicholas LM. 2010. A multiscalar perspective on market exchange in the Classic period Valley
of Oaxaca. See Garraty & Stark 2010, pp. 85–98
Findlay R. 2005. Kindleberger: economics and history. Atlan. Econ. J. 33:19–21
Finley MI. 1999 [1973]. The Ancient Economy. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
Fischer EF. 2009. Capitalism in context: seeing beyond the “free” market. Anthropol. News 50(7):10, 12
Fleisher JB. 2010. Housing the Swahili merchants and regional marketing on the East African Swahili coast,
seventh–sixteenth centuries A.D. See Garraty & Stark 2010, pp. 141–59
Fligstein N. 1996. Markets as politics: a political-cultural approach to market institutions. Am. Sociol. Rev.
61:656–73
Fligstein N, Dauter L. 2007. The sociology of markets. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 33:105–28
Folan WJ, Gunn JD, del Rosario Domı́nguez Carrasco M. 2001. Triadic temples, central plazas, and dynastic
palaces: diachronic analysis of the Royal Court Complex, Calakmul, Campeche, Mexico. In Royal Courts
of the Maya, ed. T Inomata, SD Houston, pp. 2:223–65. Boulder, CO: Westview
Forman S, Riegelhaupt JF. 1970. Market place and marketing system: toward a theory of peasant economic
integration. Comp. Stud. Soc. Hist. 12:188–212
Fox J. 2009. The Myth of the Rational Market. New York: HarperCollins
Friedman M. 1982 [1962]. Capitalism and Freedom. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
Frank AG. 1998. ReOrient: Global Economy in the Asian Age. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
Fried MH. 1967. The Evolution of Political Society: An Essay in Political Anthropology. New York: Random House
Friedland R, Robertson AF. 1990. Beyond the marketplace. In Beyond the Marketplace: Rethinking Economy and
Society, ed. R Friedland, AF Robertson, pp. 3–49. New York: Aldine de Gruyter
Garraty CP. 2006. The politics of commerce: Aztec pottery production and exchange in the basin of Mexico, A.D.
1200–1600. PhD. thesis, Ariz. State Univ., Tempe
Garraty CP. 2009. Evaluating the distributional approach to inferring market exchange: a test case from the
Mexican Gulf lowlands. Lat. Am. Antiq. 20:157–74
Garraty CP. 2010. Investigating market exchange in ancient societies: a theoretical review. See Garraty &
Stark 2010, pp. 3–32
Garraty CP, Stark BL, eds. 2010. Archaeological Approaches to Market Exchange in Ancient Societies. Boulder:
Univ. Colo. Press
Geertz C. 1978. The bazaar economy: information and search in peasant marketing. Supp. Am. Econ. Rev.
68:28–32
Geraghty RM. 2007. The impact of globalization in the Roman Empire, 200 BC-AD 100. J. Econ. Hist.
67:1036–61
Gledhill J, Larsen M. 1982. The Polanyi paradigm and a dynamic analysis of archaic states. In Theory and
Explanation in Archaeology: The Southampton Conference, ed. C Renfrew, MJ Rowlands, BA Seagraves,
pp. 197–229. New York: Academic

Goldstone JA. 2002. Efflorescence and economic growth in world history: rethinking the “rise of the West”
and the industrial revolution. J. World Hist. 13:323–89
Goldstone JA. 2008. Capitalist origins, the advent of modernity, and coherent explanation: a response to
Joseph M. Bryant. Can. J. Sociol. 33:119–33
Goody J. 2004. Capitalism and Modernity: The Great Debate. Cambridge: Polity Press
Granovetter M. 1985. Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness. Am. J. Sociol.
91:481–510
Grantham G. 1999. Contra Ricardo: on the macroeconomics of preindustrial economics. Eur. Rev. Econ. Hist.
2:199–232
Gravelle H, Rees R. 1992. Microeconomics. London: Longman. 2nd ed.
Greene K. 2000. Technological innovation and economic progress in the ancient world: MI Finley reconsid-
ered. Econ. Hist. Rev. 53:29–59
Greif A. 2006. Institutions and the Path to the Modern Economy: Lessons from Medieval Trade. Cambridge:
Cambridge Univ. Press
Guiso L, Sapienza P, Zingales L. 2006. Does culture affect economic outcomes? J. Econ. Perspect. 20:23–48
Hall JA. 2001. Confessions of a eurocentric. Int. Sociol. 16:488–97

Halperin RH. 1984. Polanyi, Marx, and the institutional paradigm in economic anthropology. Res. Econ.
Anthropol. 6:245–72
Halperin RH. 1994. Cultural Economies: Past and Present. Austin: Univ. Texas Press
Harvey D. 2005. A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press
Hassig R. 1982. Periodic markets in Precolumbian Mexico. Am. Antiq. 47:346–55
Hassig R. 1985. Trade, Tribute, and Transportation: The Sixteenth-Century Political Economy of the Valley of Mexico.
Norman: Univ. Okla. Press
Hejeebu S, McCloskey D. 1999. The reproving of Karl Polanyi. Crit. Rev. 13:285–314
Hejeebu S, McCloskey D. 2004. Polanyi and the history of capitalism: rejoinder to Blyth. Crit. Rev. 16:135–42
Henrich J, Boyd R, Bowles S, Camerer C, Fehr E, et al. 2005. “Economic Man” in cross-cultural perspective:
behavioral experiments in 15 small-scale societies. Behav. Brain Sci. 28:795–855
Hicks F. 1987. First steps toward a market-integrated economy in Aztec Mexico. In Early State Dynamics, ed.
H Claessen, P van de Velde, pp. 91–107. London: Brill
Hirth KG. 1998. The distributional approach: a new way to identify marketplace exchange in the archaeological
record. Curr. Anthropol. 39:451–76
Hirth KG. 2009. Craft production in a central Mexican marketplace. Ancient Mesoam. 20:89–102
Hirth KG. 2010. Finding the mark in the marketplace: the organization, development, and archaeological
identification of market systems. See Garraty & Stark 2010, pp. 227–47
Hodder BW. 1965. Some comments on the origins of traditional markets in Africa south of the Sahara. Trans.
Inst. Br. Geogr. 36:97–105
Hodder I, Orton C. 1976. Spatial Analysis in Archaeology. London: Cambridge Univ. Press
Hodges R. 1988. Primitive and Peasant Markets. New York: Basil Blackwell
Hodgson GM. 2007. Evolutionary and institutional economics as the new mainstream? Evol. Inst. Econ. Rev.
4:7–25
Hodgson GM. 2009. The great crash of 2008 and the reform of economics. Cambridge J. Econ. 33:1205–21
Hudson M. 1996. Privatization: a survey of the unresolved controversies. In Privatization in the Ancient Near East
and Classical World, ed. M Hudson, BA Levine, pp. 1–32. Cambridge, MA: Peabody Museum Archaeol.
Ethnol.
Hudson M. 2002. Reconstructing the origins of interest-bearing debt and the logic of clean states. In Debt and
Economic Renewal in the Ancient Near East, ed. M Hudson, M van de Mieroop, pp. 7–58. Bethesda, MD:
CDL Press
Hudson M. 2004. The archaeology of money: debt versus barter theories of money’s origins. In Credit and
State Theories of Money: The Contributions of A. Mitchell Innes, ed. LR Wray, pp. 99–127. Cheltenham, UK:
Eward Elgar
Humphrey C. 1985. Barter and economic disintegration. Man 20:48–72

Humphrey C, Hugh-Jones S. 1992. Introduction: barter, exchange, and value. In Barter, Exchange, and Value:
An Anthropological Approach, ed. C Humphrey, S Hugh-Jones, pp. 1–20. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ.
Press
Humphreys SC. 1969. History, economics, and anthropology: the work of Karl Polanyi. Hist. Theory 8:165–212
Isaac BL. 1993. Retrospective on formalist-substantivist debate. Res. Econ. Anthropol. 14:213–33
Johnson GA. 1972. A test of the utility of Central Place Theory in archaeology. In Man, Settlement, and
Urbanism, ed. PJ Ucko, R Tringham, GW Dimbleby, pp. 769–85. London: Duckworth
Keister LA. 2002. Financial markets, money, and banking. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 28:39–61
Kennedy G. 2009. Adam Smith and the invisible hand: metaphor to myth. J. Am. Inst. Econ. Res. 6:239–63
Kessler D, Temin P. 2007. The organization of the grain trade in the early Roman Empire. Econ. Hist. Rev.
60:313–32
Kim HS. 2002. Small change and the moneyed economy. In Money, Labor, and Land: Approaches to the Economies
of Ancient Greece, ed. P Cartledge, EE Cohen, L Foxhall, pp. 44–51. London: Routledge
Kohler TA, Van Pelt MW, Yap LYL. 2000. Reciprocity and its limits: considerations for a study of the
prehispanic Pueblo world. In Alternative Leadership Strategies in the Prehispanic Southwest, ed. BJ Mills,
pp. 180–206. Tucson: Univ. Ariz. Press
Krippner GR. 2001. The elusive market: embeddedness and the paradigm of economic sociology. Theory
Sociol. 30:775–810
Krippner GR, Alvarez AS. 2007. Embeddedness and the intellectual projects of economic sociology. Annu.
Rev. Sociol. 33:219–40
Krugman P. 1999. The Return of Depression Economics. New York: WW Norton
Krugman P. 2009. How did economists get it so wrong? New York Times Mag., Sept. 6. http://www.nytimes.
com/2009/09/06/magazine/06Economic-t.html?
Kurtz DV. 1974. Peripheral and transitional markets: the Aztec case. Am. Ethnol. 1:685–705
Landa JT. 1999. The law and bioeconomics of ethnic cooperation and conflict in plural societies of Southeast
Asia: a theory of Chinese merchant success. J. Bioecon. 1:269–84
Law R. 1992. Posthumous questions for Karl Polanyi: price inflation in precolonial Dahomey. J. Afr. Hist.
33:387–420
Levitt SD, Dubner SJ. 2005. Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything. New York:
HarperCollins
Levitt SD, List JA. 2008. Homo economicus evolves. Science 319:909–10
Lewis MW. 1989. Commercialization and community life: the geography of market exchange in a small-scale
Philippine society. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geog. 79:390–410
Lie J. 1991. Embedding Polanyi’s market society. Sociol. Perspect. 34:219–35
Lie J. 1993. Visualizing the invisible hand: the social origins of “market society” in England: 1550–1750. Polit.
Soc. 21:275–305
Lie J. 1997. Sociology of markets. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 23:341–60
López de Gómara F. 1966. Cortés: The Life of the Conqueror by his Secretary. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
Lubasz H. 1992. Adam Smith and the invisible hand—of the market? See Dilley 1992b, pp. 37–56
Mansbridge JJ, ed. 1990. Beyond Self-Interest. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
Masson MA, Hare TS, Peraza Lope C. 2006. Postclassic Maya society regenerated at Mayapán. In After
Collapse: The Regeneration of Complex Societies, ed. GM Schwartz, JJ Nichols, pp. 188–207. Tucson: Univ.
Ariz. Press
Maurer B. 2006. The anthropology of money. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 35:15–36
McCloskey DN. 1997. Other things equal: Polanyi was right and wrong. East. Econ. J. 23:483–87
McCormick M. 2001. Origins of the European Economy: Communications and Commerce A.D. 300–900.
Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press
Melitz J. 1970. The Polanyi school of anthropology on money: an economist’s view. Am. Anthropol. 72:1020–40
Millon R. 1973. Urbanization at Teotihuacan, Mexico: The Teotihuacan Map, Vol. 1, Pt. 1. Austin: Univ. Texas
Press
Minc LD. 2006. Monitoring regional market systems in prehistory: models, methods, and metrics. J. Anthropol.
Archaeol. 25:82–116

Minc LD. 2009. Style and substance: evidence for regionalism within the Aztec market system. Lat. Am. Antiq.
20:343–74
Minor H. 1965. The Primitive City of Timbuctoo. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books. Rev. ed.
Morris I. 1994. The Athenian economy after The Ancient Economy. Clas. Philol. 89:351–66
Morris I. 2003. Mediterranization. Mediterr. Hist. Rev. 18:30–55
Morris I, Manning JG. 2005. Introduction. In The Ancient Economy: Evidence and Models, ed. JG Manning,
I Morris, pp. 1–44. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press
Nee V. 2005. The new institutionalisms in economics and sociology. See Smelser & Swedberg 2005, pp. 49–74
Nichols DL, Brumfiel EM, Neff H, Hodge MG, Charlton TH, Glascock MD. 2002. Neutrons, markets,
cities, and empires: a 1000-year perspective on ceramic production and distribution in the Postclassic
Basin of Mexico. J. Anthropol. Archaeol. 21:25–82
North DC. 1977. Markets and other allocation systems in history: the challenge of Karl Polanyi. J Eur. Econ.
Hist. 6:703–16
North DC. 1990. Institutions, Institutional Change, and Economic Perfomance. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ.
Press
North DC. 1991. Institutions. J. Econ. Persp. 5:97–112

Oka R, Kusimba CM. 2008. The archaeology of trading systems, part I: towards a new trade synthesis.
J. Archaeol. Res. 16:339–95
Ortiz S, ed. 1983. Economic Anthropology: Topics and Theories. Lanham, MD: Univ. Press Am.
Osbourne RG. 1991. Pride and prejudice, sense and sensibility: exchange and society in the Greek city. In City
and Country in the Ancient World, ed. J Rich, A Wallace-Hadrill, pp. 128–36. New York: Routledge
Ostrom E. 2000. Collective action and the evolution of social norms. J. Econ. Perspect. 14:137–58
Ostrom V. 2003. Rethinking the terms of choice. In Rethinking Institutional Analysis: Interviews with Vin-
cent and Elinor Ostrom, by PD Aligica, pp. 1–6. Fairfax, VA: Mercatus Cent. George Mason Univ.
http://www.mercatus.org/PublicationDetails.aspx?id=15952
Oviedo y Valdés GF. 1851–1855. Historia General y Natural de las Indias, Islas, y Tierra Firme del Mar Océano.
Madrid: Real Acad. Hist.
Paterson J. 1998. Trade and traders in the Roman world. In Trade, Traders, and the Ancient City, ed. H Parkins,
C Smith, pp. 149–67. New York: Routledge
Plattner S, ed. 1985. Markets and Marketing. Lanham, MD: Univ. Press Am.
Plattner S. 1989a. Markets and marketplaces. See Plattner 1989, pp. 171–208
Plattner S. 1989b. Introduction. See Plattner 1989, pp. 1–20
Plattner S. 1989c. Economic behavior in markets. See Plattner 1989, pp. 209–21
Plattner S, ed. 1989. Economic Anthropology. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press
Pluckhahn TJ. 2009. Plazas y mercados en las Mixteca Alta prehispánica. In Bases de la Complejidad Social en
Oaxaca, ed. NM Robles Garcı́a, pp. 277–93. Mexico City: Instit. Nac. Antropol. Hist.
Pohl JMD, Monaghan J, Stuiver LR. 1997. Religion, economy, and factionalism in Mixtec boundary zones.
In Códices y Documentos sobre México, Segundo Simposio, ed. S Rueda Smithers, C Vega Sosa, R Martı́nez
Baracs, 1:205–32. Mexico City: Instit. Nac. Antropol. Hist.
Polanyi K. 1944. The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time. Boston: Beacon
Polanyi K. 1947. Our obsolete market mentality. Commentary 3:109–17
Polanyi K. 1957a. The economy as instituted process. See Polanyi et al. 1957, pp. 243–70
Polanyi K. 1957b. Aristotle discovers the economy. See Polanyi et al. 1957, pp. 64–94
Polanyi K. 1960. On the comparative treatment of economic institutions in antiquity with illustrations from
Athens, Mycenae, and Alakh. In City Invincible, ed. CH Kraeling, RM Adams, pp. 329–50. Chicago: Univ.
Chicago Press
Polanyi K, Arensberg CM, Pearson HW, eds. 1957. Trade and Market in the Early Empires. Chicago: Henry
Regnery
Polanyi-Levitt K. 2006. Keynes and Polanyi: the 1920s and the 1990s. Rev. Int. Polit. Econ. 13:152–77
Pomeranz K. 2000. The Great Divergence: China, Europe, and the Making of the Modern World Economy. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
Pomeranz K. 2002. Beyond the East-West binary: resituating development paths in the eighteenth-century
world. J. Asian Stud. 61:539–90

Pomeranz K. 2008. Land markets in late imperial and republican China. Continuity Change 23:101–50
Pryor FL. 1977. The Origins of the Economy: A Comparative Study of Distribution in Primitive and Peasant
Economies. New York: Academic
Reeves E. 1989. Market places, market channels, market strategies: levels for analysis of a regional system. In
Human Systems Ecology: Studies of the Integration of Political Economy, Adaptation, and Socionatural Regions,
ed. S Smith, E Reeves, pp. 58–80. Boulder, CO: Westview
Renfrew C. 1975. Trade as action at a distance: questions of integration and communication. In Ancient
Civilization and Trade, ed. JA Sabloff, CC Lamberg-Karlovsky, pp. 3–59. Albuquerque: Univ. New Mexico
Press
Renfrew C. 1977. Alternative models for exchange and spatial distribution. In Exchange Systems in Prehistory,
ed. TK Earle, JE Ericson, pp. 71–90. New York: Academic
Rosenbaum EF. 2000. What is a market? On the methodology of a contested concept. Rev. Soc. Econ. 58:455–82
Sahagún B. 1950–1982 [c. 1577]. General History of the Things New Spain. Santa Fe, NM/Salt Lake City: Sch.
Am. Res./Univ. Utah Press
Sahlins MD. 1958. Social Stratification in Polynesia. Seattle: Univ. Wash. Press
Sahlins M. 1972. Stone Age Economics. Chicago: Aldine-Atherton
Saito O. 2009. Land, labor, and market forces in Tokugawa Japan. Continuity Change 24:169–96
Sanders WT, Parsons JR, Santley RS. 1979. The Basin of Mexico: Ecological Processes in the Evolution of a
Civilization. New York: Academic
Scheidel W, von Reden S. 2002. Introduction. In The Ancient Economy, ed. W Scheidel, S von Reden, pp. 1–8.
Edinburgh: Edinburgh Univ. Press
Schoenberger E. 2008. The origins of the market economy: state power, territorial control, and modes of war
fighting. Comp. Stud. Soc. Hist. 50:663–91
Schwimmer B. 1979. Market structure and social organization in a Ghanian marketing system. Am. Ethnol.
12:682–701
Service ER. 1975. Origins of the State and Civilization: The Process of Cultural Evolution. New York: WW Norton
Shen C. 2003. Compromises and conflicts: production and commerce in the royal cities of Eastern Zhou,
China. In The Social Construction of Cities, ed. M Smith, pp. 290–310. Washington, DC: Smithson. Inst.
Shiue CH, Keller W. 2007. Markets in China and Europe on the eve of the industrial revolution. Am. Econ.
Rev. 97:1189–216
Silver M. 1983. Karl Polanyi and markets in the ancient Near East: the challenge of the evidence. J. Econ. Hist.
43:795–829
Skinner GW. 1964. Marketing and social structure in rural China. Part 1. J. Asian Stud. 24:3–43
Skinner GW. 1985. Rural marketing in China: repression and revival. China Q. 103:393–413
Smelser NJ, Swedburg R, eds. 2005. The Handbook of Economic Sociology. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press.
2nd ed.
Smith A. 1976 [1776]. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. Chicago: Univ. Chicago
Press
Smith CA. 1974. Economics of marketing systems: models from economic geography. Annu. Rev. Anthropol.
3:167–201
Smith CA. 1976. Regional exchange systems: linking geographic models and socioeconomic problems. In
Regional Analysis, Vol. 1: Economic Systems, ed. CA Smith, pp. 3–63. New York: Academic
Smith ME. 1980. The role of the marketing system in Aztec society and economy: reply to Evans. Am. Antiq.
45:876–83
Smith ME. 2004. The archaeology of ancient state economies. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 33:73–102
Smith ME. 2010. Regional and local market systems in Aztec period Morelos. See Garraty & Stark 2010,
pp. 161–82
Smith ME, Berdan FF, ed. 2003. Postclassic Mesoamerica. In The Postclassic Mesoamerican World, ed. ME
Smith, FF Berdan, pp. 3–13. Salt Lake City: Univ. Utah Press
Snell DC. 1997. Appendix: theories of ancient economies and societies. In Life in the Ancient Near East,
3100–332 BCE, ed. DC Snell, pp. 145–58. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press
Solow RM. 1985. Economic history and economics. Am Econ. Rev. 75:328–31

Solow RM. 2005 [1997]. How did economics get that way and what way did it get? Daedalus 134:87–100
Stanish C. 1997. Nonmarket imperialism in the pre-Hispanic Americas: the Inca occupation of the Titicaca
Basin. Lat. Am. Antiq. 8:195–216
Stanish C. 2010. Labor taxes, market systems and urbanization in the prehispanic Andes: a comparative
perspective. See Garraty & Stark 2010, pp. 185–205
Stark BL, Garraty CP. 2010. Detecting marketplace exchange in archaeology: a methodological review. See
Garraty & Stark 2010, pp. 33–58
Stark BL, Ossa A. 2010. Origins and development of Mesoamerican marketplaces: evidence from south-central
Veracruz. See Garraty & Stark 2010, pp. 99–126
Stiglitz J. 1999. Beggar-thyself versus beggar-thy neighbor policies: the dangers of intellectual incoherence in
addressing the global financial crisis. South. Econ. J. 66:1–38
Storey GR. 2004. Roman economies: a paradigm of their own. In Archaeological Perspectives on Political Economy,
ed. GM Feinman, LM Nicholas, pp. 105–28. Salt Lake City: Univ. Utah Press
Sugihara K. 2003. The East Asian path of economic development: a long-term perspective. In The Resurgence of
East Asia: 500, 150, and 50 Year Perspectives, ed. G Arrighi, T Hamashita, M Selden, pp. 78–123. London:
Routledge
Swedberg R. 1991. Major traditions of economic sociology. Annu. Rev. Soc. 17:251–76
Swedberg R. 1994. Markets as social structures. In The Handbook of Economic Sociology, ed. NJ Smelser, R
Swedberg, pp. 255–82. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
Swedberg R. 2005. Markets in society. See Smelser & Swedberg 2005, pp. 233–53
Swedberg R, Granovetter M. 2001. Introduction to the second edition. In The Sociology of Economic Life, ed.
M Granovetter, R Swedberg, pp. 1–28. Boulder, CO: Westview. 2nd ed.
Tainter JA. 1988. The Collapse of Complex Societies. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press
Tao W. 1999. A city with many faces: urban development in premodern China. In Exploring China’s Past:
New Discoveries and Studies in Archaeology and Art, ed. R Whitfield, W Tao, pp. 111–21. London: Saffron
Books
Temin P. 2001. A market economy in the early Roman Empire. J. Roman Stud. 91:169–81
Temin P. 2004. The labor market of the early Roman Empire. J. Interdiscipl. Hist. 34:513–38
Temin P. 2006. The economy of the early Roman Empire. J. Econ. Perspect. 20:133–51
Thompson EP. 1971. The moral economy of the English crowd in the eighteenth century. Past Present 50:76–
136
Thompson EP. 1991. Customs in Common: Studies in Traditional Popular Culture. London: Merlin
Thrift NJ. 2000. Commodity. In The Dictionary of Human Geography, ed. RJ Johnston, D Gregory, D Pratt,
M Watts, pp. 95–96. Oxford: Blackwell
Torquemada J. 1943. Monarquia Indiana. Mexico City: S Chávez Hayhoe
Trigger BG. 2003. Understanding Early Civilizations: A Comparative Study. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
Uzoigwe GN. 1972. Precolonial markets in Bunyoro-Kitara. Comp. Stud. Soc. Hist. 14:422–55
Uzzi B. 1997. Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: the paradox of embeddedness. Admin.
Sci. Q. 42:35–67
van Bavel BJP. 2006. Rural wage labor in the sixteenth-century low countries: an assessment of the importance
and nature of wage labor in the countryside of Holland, Guelders and Flanders. Continuity Change 21:37–
72
van Bavel BJP. 2008. The organization and rise of land and lease markets in northwestern Europe and Italy,
c. 1000–1800. Continuity Change 23:13–53
van Bavel BJP, de Moor T, van Zanden JL. 2009. Introduction: factor markets in global economic history.
Continuity Change 24:9–21
Wallerstein I. 1974. The Modern World-System: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World-
Economy in the Sixteenth Century. New York: Academic
Wilk RR. 1996. Economies and Cultures: Foundations of Economic Anthropology. Boulder, CO: Westview
Wilk RR. 1998. Comment on “The distributional approach: a new way to identify marketplace exchange in
the archaeological record.” Curr. Anthropol. 39:469
Williams CC. 2002. Beyond the commodity economy: the persistence of informal economic activity in rural
England. Geogr. Ann. B. 83:221–33

Williamson OE. 1975. Markets and Hierarchies: Analyses and Antitrust Implications. New York: Free Press
Williamson OE. 1985. The Economic Institutions of Capitalism. New York: Free Press
Wittfogel K. 1957. Oriental Despotism: A Comparative Study of Total Power. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press
Wolf ER. 1982. Europe and the People without History. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
Wong RB. 1997. China Transformed: Historical Change and the Limits of the European Experience. Ithaca, NY:
Cornell Univ. Press
Zukin S, DiMaggio P. 1990. Introduction. In Structures of Capital, ed. S Zukin, P DiMaggio, pp. 1–36.
Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press

AR424-FM ARI 12 August 2010 19:29
Annual Review of
Anthropology
Contents Volume 39, 2010
Prefatory Chapter
A Life of Research in Biological Anthropology

Geoffrey A. Harrison p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 1
Archaeology
Preindustrial Markets and Marketing: Archaeological Perspectives
Gary M. Feinman and Christopher P. Garraty p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 167
Exhibiting Archaeology: Archaeology and Museums
Alex W. Barker p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 293
Defining Behavioral Modernity in the Context of Neandertal and
Anatomically Modern Human Populations
April Nowell p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 437
The Southwest School of Landscape Archaeology
Severin Fowles p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 453
Archaeology of the Eurasian Steppes and Mongolia
Bryan Hanks p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 469
Biological Anthropology
Miocene Hominids and the Origins of the African Apes and Humans
David R. Begun p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p67
Consanguineous Marriage and Human Evolution
A.H. Bittles and M.L. Black p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 193
Cooperative Breeding and its Significance to the Demographic Success
of Humans
Karen L. Kramer p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 417
Linguistics and Communicative Practices

Enactments of Expertise
E. Summerson Carr p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p17
vii
AR424-FM ARI 12 August 2010 19:29
The Semiotics of Brand

Paul Manning p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p33
The Commodification of Language
Monica Heller p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 101
Sensory Impairment
Elizabeth Keating and R. Neill Hadder p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 115
The Audacity of Affect: Gender, Race, and History in Linguistic
Accounts of Legitimacy and Belonging
Bonnie McElhinny p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 309
Soundscapes: Toward a Sounded Anthropology

David W. Samuels, Louise Meintjes, Ana Maria Ochoa, and Thomas Porcello p p p p p p p p p p 329
Ethnographic Approaches to Digital Media

E. Gabriella Coleman p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 487
International Anthropology and Regional Studies

Peopling of the Pacific: A Holistic Anthropological Perspective
Patrick V. Kirch p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 131
Anthropologies of the United States
Jessica R. Cattelino p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 275
Sociocultural Anthropology
The Reorganization of the Sensory World
Thomas Porcello, Louise Meintjes, Ana Maria Ochoa, and David W. Samuels p p p p p p p p p p p p51
The Anthropology of Secularism
Fenella Cannell p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p85
Anthropological Perspectives on Structural Adjustment and Public
Health
James Pfeiffer and Rachel Chapman p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 149
Food and the Senses
David E. Sutton p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 209
The Anthropology of Credit and Debt
Gustav Peebles p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 225
Sense and the Senses: Anthropology and the Study of Autism
Olga Solomon p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 241
Gender, Militarism, and Peace-Building: Projects of the Postconflict
Moment
Mary H. Moran p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 261
viii Contents
AR424-FM ARI 12 August 2010 19:29
Property and Persons: New Forms and Contests

in the Era of Neoliberalism
Eric Hirsch p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 347
Education, Religion, and Anthropology in Africa
Amy Stambach p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 361
The Anthropology of Genetically Modified Crops
Glenn Davis Stone p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 381
Water Sustainability: Anthropological Approaches and Prospects
Ben Orlove and Steven C. Caton p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 401
Theme I: Modalities of Capitalism

The Semiotics of Brand

Paul Manning p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p33
The Commodification of Language
Monica Heller p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 101
Anthropological Perspectives on Structural Adjustment
and Public Health
James Pfeiffer and Rachel Chapman p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 149
Preindustrial Markets and Marketing: Archaeological Perspectives
Gary M. Feinman and Christopher P. Garraty p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 167
The Anthropology of Credit and Debt
Gustav Peebles p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 225
Property and Persons: New Forms and Contests in
the Era of Neoliberalism
Eric Hirsch p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 347
The Anthropology of Genetically Modified Crops
Glenn Davis Stone p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 381
Theme II: The Anthropology of the Senses

The Reorganization of the Sensory World
Thomas Porcello, Louise Meintjes, Ana Maria Ochoa and David W. Samuels p p p p p p p p p p p p51
Sensory Impairment
Elizabeth Keating and R. Neill Hadder p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 115
Food and the Senses
David E. Sutton p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 209
Sense and the Senses: Anthropology and the Study of Autism
Olga Solomon p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 241
Contents ix
AR424-FM ARI 12 August 2010 19:29
Soundscapes: Toward a Sounded Anthropology

David W. Samuels, Louise Meintjes, Ana Maria Ochoa, and Thomas Porcello p p p p p p p p p p 329
Indexes
Cumulative Index of Contributing Authors, Volumes 30–39 p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 507

Cumulative Index of Chapter Titles, Volume 30–39 p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 510
Errata
An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Anthropology articles may be found at

http://anthro.annualreviews.org/errata.shtml
x Contents

FEINMAN Et Al. 2010, Preindustrial Markets and Marketing. Archaeological Perspectives

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

FEINMAN Et Al. 2010, Preindustrial Markets and Marketing. Archaeological Perspectives

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AN39CH11-Feinman ARI 12 August 2010 20:47

• Our comprehensive search

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2010. 39:167–91 Key Words

2003, p. 1) saying anything.”

As documented by these sources (see also

168 Feinman · Garraty

www.annualreviews.org • Preindustrial Markets and Marketing 169

170 Feinman · Garraty

www.annualreviews.org • Preindustrial Markets and Marketing 171

172 Feinman · Garraty

inefﬁciencies of information ﬂows regarding economic action functions relative to societal

recognized preindustrial and non-Western simple self-interest to include considerations of

www.annualreviews.org • Preindustrial Markets and Marketing 173

In sum, by using an idealized notion of con- In anthropology and archaeology (Fried

174 Feinman · Garraty

change had a long and signiﬁcant history in the Garraty 2010).

www.annualreviews.org • Preindustrial Markets and Marketing 175

176 Feinman · Garraty

of a market system based on logical inference, the conﬁgurational approach is predicated on

www.annualreviews.org • Preindustrial Markets and Marketing 177

alternate hypotheses rather than “positive” LOOKING FORWARD: KEY

178 Feinman · Garraty

www.annualreviews.org • Preindustrial Markets and Marketing 179

cial parameters of market-information ﬂows ing exchange volumes and commercialization

180 Feinman · Garraty

differences is through dedicated comparative People—Western or non-Western, ancient or

www.annualreviews.org • Preindustrial Markets and Marketing 181

182 Feinman · Garraty

www.annualreviews.org • Preindustrial Markets and Marketing 183

Am. Antiq. 18:363–84

184 Feinman · Garraty

Eisenstadt SN. 2000. Multiple modernities. Daedalus 129:1–29

www.annualreviews.org • Preindustrial Markets and Marketing 185

Hall JA. 2001. Confessions of a eurocentric. Int. Sociol. 16:488–97

186 Feinman · Garraty

www.annualreviews.org • Preindustrial Markets and Marketing 187

North DC. 1991. Institutions. J. Econ. Persp. 5:97–112

188 Feinman · Garraty

www.annualreviews.org • Preindustrial Markets and Marketing 189

190 Feinman · Garraty

www.annualreviews.org • Preindustrial Markets and Marketing 191

Contents Volume 39, 2010

A Life of Research in Biological Anthropology

Linguistics and Communicative Practices

The Semiotics of Brand

Soundscapes: Toward a Sounded Anthropology

Ethnographic Approaches to Digital Media

International Anthropology and Regional Studies

Property and Persons: New Forms and Contests

Theme I: Modalities of Capitalism

The Semiotics of Brand

Theme II: The Anthropology of the Senses

Soundscapes: Toward a Sounded Anthropology

Cumulative Index of Contributing Authors, Volumes 30–39 p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 507

An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Anthropology articles may be found at

You might also like