Altoriental. Forsch.

32 (2005) 1, 62-73

E§REF ABAY - ÖZLEM ÇEVIK

"Interaction and Migration"

Issues in Archaeological Theory

Introduction

Cultures were neither in the past, nor are they in the present, static constitutions.
All cultures have changed somehow either because of internal or external dynam-
ics. In the course of explanation of cultural change, invention and inevitable
variation are considered internal dynamics, while migration, trade and other
forms of interaction represent external dynamics. No one can deny that migra-
tion and trade are the most effective factors in the spread of ideas and techno-
logical innovation, particularly before the discovery of the telecommunication
technology, the postal system and printing. Many of the things we use in our
daily life such as coffee, rice, grain, television, telephone, paper, etc., were invent-
ed in a certain place and diffused from there to different parts of the world.
Archaeological evidence clearly shows that not only material items, but also
political models, are transferred via migration and trade.
The application of theories citing internal and external dynamics to explain
cultural change, reflect changing tendencies over time, reflecting trends when
one school of thought has been preferred over the other. Ideological back-
grounds and scholarly biases lay behind these changing trends in archaeological
explanations.
Normative approaches related to migration theories in European Archaeology
began with the works of German archaeologist Gustav Rossina towards the end
of the 19th century. 1 Rossina suggested that European Civilization emerged in
the North and spread South through a series of continuous migrations. According
to Rossina, European Civilization was founded by Aryan groups, and in time,
these groups lost their innovative character by mingling with other ethnic
groups as a result of these migrations. These same arguments were widely

1 Anthony (1990, 896). The scientific foundations of the migration theory based on the
studies of Montelius, Kossina and Schuchhardt in late 19th and early 20 t h centuries (Harke
1998: 21).

Brought to you by | Boston University Library

Authenticated
Download Date | 10/8/14 7:36 AM
Altoriental. Forsch. 32 (2005) 1 63

applied by Germany policymakers in the 1930's.2 Because of the disastrous

results of World War II, along with the development of processual approaches
in archaeological theory, the concept of migration lost its importance as an
explanatory factor starting in the 1960's. As is well known, processual approaches
generally focused on the autochthonous developments of cultures.3 In other
words, for processualists, migration remained out of the archaeological agenda
because their central argument is based on the assumption that cultural change
occurred as a result of the adaptation of mankind to the environment.
It should be noted that Marxist approaches were not really affected by explana-
tory models of migration, or in external dynamics in general, as they considered
culture, or civilization, the product of economic and social factors. According
to Soviet archaeology, migration is a factor that exists in the ethno genesis of
people; by mutual interaction with other ethnic groups (such as in marriage)
new groups spontaneously emerge. As a result, population shifts are widely
neglected by Marxists.4 In contrast to Marxist archaeology, migration and trade
have never lost their importance in Anatolian archaeology. This may well be due
to the specific geographical location and the rich resources of Anatolia. Starting
in the Neolithic Period, the continuous exchange relations of Anatolia with
the Mesopotamian world seem to have stimulated a relatively easy adaptation of
diffusion models for the explanation of cultural processes in Anatolia. The written
documents from Anatolia and elsewhere dating from the second millennium
BC prove that Anatolia was inhabited by different ethnic groups. The attempt to
retrace these groups archaeologically prompts the identification of burnt levels
and material changes seen in the archaeological record with certain groups
such as Luwians, Hittites, Urartians and Phyrigians. Ultimately, these efforts
have served to uphold migration as a popular explanative factor in Anatolian
archaeology.
Processual archaeologists have assessed changes in material culture as means
of adaptation, rather than as reflections of population replacement, although
they have accepted that material culture is affected by various factors, and is
therefore multidimensional. Starting is the 1980's post-processulists focused on
the importance of the multi-dimensionality of material culture but have rejected
to see it as a means of adaptation. 5 Through the influence of these recent ap-
proaches, the subject of migration and trade migration and trade in the archaeo-
logical agenda were re-opened. However, in these recent considerations external
dynamics have been more systematically assessed, and there has been consider-
able effort for testing the archaeological record using sophisticated theories.

2
Trigger (1989,163-165).
3 Harke (1998, 24).
4
Harke (1998, 23).
5 Shennan (2000, 811-812); Burmeister (2000, 539).

Brought to you by | Boston University Library

Authenticated
Download Date | 10/8/14 7:36 AM
64 E§ref Abay - Özlem Çevik, "Interaction and Migration" Issues in Archaeological Theory

By surveying both old and new theoretical approaches, this paper mainly aims
to reveal the methods for distinguishing the external factors, namely migration
and change that cause cultural change, and changes in material culture. To some
extent, our aim is also to show the certain difficulties in the application of these
methods for the archaeological cases, either because of the nature of the
evidence or because of the complexity inherent in archaeology. To do so, the
conceptualization of both migration and trade will first be briefly outlined.

The Conceptualization of Migration and Trade

Literally, migration is simply described as a movement of groups (or individuals)

from their original place to another place. However, the reasons for migrations
may be highly complex and are difficult to define archaeologically. Geographers
and demographers have explained the causality of migration by "pull and push"
theory. While push factors are characterized by negative conditions in the home-
land, pull factors are represented by positive conditions in the destination area.6
It has also been presented that migrated populations may return back to the
homeland when conditions become better, and this process is called, by some,
return migration. 7 As a matter of fact, it is very difficult, if not impossible to
define scarcity situations, namely push factors, in emigration areas in prehistoric
times. Generally, this approach does not provide a useful perspective for archaeo-
logy.
Among the other motives cited for inciting migration are population pressure,
economic benefits such as trade, war, cultural values and attitudes, adventure,
and a pressure of a political or demographically dominant population on a de-
pendent population or on minorities. One of these motives may well be combin-
ed with another, as in the case of Greek colonies, which not only resulted from
the push of population pressure but also from the pull of economic benefits,
while an Assyrian colony in Kültepe-Kanesh Karum was founded only for eco-
nomic benefits. Mass deportations as evidenced in Assyrian, Urartian and Hittite
kingdoms are archaeological examples of the pressure exhibited by the politic-
ally dominant population (ruling class) on a dependent population. The ex-
pelling of Jews from Spain is an example of pressure exhibited by an ethnically
dominant population on minority.
It has been suggested that in an already occupied world, migration can take
place in four different forms that may be distinguished from one another
through material culture: 8

6 Pull factors d o not casually work and information flow is very important for the stimula-
tion o f the pull factors. Because p e o p l e generally migrated to specific locations where
they had information about them.
7 Anthony (1990, 904); Lee (1966).
8 McNeill (1987, 18).

Brought to you by | Boston University Library

Authenticated
Download Date | 10/8/14 7:36 AM
Altoriental. Forsch. 32 (2005) 1 65

1-one population destroys and replaces another population.

2-one population enslaves the other.
3-one population conquers the other, but conquerors develop a symbiotic
relationship with the conquered.
4-outsiders infiltrate a population, but do not displace the ruling group.
Evidence for destruction followed by a radical change in material culture is
generally related to the first form, and it is this form that is attested both in pre-
historic and historic times in archaeology. Solid traces of the destruction of
central Anatolian sites during the first quarter of the second millennium are
attributed to Indo-Europeans that later founded the Hittite Kingdom, and the
local surviving elements of the Hattians, seen within Hittite material culture may
be a case of the third form. It is clear that the Assyrian traders in Kanesh Karum
had no motives for replacing the local Anatolian rulers. Hacinebi in south-
eastern Anatolia where local people and Southern groups lived together in
distinct quarters during the Late Uruk Period, may well be a much earlier case
of the type four form. In most ancient state societies, the ruling group took
captives from the conquered lands and enslaved them to fulfill manpower
needs. This situation, which also corresponds to mass deportations seen in the
archaeological record, has already been mentioned above.
It has been claimed that the radical destruction form of migration was typical
of nomadic pastoral societies, which had a minimal division of labor and were
delineated by kinship lines, while the other three forms of migration were
typical in agricultural societies with a greater division of labor and hierarchical
poly-ethnic social orders. 9 However, archaeological evidence shows that radical
destruction is not necessarily attributed to pastoral nomads, or vice verse. If one
accepts that pastoral nomadism is a specialized actitivity, it is hard to explain
radical destructions followed by a change in material culture such as those seen
in early communities at Neolithic and Early Chalcolithic sites. On the other hand,
if at least one branch of Early Transcaucasian groups had pastoral nomadic
origins, as has been generally suggested, it is again hard to explain the absence
of destruction levels in sites where this culture spread.10
The goals of migration, the traveling distance from the homeland, and the size
of the migrating population are among the criteria used to define the type of
migration. By assessing migration from a historical perspective, Rouse defined
two types of migration, local and Interareal;11 while by taking space into consid-
eration, Anthony classified it as short and long distance migration.12
Local migration, as defined Rouse, represents seasonal movements of groups
within a certain habitation region, in contrast to interareal migration that is

9 Koslowski (2002, 382).

10
See Abay in this volume.
» Rouse (1986,9).
12
Anthony (1990, 900).

Brought to you by | Boston University Library

Authenticated
Download Date | 10/8/14 7:36 AM
66 Eçref Abay - Özlem Çevik, "Interaction and Migration" Issues in Archaeological Theory

characterized by the movement of groups from one region to another. Trans-

humance activities, and/or the movements of semi-nomadic groups, may be
included in the seasonal migration o f Rouse. In interareal migration, the infiltra-
tion of a population that moves into a new zone can take place either by force,
or voluntarily. If the number of immigrants is few, and they are socially passive,
then they adopt the local cultural complex and are assimilated. On the other
hand, if the migrating social groups are sufficient in terms of quantity and
quality, they either absorb the local population or push the local population out
of the destination region.13
The wave-of-advance model advocated by Ammerman and Cavalli-Sforza is
classified under the rubric of short distance migration by Anthony, as it aims
to explain short distance movements over a long span of time.14 This model is
primarily applied to explain the spread of the Neolithic way of life from the
Near East to Europe either over land (via Anatolia) or by sea. It posits that the
rate of advance will vary depending on local conditions, and the direction of
expansion is also unpredictable. However, this model criticized by Anthony, as
the hypothesis is based on the assumption that each migration movement is
statistically independent, and results in the consideration of short and long
distance movements into single migratory activities, rather than as interdepend-
ent, as well as distinct, movements. 15 Indeed, the spread of the elements specific
to the Neolithic way of life, recently termed the "Neolithic package", from East
to West has not yet clearly been documented to have been the result of either
long or short distance migration, or both processes working together, or to have
been at least partly the result of interaction.
The long distance migration model of Anthony covers movements that extend
beyond ecological and cultural borders. These long distance movements neces-
sitate the dissemination of information such as communication routes and
transportation facilities in relation to potential destinations. Therefore, this model
requires a considerable amount of planning on the part of the emigrating
groups. By taking the direction of flow o f material culture into consideration,
long distance migrations - in contrast to short ones - can be more readily
traced archaeologically. The Leapfrogging Model in long distance migration, in-
spired by the childerns' game, is particularly worth mentioning. 16 In this model,
as a first step, explorers are sent to targeted areas to obtain information about
the potentials of a destination region. Depending on the information gathered,
emigrants proceed and skip some intermediate areas in favor of more favorable
regions for settlement. Information provided through kinship ties was likely
more crucial in prehistoric times than it is today. Hunters, nomads, merchants,

« Rouse (1986, 9).

M Anthony (1990, 901).

« Anthony (1990, 902).

16 Anthony (1990, 9 0 2 - 9 0 3 ) .

Brought to you by | Boston University Library

Authenticated
Download Date | 10/8/14 7:36 AM
Altoriental. Forsch. 32 (2005) 1 67

itinerant craftsmen and mercenaries played an important role in the flow of

information. Most migration movements in history took place in this way. Co-
lonial movements, both in the past and present, may well be included in this
model (e.g., European movements to America). The archaeological pattern
created by the leapfrogging model can be seen in the settlement islands among
larger, less desired and unattractive, unsettled regions. On the local level, this
model produces ethnic neighborhoods such as a "China Town" located within a
larger non-Chinese settlement or city. Although pre-planning is a crucial com-
ponent of this type of movement, migrations do not always necessarily take
place as major undertakings or with pre-planning. Examples of this can be seen
in the non-organized movements of slaves, craftsmen or other groups escaping
from various pressure.17
Trade: Trade and/or exchange refer to the movements of goods across space.
Different terminology has been used for the circulation of goods, although
some apply one term or the other term interchangeably — such as trade and
exchange — as if the terms have no organizational (distinct) difference between
them. The establishment of this terminology, indeed, is based on economic and
socio-political organization level of societies. Most scholars agreed that gift
exchange and reciprocity is the simplest mode of exchange. In egalitarian so-
cieties, the fabric of social relations was bound by a series of gift exchanges.
Individual X would establish or reinforce a relationship with individual Y by
means of a gift (a valuable object). This gift was not a payment but rather a
gesture and a bond imposing obligations on both sides. Since gifts are often
given with maximum publicity and ostentation, the donor gains in status
through the scale of generosity of the gift.18
Trade is classified by Renfrew, either as "external exchange" or "internal ex-
change".19 While internal exchange is carried out within a society, in external
exchange goods are traded over much greater distances, from one social unit to
another. According to Renfrew, the term "trade" implies external trade. In other
definitions trade is explained as a more complex form of exchange involving
markets, merchants and profit motivation, while the earlier or simpler mecha-
nisms of circulating objects is called exchange.20 In both definitions trade seems
to have represented a more complex form of exchange. It is trade which is ge-
nerally related to more complex socio-political organizations such as states.
However, Polanyi believes that there was no real trade system in antiquity be-
cause of the lack of a market, although trade and market are inseparable con-
cepts today. The exchange of the goods carried out by the temple or palace in
stratified societies is called a redistribution system by Polanyi. Since the term

17 Fagan (1999b, 25-26).

18 Renfrew (1975, 41-42); Renfrew/Bahn (1996, 337).
» Renfrew/Bahn (1996, 336).
20 Yener (1983, 3).

Brought to you by | Boston University Library

Authenticated
Download Date | 10/8/14 7:36 AM
68 E§ref Abay - Özlem Çevik, "Interaction and Migration" Issues in Archaeological Theory

"redistribution system" implies the movement of appropriated goods towards

the center and from there to the outside, it required a central organization.21
According to Polanyi trade that was carried out under the control of a central
authority is classified either as "treaty trade" or as a tribute system. In the tribute
system there was no profit, fixed prices, private property, or role of supply and
demand. Treaty trade that was carried out as a public service, was not profit-
motivated, but status-oriented. 22
Contrary to Polanyi, Lamberg-Karlovsky suggested that as early as the late 4th
millennium, a market network existed in Mesopotamia. Lamberg-Karlovsky's
term market network implied the institutionalized flow of goods and services
from a region with high supply to another region with high demand. Taking
transportation costs, and therefore profits into consideration, a certain region
supplied the demand of another by following regular, pre-defined routes. The
physical existence of the market is not relevant since emergent trade network
follow the same pattern. 23
Political models are transmitted as a result of either migration or trade. Ars-
lantepe appears to be a good archaeological example displaying both cases.24
The temple based economic model at Arslantepe VIA dating to Late Uruk Period
is claimed to have resembled those in Southern Mesopotamia. It has been sug-
gested that this may have been due to interaction between the local groups and
Southern groups during the Uruk Expansion or rather the earlier, i.e. Ubaid
Period. On the other hand, the dramatic shift from a temple-based economy to a
citadel-based political system at Arslantepe during the early third millennium
(Arlantepe VIB2) tends to be explained as the result of the infiltration of the
new groups from Transcaucasia.
Aside from the translocation of political models, the development and under-
development of societies is also related to the presence of complex trade
systems. Demand and supply have crucial importance in the creation of unequal
conditions among trade partners. Advanced or inferior economic and socio-
political structures of societies are explained by the theories of "world system
theory", "center and periphery", and "equal or unequal exchange".
It is Immanuel Wallerstein who originally suggested the world system theory
in 1974. Although he claimed the world system as a modern phenomenon with
roots in the 16th century, both archaeologists and ancient historians have applied
this concept for earlier periods. According to Wallerstein the rise of capitalism is
explained by the emergence of world markets. Accordingly, the distinctive
feature of the modern world system is that it is based on economic relations
among partners rather than among the political, cultural or ideological relations.

21
Wheatley (1971, 281-285); Lamberg-Karlowsky (1975, 345 and 378).
22
Brumfiel/Earl (1987, 2).
2
3 Lamberg-Karlowsky (1975, 344-346).
24
Frangipane (2001, 3, 8-9).

Brought to you by | Boston University Library

Authenticated
Download Date | 10/8/14 7:36 AM
Altoriental. Forsch. 32 (2005) 1 69

In this system some regions become the exporters of essential resources, while
other regions engage in the manufacture of industrial products, and their market-
ing. This trade system, in which different regions are connected to one another
takes place in an asymmetric manner. The centers with advanced political
systems and technological industries in the West have more advantages than
the polities in the peripheries. 25 Considering this issue under the title "centre
and periphery", A. G. Frank argued that the periphery cannot develop as it is not
able to exploit its own resources. 26 Thus, the underdevelopment of periphery is
not a product of its archaic social structure, but is the result of its historical re-
lationships with the developed world. 27
In archaeology, Algaze has recently applied the world system theory in his
explanation of the Uruk Expansion. 28 He claimed that through the influence of
trade contacts with the Southern Mesopotamians, the periphery had experienc-
ed rapid growth. However, this growth in this periphery was followed by
collapse, because the exploitation of resources by itself did not stimulate a com-
plex management system and services.
Although Kohl accepted the existence of the core and periphery relationship
among regions, including Mesopotamia, Iran, Anatolia, Egypt and Indus as early
as 3 rd millennium BC, he stressed the structural differences of these relations
between ancient times and the modern era. He pointed out that the prominent
technologies of the Bronze Age, such as metalworking, quickly diffused from
one region to another, and therefore they were not monopolized. Thus, there
was no technological insufficiency present in the periphery to make it inferior
politically or militaristically.29 The application of world system theory to ancient
cultures has been criticized by Renfrew, Stein and the others. 30 In fact, different
perceptions of ancient economy are the sources of these discrete approaches.
While modernist/formalist scholars have found the roots of the modern eco-
nomy in the past (such as private property and market) primitivist/modernist
scholars have rejected these roots.31

The Definition of External Factors on Material Culture

Distinguishing specific cultural elements, assigning these elements to certain

ethnic groups, and studying the distributions of these cultural elements in terms
of time and space, characterize the most common attempts to retrace migration
in the archaeological record. This approach rests on the assumption that the

2,i Lamberg-Karlovsky (1996, 57-59); Ratnagar (2001, 351); Rowlands (1998, 221).
26 Frank (1993).
27 Rowlands (1998, 222).

2 8 Algaze (1989 and 1993).

» Kohl (1996,146-150).
30 Renfrew/Bahn (1996); Stein (2001); Wattenmaker (1990).
μ Frank (1993,385).

Brought to you by | Boston University Library

Authenticated
Download Date | 10/8/14 7:36 AM
70 E§ref Abay - Özlem Çevik, "Interaction and Migration" Issues in Archaeological Theory

social compositions of emigrant groups are not changed in their new settle-
ments. However, changes in material culture in a certain region or similarly, in
the material culture between two regions, does not always properly inform us
about the dynamics of migration or its place of origin. Many modern studies
of the colonization of America by Europeans do, however, provide detailed
information on cultural transfers that occurred via migration.32 These studies
are also inspirational as they not only provide research tactics for retracing
migration in archaeology, but also for revealing the complexity of the subject by
exemplifying how material culture may mislead attempts to define the ethnic
origin of people.
The European colonists in America proved that it is not necessary to find a
direct relationship between the number of the emigrants and their impact on
material culture. The classic log cabin was introduced to North America by the
Finnish settlers who established themselves in the Swedish colony at Delaware
in 1653. It should be noted that by 1653 there were 500 colonists settled in a site
with 36 hectares. This house type which was then adopted by other colonists of
different European origin formed the basic architectural type in the western
frontier region for over 250 years. The question that needs to be asked here is
how this small number of settlers were able to make such a great and lasting
influence on a certain form of material culture while most of the elements of
Fenno-Scandinavian culture disappeared without trace. Since this house form
offered the best chance of survival in the forests of the New World, it was read-
ily adopted by other groups. This is what Terry Jordan, the geographer, called
the concept of cultural "pre-adaptation". The barn form specific to Southern
Germany and the Alpine area left its mark on agricultural architecture in North
America. This strong influence is explained by the functionality of its design. It
is interesting to note that although British emigrants brought about the main
body of immigrants, they had a negligible influence on the architecture for a
long time.
As the examples have shown, not all of the cultural traits of European groups
were brought to North America from their homelands. It seems that the hetero-
geneous nature of the immigrants and the exchanges between them led to
mutual assimilation. Economic security required the utmost flexibility. It is stress-
ed that in most cases immigrants may abandon even traditional subsistence
practices in the fase of the first unsuccessful experiments. Therefore, we can de-
duce from these examples that elements of material culture reflecting economy
or social representations may not always provide us a useful tool for retracing
migration.
However, Burmeister points out that the world of immigrants is twofold. He
classifies them as external (public) and internal (private) domains. The external
domain is the zone of contact between the immigrant population with the

32 B u r m e i s t e r (2000, 541).

Brought to you by | Boston University Library

Authenticated
Download Date | 10/8/14 7:36 AM
Altoriental. Forsch. 32 (2005) 1 71

society in the destination area. According to Burmeister, the habitus can be

shown to have been impacted differently in the two domains. The intersection
of the social and economic aspects of the habitus with the environment is seen
in the external domain. As the examples mentioned above have shown, if
economic and social conditions deviate from those that created the habitus,
and the new conditions cannot be adjusted to the cultural patterns, then the
practices of the immigrant group and their habitus will have to be modified.
This process can sometimes take place very quickly.
On the other hand, the social system of the family, the household, and the
organization of private life characterize the internal domain. Since these are not
directly connected to external conditions, the habitus is very likely to persist. In
short, the habitus will show a stronger tendency toward tradition in the internal
than in the external domain.
It has been suggested that the cultural traits in the internal domain cannot be
adopted as objects of either prestige or fashion as they have little functional
effect on outsiders or they have no social significance for them. As a matter of
fact, the rapid spread of certain styles and prestige goods in the ancient Near
East, particularly in the third millennium BC onwards when centralized eco-
nomies emerged, show that even material culture associated with the internal
domain is not as reliable a marker of migration as has been suggested. Never-
theless, it is still more convincing to seek archaeological proof for migration
in the internal domain rather than external domain. 33 Among the evidence for
internal domain are the interior architecture of houses, religious architecture,
burial customs and kitchen wares.34
Although in archaeology the presence of any extent of trade may be readily
identified and defined in material culture, it is relatively more difficult to deter-
mine whether trade was carried out with or without the movements of the part-
ners involved. Archaeologically, a problem emerges when distinguishing the
migration phenomenon from the trade phenomenon when trade partners of
one side left their homeland to settle down in the settlements of the other trade
partners. In such situations, besides the testing of evidence in relation to the
internal domain, the analysis of dietary patterns, and the analysis of clays used
in pottery and sealings are also applied. It should be noted that emigrants, how-
ever, particularly relocated traders who then marry local women, may change
their own native diet in the destination area. Furthermore, foreign pottery styles
may also be imitated. It has been claimed that technology tends to remain more
traditional.35 Thus, the analysis of the production technology of pottery, one
that looks at characteristics such as the fabric inclusions and firing methods may
be more conclusive.

33 Burmeister (2000, 542).

34 Burmeister (2000, 542).
35 Özbal/Pehlivan/Earl/Gedik (2002, 3 9 - 4 0 ) .

Brought to you by | Boston University Library

Authenticated
Download Date | 10/8/14 7:36 AM
72 E§ref Abay - Özlem Çevik, "Interaction and Migration" Issues in Archaeological Theory

Concluding Remarks

Recent theories have attempted to provide archaeologists a series of models for

testing for migration and trade in the archaeological record. What is clear, however,
is that the problem is still complex, even theoretically. As has been explained
above, ethnographic models have proven that cause and effect relationships are
not uniform throughout the world. Therefore, these theories cannot always be
applied in all cultural cases. The central problem in archaeology is that archaeo-
logists do not always have ideal data for testing theories with the methods
above-mentioned; for example, some cultures are only known archaeologically
through their cemetery areas.
By showing the absence of universal rules, theoretical approaches warn
archaeologists how dangerous it can be to restrict themselves to single working
hypotheses. The emphasis on internal domain indicates the crucial importance
of archaeological context. Indeed, the significance of contextual evidence in
archaeology has been increasingly stressed. It is the cultural context rather than
material itself that helps archaeologists in reading the meaning attached to
material. While beautifully constructed theories may well be refuted or challeng-
ed by archaeological facts, the value of ethnographic models (that promote an
understanding of context) cannot be denied.

Bibliography

Algaze, G. 1993: The Uruk world system, Chicago.

Algaze, G. 1998: The Uruk expansion: cross-cultural exchange in early Mesopotamian civi-
lization, Current Anthropology 30/5, 571-608.
Anthony, D.W. 1990: Migration in archaeology: "the baby and the bathwater", American
Anthropologist 92,895-914.
Brumfiel, E. M. - Earle, T. K. 1987: Specialization, exchange, and complex societies: an intro-
duction, in: M. Brumfiel - T. K. Earle (edd.), Specialization, exchange, and complex
societies. Cambridge, 1-9.
Burmeister, S. 2000: Archaeology and migration, approaches to an archaeological proof of
migration, Current Anthropology 41/4, 539-567.
Fagan, Β. M. 1991: In the beginning: an introduction to archaeology. New York.
Fagan, Β. M. 1999 a: Archaeology, a brief introduction. New Jersey.
Fagan, Β. M. 1999 b: World prehistory, a brief introduction. New York.
Frank A. G. 1993: Bronze Age world system cycles, Current Anthropology 34/4, 383-405.
Harke, H. 1998: Archaeologists and migrations: a problem of attitude?, Current Anthropo-
logy 39/1, 19-45.
Kohl, P. L. 1996: The ancient economy, transferable technologies and the Bronze Age world-
system: A view from the northeastern frontier of the ancient Near East, in: R. W. Prewcel -
I. Hodder (edd.), Contemporary archaeology in theory. Oxford, 143-163.
Koslowski, R. 2002: Human migration and the conceptualization of pre-modern world
politics, International Studies Quarterly 46, 375 -399.
Kottak, C. P. 2001: Anthropolgy, the exploration of human diversity. Tiirkçe çevirisi: Antro-
poloji, insan Çeçitliligine Bir Baki§. Ankara.

Brought to you by | Boston University Library

Authenticated
Download Date | 10/8/14 7:36 AM
Altoriental. Forsch. 32 (2005) 1 73

Lamberg-Karlovsky, C.C. 1975: Third millenium modes o f exchange and modes of pro-
duction, in: J. A. Sabloff - C. C. Lamberg-Karlovsky (edd.), Ancient civilization and trade.
Albuquerque, 341-368.
Lamberg-Karlovsky, C. C. 1996: Beyond the Tigris and Euphrates Bronze Age civilizations.
Beer-Sheva 9· Beer Sheva.
McNeill, W. H. 1987: Migration in premodern times, in: W. Alonso (ed.), Population in an
interacting world. Cambridge, MA.
Özbal et al. 2002: H. Özbal - Ν. Pehlivan - Β. Earl - Β. Gedik, Metallurgy at ikiztepe, in:
Ü. Yalçin (ed.), Anatolian metal II, Der Anschnitt Zeitschrift für Kunst und Kultur im Berg-
bau Beiheft 15, 39 - 47.
Ratnagar S. 2001: The Bronze Age: unique instance of a pre-industrial world system?,
Current Anthropology 42/3, 351-379-
Renfrew, C. 1972: The emergence of civilisation, the Cyclades and the Aegean in the third
millennium B.C. London.
Renfrew, C. 1975: Trade as action at a distance: questions o f integration and communica-
tion, in: J. A. Sabloff - C. C. Lamberg-Karlovsky (edd.), Ancient civilization and trade. Albu-
querque, 3-59·
Renfrew, C. - Bahn, P. 1996: Archaeology: theories, methods and practise. London.
Rouse, I. 1986: Migrations in prehistory, inferring population movement from culturel
remains. New Haven/London.
Rowlands M. 1998: Centre and periphery: a review of a concept, in: M. Rowlands - K. Kristi-
ansen (edd.), Social transformations in archaeology: global and local perspectives.
London, 219-243.
Shennan S. 2000: Population, culture history, and the dynamics of culture change, Current
Anthropology 41/5,811-835.
Trigger, B. G. 1989: A history of archaeological thought. Cambridge.
Wheatley, P. 1971: The pivot of the Four Quarters: a preliminary enquiry into the origins
and character of the ancient Chinese city. Chicago.
White, L.A. 1959: The evolution of culture: the development o f civilization to the fall of
Rome. New York.
Yener, Κ. A. 1983: The production, exchange and utilization of silver and lead metals in
ancient Anatolia: a source identification project, Anatolica 10,1-15.

Brought to you by | Boston University Library

Authenticated
Download Date | 10/8/14 7:36 AM