World Systems, Cores, and Peripheries in Prehistoric Europe

European Journal of Archaeology 16 (3) 2013, 378–400

ANTHONY HARDING Department of Archaeology, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK

The paper reviews the rise and utility of World Systems Theory in archaeology, with particular reference to Europe and the Bronze Age. After a consideration of its origins in the 1970s and 1980s, the main aspects of the theory are discussed. The evidence that shows that the Bronze Age world was highly interconnected is presented, and the implications of a World Systems view of the period considered. In an attempt to work towards a new narrative of the European Bronze Age, a brief discussion of network methods is introduced, since these offer an alternative, ‘bottom-up’, approach to the period which, it is argued, is more appropriate to the data than the World Systems approach.

Keywords: World Systems Theory, World-Systems Analysis, Core-Periphery Theory, Bronze Age, Europe, network analysis

INTRODUCTION most familiar, and also the one within which some of the most vocal advocates of World Systems Theory or World Systems the theory work. I also restrict myself to the Analysis (WS, WST, or WSA, also written Old World, and mainly Europe, though I as world-systems, and also known as Core- am aware that much has been said and Periphery Theory), has been an important written in the Americas on the topic, and theoretical concern in archaeology for more in the Old World, more specifically on the than thirty years. A host of papers and Near East, where abundant written records books that apply it to a range of archaeolo- providedetailedevidencefortradesystems gical situations have appeared during that between the various cities and states of the 1 time; these have been both in favour of it third and second millennia BC. and opposed to it. The great majority, World Systems Theory (WST) was however, have enthusiastically espoused it, developed as a means of visualizing the while extensive critiques have been much situation of early modern Europe, and fewer, and mostly muted in tone. In this largely the brainchild of Wallerstein paper, I review the rise of the concept (1974), who believed that it was only within archaeology, and consider some of applicable to the capitalist world that the arguments for and against it as an inter- developed in the fifteenth and sixteenth pretative tool with which to further our understanding of the ancient past. In this, I 1. A useful survey of writings on World Systems Theory was will have most to say about the Bronze submitted by Christoph Kümmel as a Masters dissertation for Age, the period with which I myself am Heidelberg University in 1997 (Kümmel, 2001).

© European Association of Archaeologists 2013 DOI 10.1179/1461957113Y.0000000032 Manuscript received 11 September 2012, accepted 16 January 2013, revised 16 December 2012 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 170.106.40.40, on 27 Sep 2021 at 02:30:56, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1179/1461957113Y.0000000032 Harding – World Systems, Cores, and Peripheries in Prehistoric Europe 379

centuries AD. Nonetheless, a series of com- WST provides a mechanism for under- mentators have believed that it can be standing the role of traded commodities in applied to much earlier periods. given situations, both at the macro level of Wallerstein did not have archaeologists exchange between regions (or ‘peoples’)and in mind when he formulated the model, at the micro level of enabling discrimination so it is not surprising that initial appli- within communities through differential cations of it to archaeology met with possession of imported (and thus elite) criticism, on a variety of fronts. We are goods. It has also been used to study social urged by WST enthusiasts: however, not interactions. It is particularly applicable in to take these initial formulations as repre- cases involving long-distance trade and senting his or their considered views thirty exchange. ‘These concepts do provide a or forty years later, but instead to consider general framework within which it is poss- the approach based on refinements that ible to analyse in very precise terms the have been introduced in the subsequent specific conditions in which the relation- decades, and made relevant to archaeology, ships between polities at different levels of particularly prehistoric archaeology (e.g. economic, political or technological devel- Kardulias & Hall, 2008: 577–78). opment did, in specific cases, produce WST is essentially a means of under- changes in those polities’ (Champion, standing, or at least describing, how one 1989b: 10). It is, of course, arguable how area becomes dependent on another, so one is to recognize and define cores and that developments in one will affect the their peripheries, but a working hypothesis other. Specifically, it has been seen as a way would appear to be that they exist where to model the means by which goods and there is a flow of goods between unequal materials moving between the two can partners – unequal in technology, in craft structure not only economic but also social production,and,byimplication,insocial practice. For instance, prestige goods man- and political development. Thus, the move- ufactured in the ‘core’ area can be ment of wine amphorae from the introduced into the ‘periphery’, where they Mediterranean into Gaul and Britain in the may play an important role in articulating Iron Age, or of Etruscan bronze vessels into social divisions. WST would go further; Burgundy or Württemberg, would qualify since economies typically experience cycles as examples of such movement that indi- (in their simplest form, upward and down- cated unequal partners in trade and thus a ward trends, but in more extreme form, ‘world system’ (or part of one). cycles of boom and bust), one might expect to see cyclical patterns in both core and periphery – though not necessarily going in ABRIEF HISTORY OF WST IN OLD the same direction. Kristiansen has WORLD ARCHAEOLOGY suggested just such a set of cycles for the course of the European Bronze Age (Kris- It is usual to mark the start of the appli- tiansen, 1998: 411–17 and elsewhere); cation of WST to archaeological problems Frank (1993) believed that similar cycles with the publication in 1977 of an article were in play during the Early and Middle by Friedman and Rowlands (1977).2 This Bronze Age of the Near East; John Bintliff came hard on the heels of the publication examined the possibility that the existence of such cycles in Iron Age Greece might be 2. According to Hall and Chase-Dunn (1993: 121–22), a conference paper by R.A. Pailes and J.W. Whitecotton in 1975 explicable in terms of Dependency Theory was the first archaeological application (later published as Pailes (DT) or WST (Bintliff, 1997). & Whitecotton, 1979).

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 170.106.40.40, on 27 Sep 2021 at 02:30:56, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1179/1461957113Y.0000000032 380 European Journal of Archaeology 16 (3) 2013

of Wallerstein’s initial formulation of the WST were invited to submit their papers WST model (Wallerstein, 1974). for publication, along with some other Although Friedman and Rowlands do not invited contributors. In this volume, directly refer to that formulation, they papers by several authors presented a view were presumably aware of it; several of the of WST as applied to Near Eastern and elements in the article relate closely to European prehistory, while some papers what has come to be known as core- extended forward in time to the late Iron periphery theory: a focus on the impor- Age and Roman period. tance of the ‘centre’ in a range of In 1985, a conference with a rather archaeological situations, a stress on the similar theme was held in Mainz, orga- movement of raw materials and sumptuary nized by Peter Schauer (like me, a objects, links between centres and ‘sub- member of the Salon des Refuseś of centres’ (Friedman & Rowlands, 1977: Aarhus, but unlike me, a believer in far- 243), and talk of ‘tribal peripheries’ specia- reaching connections across the Old lizing in ‘supplying local products to the World evidenced by similarities in artefact dominant centre in exchange for titles and form), under the title ‘Orientalisch- goods from that centre’ (Friedman & Ägäische Einflüsse in der europäischen Rowlands, 1977: 270). Bronzezeit’ (published as Römisch- At about the same time, Philip Kohl Germanisches Zentralmuseum Mainz, published an article in Current Anthropol- 1990). Schauer had published a series of ogy on trade in south-west Asia in the articles on this theme during the 1980s third millennium BC, in which he made that expanded on the views he had pre- specific reference to Wallerstein’s 1974 sented at Aarhus (Schauer, 1983, 1984, book (Kohl, 1978). Within Europe, 1985). This conference took a thoroughly however, the first event to draw attention traditional approach to the question of to the theory in a major way was a confer- cross-cultural connections, as the pub- ence in 1980 in Aarhus entitled ‘Relations lished papers show. In discussion, the between the Near East, the Mediterranean phrase ‘world systems’ was hardly men- World and Europe – 3rd to 1st Millen- tioned and does not appear in the nium BC’, organized by Rowlands with published proceedings, even though Kris- Kristian Kristiansen and Mogens Trolle tian Kristiansen was present and made Larsen. A wide range of scholars from trenchant criticisms of any papers that different disciplines in archaeology doubted the existence of such connections (including Egyptology and Assyriology) (these remarks were edited out of the pub- and anthropology was present; most lished discussion). (myself included) had an interest in cross- At the inaugural World Archaeological cultural relations in the ancient past, in Congress in 1986, a session was held one form or another. At this meeting, I under the title ‘Comparative Studies in the and several others were introduced to Development of Complex Societies’; this WST; this was new to most of us at that was later published as Centre and Periph- time, but it was soon to become a standard ery: Comparative Studies in Archaeology part of archaeological theory. (Champion, 1989a). Champion’s intro- The Aarhus conference was later pub- duction gave a survey of the field, while lished as Centre and Periphery in the other papers were concerned with various Ancient World (Rowlands et al., 1987); parts of the world, and most covered only those conference speakers who had periods later than prehistoric – again, Iron specifically concerned themselves with Age, Roman, and medieval topics were

included, though most of the authors con- established as a result of intercultural cerned were cautious about a exchange in the Bronze Age world system’ straightforward application of WST to (Kohl, 1987: 21)…‘The Bronze Age world their area. system consisted…of overlapping systems In 1992, a conference was held in that constantly shifted and modified their Bristol under the auspices of the Prehisto- boundaries’ (Kohl, 1987: 27); if Waller- ric Society, entitled ‘Trade and Exchange stein’s model did not fit the ancient world in Prehistoric Europe’ (published as Scarre perfectly, the archaeologist’s task was to & Healy, 1993). This conference was identify the interactions of that world and honoured by the attendance of the distin- understand why they differed from those guished economic historian AndréGunder of more modern times. Frank. At the conference, he and the late The works by Frank seemed to strike a Andrew Sherratt were to be observed in chord with many archaeologists; at any earnest conversation. The following year rate, critiques of it were not numerous, both published major contributions to even though it was very evident that Frank the debate: Frank, an article in Current relied almost entirely on secondary sources Anthropology, which set out a WS for his information about the archaeology approach to the Ancient Near East, and of the periods he was discussing. The cri- also an edited book (with Barry Gills) in tiques by Michael Dietler and Gil Stein which his approach was set out at length; (Dietler, 1998; Stein, 1999, 2002) were Sherratt, his own version of WST among the more vocal and persuasive, applied to the Bronze Age, in what though several other authors have been became the journal of the EAA, as well sceptical to a greater or lesser degree. as an article in the proceedings of the A series of outputs from sociologists Bristol conference – and subsequently started to appear from around 1990, notably other articles on the same theme (Frank, from the pens of Christopher Chase- 1993; Frank & Gills, 1993; Sherratt, Dunn and Thomas Hall (Chase-Dunn & 1993a, 1993b, 1994). Hall, 1991; Hall & Chase-Dunn, 1993), Meanwhile, other scholars had followed two authors who have continued their up the ideas they had formulated pre- advocacy of the application. In 1995, the viously. Another article by Philip Kohl, Journal of World-Systems Research (JWSR) also present at Aarhus in 1980, purported was founded by Christopher Chase-Dunn; to include a critique of WST, but in many of the major players in the field reality this related mainly to those aspects contributed in the years that followed, of Wallerstein’s initial formulation that including some archaeologists. At the were soon adapted in response to a same time, other authors applied WST, number of criticisms (Kohl, 1987). Kohl or versions of it, to other parts of the in fact saw a WS in existence that world (e.g. La Lone, 1994; Peregrine & included Mesopotamia and other ‘central’ Feinman, 1996, among many others). areas, but with areas like Central Asia as Since that time, there seems to have part of the system. Perceptively, he also been something of an unspoken assump- saw the existence of ‘multiple cores’, the tion that WST is a useful model to follow. existence of which indicated a ‘basic dis- Applications have been made to a whole conformity’ between the supposed Bronze range of areas and periods. In the context Age WS and that postulated by Wallerstein of prehistoric Europe, and in particular (Kohl, 1987: 20). ‘Patterns of dependency the Bronze Age, the works of Kristiansen or…interdependency were [thus] have been among the most numerous and

most cited (Kristiansen, 1987, 1994, aspects that DT does not – notably the 1998); scholars such as Nick Kardulias interdependent nature of the link between have also acted as enthusiastic advocates the two parts, and the cyclical nature of for the application of the model (Kardu- the ‘system’. DT would simply imply that lias, 1999b, 1999c, 2007; Kardulias & one area ‘depended’ on another; WST that Hall, 2008). Recent numbers of JWSR the two were inextricably linked, in both have included a number of articles on material and in social terms. archaeological themes, most by archaeolo- A review of the value of the WS gists, but at least one by a political approach was written by Chase-Dunn and scientist (Wilkinson, 2004); this exchange Hall in 1991; several similar articles have of views between scholars working in very appeared from their pens and those of different disciplines has been seen as par- others. Recent articles by Kardulias and ticularly important. Hall (2008) and Kardulias (2009) have Of course, it has not only been archae- reviewed the role of WST (WSA) in ologists who have been interested in the archaeology, including some consideration application of WST to their material. His- of criticisms of the theory. Most recently, torians have also sometimes seen cycles in a volume in memory of Andrew Sherratt the development of cultural systems in has included a series of articles that their particular areas; Barfield (1989), for espouse or criticize WST, in various instance, refers to ‘cycles of power’ in the manners and using a range of different relations between the steppe nomads of case studies (Wilkinson et al., 2011). central Asia and the Chinese kingdoms. Kardulias sets out the position clearly Abu-Lughod (1989) extended the range (Kardulias, 2009: 56): of WST back from the early modern 1. Societies do not now, nor did they in period to the Eurasian world in the pre- the Bronze Age, exist in splendid ceding centuries. isolation. 2. Societal trends follow cycles or patterns. WST and DT According to Kardulias (2009: 56), WSA is a ‘generalizing approach…that Before considering WST in more detail, it forces us to see the forest of external links is worth drawing a distinction between ’ 3 in which individual sites are embedded ;it WST and DT. DT is based on the prin- ‘provides a conceptual framework to com- ciple that there are core polities or states prehend how systems function’. It revolves and peripheral ones, and that resources around the concept of cores and periph- flow from the latter to the former, enrich- eries, however you define them; and it ing one at the expense of the other. DT is involves the concept of a ‘world’, which, concerned with underdeveloped nations in however, is not a global entity but some- the modern world, and the nature of the thing that relates to ‘interacting causes for their continuing underdevelop- politico-economic units’ (citing Waller- ment. While this is clearly related to stein). The main point about all WST WST in general terms, WST includes applications is that they ‘emphasize interaction as central to cultural formation and change’. At the same time, it is possible to 3. A review by Nick Kardulias of my 2000 book European Societies in the Bronze Age rightly criticized me for confusing the modify the basic concepts in order to two theoretical standpoints (Kardulias, 2002). increase their utility; for instance, by

creating the notion of ‘negotiated periph- world, one might apply it, in Sherratt’s erality’, in which ‘people who live in view, to the ‘large-scale core/periphery peripheries or margins can determine the systems that began in the Near East and nature and extent of interaction with core Egypt… in essence to the urban oecumene polities, to at least some degree’ (Kardu- and its supply areas’ (Sherratt, 1993a: 4). lias, 2007: 55). A world-systems Sherratt was critical, however, of the perspective allows ‘consideration of a wider notion of the periphery, preferring instead view’ than just a single culture or area, (following Schneider, 1977) the concept of because ‘the fundamental unit of historical the ‘margin’ (an area beyond the periph- development is not the single society, but ery), and seeing the terms ‘nucleus’ and the entire intersocietal context within ‘margin’ as preferable to ‘core’ and ‘periph- which individual societies exist’ (Chase- ery’–these being descriptive terms with Dunn & Hall, 1993: 85; cited by Flam- little implied deeper meaning. In seeing a mini, 2011: 205). growth in ‘marginal’ trade during the It is the writings of AndréGunder Bronze Age, in particular as far as the Frank that have promoted in its most technological gap was concerned, where extreme form the notion that WST is an ‘escapes’ or ‘time-lag phenomena’ (rather appropriate way to view the remote past. than structural interdependence, Sherratt, According to this view, there was a 1993a: 43) took place from technologically ‘5000-year old World System’, one that more advanced civilizations to less was ‘the one central world system’, that advanced ones, Sherratt was able to extended in ‘unbroken historical continuity develop his notion of a core/periphery/ between the central civilization/world margin system, with new margins forming system of the Bronze Age and our con- to new nuclei (themselves composed of temporary modern capitalist world system’ cores and peripheries). Nevertheless, in (Frank, 1993: 387), and which has alleg- essence Sherratt accepted the idea that edly stayed the same system in spite of ‘catalytic contacts…were responsible for various modifications that it has under- mobilizing the potentialities’ of new pro- gone over the years. Frank appears to have duction systems (Sherratt, 1993a: 18). In believed that any situation in which one particular, the use of bronze as a medium can demonstrate trade connections, and a of exchange was ‘instrumental both in tendency to growth and decline, would allowing the formation of small core/per- qualify for admission into the category of a iphery structures in certain locations world system. within the margin, and in affecting the Other observers, notably Sherratt, pattern of links that grew up between adopted a much more nuanced approach them’ (Sherratt, 1993a:18). His definition to the question. He posed the pertinent of a ‘world system’ in his second paper of question: where there was a ‘technology 1993 indicated that he accepted there was gap’, such as between the advanced civili- such a thing, but that it was rather differ- zations of the East Mediterranean in the ent from that advocated by Frank and Bronze Age and those of continental Gills (Sherratt, 1993b: 252). Europe, and therefore an asymmetry to Kristian Kristiansen had developed his the relationship between the two, was this WST approach to the Bronze Age already the same as a ‘world system’ (Sherratt in the 1980s; his contribution to the 1993a: 4)? By adapting the term and Aarhus conference volume was an initial freeing it from the connotations of attempt at describing the situation, seeing exchange that applied in the early modern the Scandinavian Bronze Age situation as

one based on ritual, power, and prestige, wisdom’ (Kristiansen, 2011: 243). In this with two types of centre/periphery formulation, the incorporation of temper- relationships: regional and local. By 1994, ate Eurasia into a Bronze Age world this had been developed into a much fuller system was linked to the expansion of model, where three ‘structural variants’ in mobile pastoral societies on the steppe, a settlement and society were present in the new perception of family, gender and Bronze and Iron Ages: sedentary centres property, the rise of the male warrior of production and redistribution, warrior chief, and saw also the expansion of societies, and large peasant communities, Indo-European languages, the spread of and — important for the WS point of the war chariot around 2000 BC, and a view — cyclical patterns in settlement and range of institutional and ritual elements inter-community relationships. While that represent the ideological sphere in climate may have had a bearing on these human social life. Here, we move beyond cycles, in particular as far as subsistence the easily assimilable elements of WS production was concerned, equally impor- research, into an area where almost any tant were the creation and use of wealth, element of Bronze Age material culture and the role of exchange. Thus, three pat- can be harnessed to support ever more terns of core/periphery relationship were intangible hypotheses. identified; these suggested ‘regular shifts Many other authors have followed the in dominance through time’ (Kristiansen, WST line, though usually in a less dog- 1994: 23). matic form. Berg, for instance, takes it for Kristiansen’s (1998) book Europe before granted that the Bronze Age Aegean was History depended heavily on the incorpor- home to various world systems: ‘building ation of WST, though it basically develops on the assumption that ancient societies the ideas of the 1994 article. He saw were not qualitatively, but only quantitat- Europe in the Late Bronze Age as covered ively, different from modern capitalist by a series of ‘regional traditions’ forming ones’ (Berg, 1999: 475); her study applies a ‘regional system’ (Kristiansen, 1998: 63– WST to the southern Aegean during the 73). The regional traditions ‘shared certain Middle and Late Bronze Age. Berg dis- prestige goods, and through elite exchange cusses the various trade networks that are shifting patterns of interregional (inter- demonstrably present in the southern national) exchange networks were formed, Aegean, following it with this statement: keeping the system together’ (ibid. 73). A ‘As has become clear from the above pres- series of case studies was deployed to entation, the Southern Aegean system support these ideas; several of them merit consists of a core and a semiperiphery. No detailed consideration but this would periphery could be ascertained within this greatly extend the present discussion. region’ (Berg, 1999: 478). This, it seems Kristiansen’s views on WS continue to to me, epitomizes the approach adopted be promulgated (Kristiansen, 2011), by many WST adherents: identify trade though now the justification for their networks, place them within a WST fra- inclusion is considered unnecessary. ‘The mework, but ignore the need to Bronze Age world-system is a heuristic demonstrate that there was a system of device that allows us to think big and any sort in operation, let alone a ‘world trace the forces of history in their full system’, with the specific conceptual extent…the notion of a Bronze Age baggage that the term brings with it. I world-system becomes an interpretative contend that we simply do not have the frontier that challenges conventional information to show that such a system

existed, even within the Bronze Age concentrating solely on economic factors, Aegean. Similar criticisms were advanced thereby making the periphery merely a by Dietler (1998) and Knappett (2011). passive object to be manipulated by A recent article by Warburton (2011) outside forces (e.g. Dietler, 1998). In part reiterates a WS view of the Bronze Age, this probably stems from the fact that but this view consist largely of assertions WST was founded on a Marxist political about important trade goods (amber, lapis and economic analysis, in which the lazuli, and jade). In European Bronze Age exploitative nature of long-distance terms, nothing is said to justify the notion relations was emphasized.5 of Europe as a periphery to the Aegean.4 This makes it an appropriate time to We are now at a stage where it has consider its utility – and its validity – in become part of accepted archaeological one part of the ancient world to which it dogma that many areas in the later prehis- has been increasingly applied: Bronze Age toric world were part of a World System. Europe. Nevertheless, it is far from the case that all observers of the scene are convinced that WST is a helpful or appropriate way to THE BRONZE AGE WORLD:TOWARDS A view the ancient past: the critiques by NEW NARRATIVE Stein (2002) and Knappett (2011) are particularly trenchant. Knappett, for instance, Internal and external interaction in later points out that WST is a top-down prehistoric Europe approach, focusing on institutions, and ignores the ‘micro-level’, person-to-person ‘ ’ Attempting to understand the nature of type of interaction; it denies the enactive social and political organization within role of material culture, with institutions societies in early Europe raises a series of being materialized in artefacts; and it is questions about how their internal vague in the way it depicts space (e.g. arrangements impinged on the outside what is core and what is periphery). Here, world. Even in the smallest scale societies, the individual has no role; nor do the per- human groups cannot have existed in iso- ipheries (or ‘recipient cultures’ to use ’ lation, if only because maintenance of Stein s formulation: 2002: 905) do any- group size and fitness would have necessi- thing except passively receive influence tated interaction with adjacent groups in from the core. WST also has nothing to order to ensure reproductive success. As say about gender or identity at the level of groups grew larger, such matters will still the individual or group, though it is only have been of concern, though they may fair to point out that Kardulias has tackled have been easier to satisfy. Contact with this problem with some success (2007 and – the outside world, however, is a demon- elsewhere), as have other recent authors strable fact in most areas of later so it would not be fair to characterize all prehistoric Europe, since materials and WST supporters as being tarred with the artefacts can frequently be shown to original Wallerstein brush. Michael emanate from areas other than those in Dietler has criticized WST for which they were found. This contact appears to increase in 4. This author’s lack of familiarity with the European scene is extent and importance as the later evident from his mention of ‘massive importations of amber into the Mycenaean area’ (2011: 129, Fig. 10:8), and his equation of jadeite axes in the western Europe Neolithic with jade in China. 5. This insight was kindly provided by an anonymous reviewer.

millennia BC pass. While in the Neolithic, independently invented, and for which the the main archaeologically preserved material was in any case derived from the materials moved were stone (for axes and Baltic. blades) and shells (for ornaments), in the Since the 1980s, when most of these Bronze and Iron Ages, a whole series of works appeared, there have been many materials were moved around: most new finds, which lend support to the idea notably metals, but also such other that there were numerous connections that materials as coral, amber, or glass. It is linked distant parts of Europe. The dis- also in these periods (third–first millennia covery of a large sewn plank boat in Dover BC) that the great palace civilizations of in 1992 shed new light on the question of the East Mediterranean area developed, sea voyages in the Bronze Age – whether and later the states or proto-states of the or not the boat was used to cross the central Mediterranean. This led to a English Channel. The fragment of an notable phenomenon: the requirement for oxhide ingot in a German hoard is not a large quantities of raw materials for the new find, but its recognition sheds intri- complex societies of the south and east, guing light on the question of metal principally but by no means exclusively circulation. A hoard on the northern metals. The need for these minerals is shores of the Sea of Marmara, containing obvious in a society involved in the double-axes, a Mycenaean sword hilt, and large-scale use of metal, but less so was an oxhide ingot, suggests that contact with the requirement for exotic materials such the Black Sea was an important part of as amber or lapis lazuli, or even special the east Mediterranean trade network, as woods: for instance, a large piece of do certain objects on the Uluburun ship. African blackwood (ebony) was discovered Other finds in England are also intriguing: on the Uluburun shipwreck (Bass et al., notably, the gold cup from Ringlemere in 1989: 9–10, Fig. 17). Kent, one of a group of high-status vessels It is now impossible to doubt that the that cluster in north-west Europe, recently Bronze Age world was an interconnected (March 2012) joined by a gold cup from one. It has long been appreciated that Montecchio Emilia in north Italy that communities in the European Bronze Age appears to be very similar to that found at were connected by economic (commercial) Fritzdorf in the Rhineland in 1954 (von factors and – on some level at least – by Uslar, 1955; Needham et al., 2006).6 New social factors as well. This is an area that amber spacer-plate finds have also recently has been the subject of debate for many been made and finds on the sea-bed off years; the different positions adopted can Salcombe in Devon strongly suggest the be seen from the works of Jan Bouzek, movement of metals across the Channel Peter Schauer, Kristian Kristiansen, and (the most recent group including ingots of me (e.g. Harding, 1984; Bouzek, 1985, tin and copper, almost certainly from the 1994; Kristiansen, 1994). In fact, there were always points of agreement between 6. This find is also not yet published; accounts derived from the all observers; for instance, on the existence Soprintendenza of Reggio-Emilia can be found at http://www. of an ‘amber route’ linking the Baltic, beniculturali.it/mibac/export/MiBAC/sito-MiBAC/Contenuti/ southern England, central Europe, and MibacUnif/Comunicati/visualizza_asset.html_1180997707.html [accessed 30 January 2013], or in an English translation at Greece, especially for the unique amber http://www.archeobo.arti.beniculturali.it/montecchio_re/gold_cu spacer-plates that represent an artefact p_en.htm [accessed 30 January 2013]. The precise significance of this remarkable find has yet to be elucidated, but must surely type that can only have been copied from indicate a further link in the chain of connections across one area to another, and not Europe as early as the Early Bronze Age.

Devon/Cornwall metal sources). This is to of the disc is argued to be Cornish (Haus- say nothing of the amber beads with tein et al., 2010), and most recently, the engraved Linear B symbols from Bern- gold fits best with a Cornish signature as storf, Bavaria, which are controversial well (Ehser et al., 2011), suggesting that because of their nature and their find cir- connections implied by other means had a cumstances (though the gold finds from reality in material transfers. the same place have an unimpeachable These new finds and discoveries join a provenance) (references to all these finds series of objects that have repeatedly been can be found in Harding, 2007.7). A new discussed in the literature, without any study of amber in the Mycenaean world consensus being reached. These include, reinforces these links (Czebreszuk, 2011), for instance, the Mycenaean bronze cup while its importance in the central Medi- from Dohnsen, Lower Saxony (Sprockh- terranean has recently been examined in off, 1961; Matthäus, 1977–78), or the detail by Italian scholars (Radina & finds of Cypriot daggers or double-axes of Recchia, 2010). The importance of cross- Aegean type. The evidence of similarities Channel links has also been emphasized in artwork are more difficult to assess, but by Stuart Needham, who coined the term Wolfgang David has convincingly demon- ‘maritory’ to express the geographical strated close parallelism between the ‘system’ that bound together coasts and spiral-related designs on Aegean objects of islands in a common interaction sphere the Shaft Grave period and designs on (‘high-flux sphere of maritime interaction’, bone and metal in the Carpathian Basin with a ‘set of shared and reciprocal inter- (David, 1997). While in most cases there ests’) (Needham, 2009:19, Fig. 2.3). This can be no certainty about the date at is just the latest expression of a long-held which they were introduced into the areas view that there were many links across the where they were found, taken as a whole, English Channel; the cups in precious their evidence might be thought to materials are the most eloquent expression provide powerful indications of the move- of those links. ment of objects and designs across the The most spectacular find of recent European continent. years, the Himmelsscheibe (Sky Disc) from It is not only linkages between the Nebra, central Germany (Meller, 2010), Mediterranean and continental European also brings information in this area. worlds that are involved; many connec- Opinions differ on the origin of the con- tions can be seen in objects moving across cepts seen on the disc8 and can hardly be different parts of the continent. An object conclusive, but on the question of the like the Balkåkra drum shows clear con- origin of the metals used, there are clear nections both in technology (manufacture) pointers towards a long-distance move- and arguably also in symbolism between ment of materials. The tin in the bronze the Carpathian Basin, where it was probably made, and the Nordic area, where it was found (Knape & Nordström, 1994). 7. The new Salcombe finds are not yet published, but can be viewed at http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/02/ This curious object joins a series of other photogalleries/100224-shipwreck-bronze-age-treasure-salcombe- items, notably swords, from the Nordic britain-pictures/, among other websites. Early Bronze Age that seem to be closely 8. Kristiansen (2011: 245), for instance, links the disc to ‘complex astronomic and cosmological knowledge.[which] prob- connected to, if not derived from, the Car- ably originated in the Near East, where the sun and moon are pathian Basin. The study of many often displayed on seals, but in Europe it was wedded to a shared Indo-European religion, that placed the sun-cult and its individual classes of object has shown a practitioners in a milieu of dual gods’. wide dispersal of particular types; in other

words, there were channels through which tumuli on the Grosse Heide at Ripdorf objects moved, no doubt facilitated by (Uelzen) in Lower Saxony (Geschwinde, existing social networks. 2000). The potential of this type of analy- People transported these objects, of sis is obvious, especially if it can be allied course, but many individuals moved their to stable isotope work. place of residence during their lifetime as well. Initially, such scientific studies were restricted to the Beaker period, e.g. in World systems versus local systems southern Germany (Price et al., 2004) or southern England (Evans et al. 2006; To show that the links across Europe Fitzpatrick, 2011), where the well-known were systematic (sensu world systems), we ‘Amesbury Archer’ has been shown to need more than the demonstration that have been born somewhere in central they existed. There must be a presump- Europe. More recently, it has been shown tion that there was mutual knowledge that of 38 individuals studied at the Late between core and periphery (and that the Bronze Age cemetery of Neckarsulm core was dominant, influencing the per- (Baden-Württemberg) – all young males – iphery); that exchange brought about twelve have isotopic signatures different social and economic change; that there from that of the local area: in other words, were cycles of relative boom and relative they were born elsewhere and moved to bust in the system; and that all these the area where they died at some stage things were linked. Wallerstein (1974) during their life (J. Wahl in Knöpke, was interested in, inter alia, the emer- 2009: 339–45; Price & Wahl, forthcom- gence of capitalism in the early modern ing). On the other hand, similar work on world, with the assumption that trade individuals from the Early Bronze Age resulted in a profit for those taking part cemetery at Singen, near Konstanz on in it; it seems to me inappropriate to Lake Constance (Bodensee), produced no bring this aspect into a consideration of evidence for mobility in the individuals the prehistoric world, though of course analysed (Oelze et al., 2012), so some matters such as prestige or status could people stayed put. well be involved. This isotopic evidence can be supported Proving interaction on this level, though by study of artefacts in particular contexts. crucial in any assessment of the debate, is A seminal and much-cited article by Jock- not as simple a matter as has often been enhövel (1991) isolated what he termed claimed. Certainly, there is not just one ‘fremde Frauen’, that is, women moving in way of interpreting the evidence; there are marriage between adjacent groups as alternative ways of visualizing the societies defined by characteristic dress ornaments of later prehistory in Europe. To begin placed in graves. This has a bearing on with, it is necessary to get a handle on the personal identity, but what is noteworthy scale of communities at different stages of here is the information on the size of the the past, and if possible, obtain some idea groupings who used similar ornaments – a of the extent to which they were open core area some 100 km across is suggested, systems rather than closed ones. For this, with a ‘halo’ or periphery outwards up to extensive and detailed information on another 50 km from the centre (i.e. total settlement patterns is needed, along with radius 100 km). This suggestion has been the best available data on artefact form enthusiastically followed up by a number and provenance. Modern techniques are of scholars: for instance, in a study of able to provide such information; the best

modern studies of settlement and land- point was made for Classical Greece in scape give unrivalled quality and quantity relation to southern Italy by Whitehouse of data (e.g. Bjorhem & Säfvestad, 1993; and Wilkins (1989). Another part of it Arnoldussen & Fokkens, 2008). Prove- stems from the desire for a grand narrative nance studies coupled with sensitive with which to tell a ‘story’ of the Bronze artefact analysis have already solved many Age. We may certainly see scope for tra- aspects of ancient production and distri- vellers’ tales playing a role, and for the bution, and the detailed study of artefacts importance of exotic knowledge derived in particular contexts has provided remark- from travels to distant lands; but neither able information on gender and identity of these things – so important in the nar- (e.g. Sørensen, 1997; Bergerbrant, 2007). rative put forward by Kristiansen and The study of local context is important Larsson (2005) – can be more than specu- for another reason, one that represents a lative ideas. major objection to the application of WST to prehistoric societies: the removal of autonomy from ‘peripheral’ communities The implications of a WST view of the in the mindset of modern observers. If Bronze Age peripheries were dependent on cores, and owed their social and economic develop- If one follows a WST view of the Bronze ment to those cores, they become little Age, among the implications are these: more than puppets whose strings were • pulled by elites from the core areas. A social change was brought about in the similar objection has been raised by both periphery; • Dietler (1998) and Joseph Maran (2011; these changes and movements had a Maran & Stockhammer, 2012). There is cyclical nature. no reason why we should consider such dependence to have existed as the default Social change position: in some instances, interaction Much work has been done in recent years may have mutated into interdependence, on social reconstruction, mainly from but as the general rule, this assumption is burials, but also from settlement patterns unwarranted. and artefact distributions. While some of One can argue that the view of Bronze this work is highly speculative, the increas- Age Europe as a system with a developed ing complexity of society can be judged core and a dependent, undeveloped per- from the provision of grave-goods over the iphery stems in part from a particular view centuries of the Bronze Age. Not merely of the developed technological, social, and the number of artefacts, but the combi- economic status of the East Mediterra- nations in which they occur, can indicate nean, and specifically the Aegean. Part of the presence of (for instance) warriors – this probably goes back to what Henrik and indeed, certain types of warrior – Thrane perceptively called the ‘Mycenaean craftspeople, possibly shamans or religious fascination’ (Thrane, 1990), the wonder leaders, and others, as well as provide with which the glories of Minoan and information on kinship, gender, and per- Mycenaean Greece are held by most sonal identity. The move towards social observers, and the desire to see elements complexity came to have, during the first of those civilizations percolating to even half of the second millennium BC, the darkest corners of Europe. A similar an unstoppable momentum, and most

commentators have seen the origin of this the result of rising lake levels in the mid- movement through local circumstances, second millennium BC (e.g. Furger in perhaps allied to the role of trade and Ammann et al., 1977: 32–35), though exchange in facilitating the acquisition of this may not in itself be an adequate relevant technologies. explanation. For a start, the lack of sites The most important element in politi- on the lakes, as compared with a devel- cal development in the Middle and Late oped settlement pattern in the mountain Bronze Age was the rise of forts (their valleys, suggest a more complex pattern appearance in the Early Bronze Age in that was brought about by human action. central Europe does not seem to have led The explanation for the break in tell to long-term effects); the apparently ter- settlement in Hungary, which is accom- ritorial nature of their distribution panied by the deposition of Koszider-style suggests the existence of a quasi-political bronze hoards, can equally be explained organization that in the Iron Age led to in terms of human action – indeed, defined tribal territories, as known from hostile invasions have usually been seen classical authors. There is no reason to as the most likely explanation for their see this as linked to long-distance deposition (Mozsolics, 1957; Gimbutas, contact; all the necessary prerequisites 1965: 281–83). One should not forget, (increasing population and elite leader- however, the role of environmental ship) were present in local communities change in influencing the location of by around 1200 BC. settlements, though I would argue that this was rarely the sole reason for change in settlement patterns. Cyclical change The largest disjunction in cultural terms Kristiansen pointed to complementary in the whole of the Bronze Age was that ‘ups’ and ‘downs’ in the archaeological seen in the thirteenth century BC, some- record when one compares the sequence thing that affected most of Europe and in the Mediterranean with that in the the Mediterranean area. Kimmig (1964) European inland (Kristiansen, 1998: 412– associated the rise of the Urnfield cultures 17). In this, notable interruptions or hia- in Europe with the disruption in the East tuses are important: for instance, the end Mediterranean brought about by (among of Hungarian tells at the time of the Kos- others) the Sea Peoples; Bouzek (1969: zider horizon, when there was a marked 84–85, Abb. 31) presented a graph phase of hoard deposition, the apparent showing a decline in the number of sites disappearance of lakeside settlement on in Greece complementary to a rise in the Swiss lakes in the Middle Bronze numbers in central Europe. We know now Age (and its reappearance in the Late that this period is one where there is a Bronze Age), or the major change affect- curious concentration of radiocarbon dates ing much of Europe in the thirteenth by comparison with periods before and century BC (the start of the Urnfield after, that is to say many sites in central period). and eastern Europe have produced dates In reality, the question revolves around in the time bracket 3100–2900 BP, our interpretation of ambiguous or strongly suggesting that there was a major ‘missing’ evidence, as is so often the case event or series of events at that time. in archaeology. The missing Swiss lake Whether or not the Urnfield cultures rep- sites have sometimes been claimed to be resent the arrival of new peoples (as many

have claimed), it is certainly true that such as Knappett have indicated some of major changes were occurring across the the ways in which network approaches can continent. Here, one may certainly see a shed light on interaction in the ancient connection between events in the Medi- world (Knappett et al., 2008; Knappett, terranean and those in the continental 2011).9 The influence of this school of interior, but there is no reason to think thought can be seen, for instance, in a that this is part of a cycle of such disrup- recent volume on local societies in north- tive occurrences; rather, it seems on ern Europe (Anfinset & Wrigglesworth, present evidence to have been a one-off 2012), though in a Scandinavian context phenomenon that had profound conse- it was foreshadowed some years ago (e.g. quences for cultural development across Johansen et al., 2004). the continent. WST is a ‘top-down’ approach, looking to identify interactions on a large canvas. Network methods work at the small scale, Networks looking for nodes and links at the level of individual members of a framework. The WST as applied to ancient societies is a contrast between the broad brush approach study of networks of interaction, though of WST and the micro-scale analysis of the idea was conceived before modern network analysis could not be more dra- network theory had taken off. While matic. But which – if either – represents network methods are only one way of the better model with which to understand viewing interaction in the ancient world, how the ancient world worked? This they have become increasingly important depends, of course, on your personal pre- as a way to model interactions in ancient ference, but I would argue that the latter is (as well as modern) societies. Networks truest to the data, in the sense that it have become a popular research pers- starts from the data and builds the model pective in many disciplines (Brughmans, upwards from it, rather than imposing a 2012), with a specific vocabulary that can model downwards from above. be used to describe networks in the brain, In this way, one can examine individual in insect colonies, or the world economy; pieces of data (pace Kristiansen & Larsson, in part this can be traced to the influential 2005: 17–20, who state that this is pre- work of Latour on Actor-Network theory cisely what one should not do), identify (Latour, 2005), though his concerns possible links between them, and then were rather different. ‘Network-based isolate the nodes into and through which approaches assume that the relationships the links pass. It is ironic that while these between entities like people, objects or authors regard the study of individual ideas matter…relationships between enti- objects as a flawed method of understand- ties should be examined explicitly if we are ing the past, insisting instead that we to understand the behaviour of these enti- concentrate on the big picture (taking a ties’ (Brughmans, 2012: 3). A number of ‘contextual or holistic overview’), one of articles and books have appeared in the the main ways in which Kristiansen last few years exploring this approach, as Brughmans indicates, but all these authors 9. A conference held in Southampton in March 2012 made would agree that the methods are at an much progress in developing network theory in archaeology: early stage and have some way to go ‘The Connected Past: people, networks and complexity in archaeology and history’ (http://connectedpast.soton.ac.uk/, before they can displace more conventional accessed 30 January 2013). In addition, a book on the subject ways of thinking. The work of scholars edited by Knappett is in press (Knappett, forthcoming).

Figure 1. Distribution of amber beads of types Tiryns and Allumiere as presented by Negroni Catac- chio (1999), redrawn with suggested nodes and network routes. The large circle in northern Italy represents Frattesina.

(1998) validates the supposed Bronze Age worked into finished objects and (prob- world system is through the study of dis- ably) exported, including ivory, glass and tribution patterns – in other words, the amber. It is the amber that provides the patterns formed by exactly those individual clearest picture (Figure 1). objects which in themselves are not It is likely that the characteristic amber regarded as worthy of detailed attention. bead types known as the Tiryns and Allu- Here it is only fair to point out that Kris- miere types were made at Frattesina, and tiansen has in fact undertaken a great deal the distribution of these forms indicates of work on artefacts, but his approach to the importance of the sea as a linking an understanding of them differs from factor. There are examples of both types at mine, as this article makes clear. One Frattesina, along with lumps of unworked must also remember that some authors raw material (Negroni Catacchio, 1972), who espouse WST have adopted very while the distribution of beads of this much the procedure I am recommending form ranges far and wide through Italy, here (e.g. Kardulias, 1999a). Sardinia, Dalmatia and Greece, with iso- In identifying links, we need of course lated pieces in Switzerland, the Near East to have regard to what we know about and – most remarkably – a considerable workshops, in other words, where objects quantity in the kurgans at Hordeevka in were actually manufactured, before exam- Ukraine (Berezanskaja & Klocko,̌ 1998; ining where their products ended up. This Negroni Catacchio, 1999). But only Frat- is easier said than done. I propose to take tesina has the evidence for actual just one example: the Protovillanovan site production; most of the finds are isolated of Frattesina in the Po valley in northern examples (the Tiryns ‘wheels’ are an Italy, where a range of materials were obvious exception: Harding, 1984: 83–84,

Figure 2. Distribution of Vollgriffschwerter of types Weltenburg and Morigen,̈ according to H. Müller-Karpe, with circles indicating supposed chiefly centres as added by Kristiansen (1998:164, Fig. 83) (redrawn). The circles are said to indicate political catchment areas, the swords representing ‘a select group of prestige objects which all cluster in the same areas, representing cultural and political centres’.

Fig 22, with full references), usually in of such beads in recent decades, it will graves. come as no surprise to find more examples Seen in this light, Frattesina represents around the Aegean, capable of answering a primary node, being ideally placed to that question. oversee the distribution of amber to north, That the disagreement with Kristiansen south-west, south, south-east, and east. is not as drastic as has been suggested can Sites near Rome, and Piazza Monfalcone be gauged from considering some of the on Lipari, might be nodes in the distri- details in his 1998 book. In that work, to bution to west and east. In Greece, the take a single example, Figure 83 (here discovery of a number of Tiryns beads on redrawn as Figure 2) is said to depict Kephalonia might indicate a nodal point chiefly centres from northern Italy to there; after that, perhaps Ialysos on northern Europe, in the form of the distri- Rhodes. Through which node the beads bution of two particular varieties of sword; reached Ukraine is not clear at present, the image is taken direct from the work of but given the increasing number of finds Müller-Karpe (1961: Karte 7, Taf. 98).

While the interpretation is open to ques- and the information derived from a con- tion on purely empirical grounds,10 the stant stream of new finds, a remarkably identification of ‘centres’ is in essence the detailed – and plausible – picture of the same as identifying ‘nodes’. What Kris- Bronze Age world can be obtained. One tiansen (1998) has in fact done is to can point to many areas of Europe where identify potential ways of visualizing the all aspects of the living system are present: networks of interaction that characterized settlement, burial, subsistence agriculture, the period; in other words, the method and industry (e.g. bronze metallurgy). Seen actually proceeds from the objects and in this light, one can argue that such ‘small attempts to see how larger socio-political worlds’ are what most people experienced structures might be identified from their rather than the ‘big world’ of the travellers character and situation. and traders. This ‘bottom-up’ approach has the great The need for overarching, pan-European advantage of sticking closely to the artefac- narratives thus becomes less important; tual base (the ‘data’), and of being instead, the narrative of the local, and of modified (‘tested’) through new finds. the links that connected the local to the What it also enables is a means of contex- regional and beyond, takes on extra signifi- tualizing the objects in their home setting, cance. While world views (if not systems) prior to placing them within a wider have their place in the study of prehistoric framework. societies, regional studies are both simpler and founded on more secure evidence. If one wishes to model such societies in core/ periphery terms, the local perspective might Small worlds versus large worlds lead to a view of Europe as a series of individual core areas, each with its own In order to understand the nature of inter- ‘periphery’; even then, one might debate actions in the Bronze Age, one needs first the extent to which such a periphery was to contextualize them, which means under- interdependent with the core in more than standing the nature of the local societies in a transient and coincidental fashion. In a which they operated. In part, this means geographical sense, peripheries of course looking at individual artefacts or groups of existed. But identifying true cores is the artefacts; in part, setting sites in their land- real task, and one which the vagaries of scape context; in part, looking at patterns archaeological research and preservation in grave-goods and deposition mode. The make rather difficult. This is no counsel of combination of this variety of modern tech- despair, however; the sophistication of so niques has been shown to be capable of much that is carried out today shows how creating a detailed picture of life and death much has been achieved, and the potential in specific communities. With such studies for so much that will be achieved in the available, and with the progress of research coming years.

10. There are 33 symbols on the map, mostly scattered thinly across this vast area. Kristiansen, however, has drawn circles round five ‘groups’ of swords, of which three contain only two ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS swords, not found especially close together. The other two groups are those centred on the Bologna region of Italy, and on Lac Lemań in west Switzerland. Of these, it is certainly true I thank Janet Levy, Kristian Kristiansen, that Bologna has a special claim to be considered an important Peter Wells, and Carl Knappett for com- area, but the deposition of bronzes in Swiss lake sites is another matter altogether, and has been the subject of intense specu- ments on an earlier draft of this article lation (most recently, Fischer, 2010, 2011). and Nick Kardulias and three other

(anonymous) reviewers, as well as Robin Bjorhem, N. & Säfvestad, U. 1993. Fosie IV. Skeates, for helpful suggestions (mostly Bebyggelsen under brons- och järnalder. ̈ ̈ ̈ incorporated in the final version) and Malmo: Malmo Museer. Malmofynd 6. Bouzek, J. 1969. Homerisches Griechenland im pointers to additional items of bibli- Lichte der archäologischen Quellen. Prague: ography. I also thank Kristian Kristiansen, Universita Karlova. Acta Universitatis Michael Dietler, and Joseph Maran for Carolinae Philosophica et Historica, providing me with articles prior to publi- Monographia 29. cation or otherwise unavailable to me. Bouzek, J. 1985. The Aegean, Anatolia and Europe: Cultural Interrelations in the Second Millennium B.C. Prague and Göteborg: Academia/Paul Åström. REFERENCES Bouzek, J. 1994. Late Bronze Age Greece and the Balkans: A Review of the Present Abu-Lughod, J.L. 1989. Before European Picture. Annual of the British School at Hegemony. The World System A.D. 1250– Athens, 89:217–34. 1350. Oxford and New York: Oxford Brughmans, T. 2012. Thinking through University Press. Networks: a Review of Formal Network Ammann, B., Furger, A.R., Joos, M. & Methods in Archaeology. Journal of Liese-Kleiber, H. 1977. Die neolithischen Archaeological Method and Theory, 19. Ufersiedlungen von Twann, Band 3. Der Champion, T.C. ed. 1989a. Centre and bronzezeitliche Einbaum und die nachneo- Periphery: Comparative Studies in lithischen Sedimente. Bern: Staatlicher Archaeology. London: Routledge. One Lehrmittelverlag. World Archaeology. Anfinset, N. & Wrigglesworth, M. eds. 2012. Champion, T.C. 1989b. Introduction. In: Local Societies in Bronze Age Northern T.C Champion, ed. Centre and Periphery. Europe. Sheffield: Equinox. Comparative Studies in Archaeology. Arnoldussen, S. & Fokkens, H. eds. 2008. London: Unwin Hyman. One World Bronze Age Settlements in the Low Archaeology 11, pp. 1–21. Countries. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Chase-Dunn, C. & Hall, T.D. eds. 1991. Barfield, T.J. 1989. The Perilous Frontier. Core/Periphery Relations in Precapitalist Nomadic Empires and China, 221 BC to Worlds. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. AD 1757. Cambridge MA and Oxford: Chase-Dunn, C. & Hall, T.D. 1993. Blackwell. Studies in Social Discontinuity. Comparing World-Systems: Concepts and Bass, G.F., Pulak, C., Collon, D. & Working Hypotheses. Social Forces, Weinstein, J. 1989. The Bronze Age 71:851–86. Shipwreck at Ulu Burun: 1986 Campaign. Czebreszuk, J. 2011. Bursztyn w kulturze American Journal of Archaeology, 93:1–29. mykeńskiej. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Berezanskaja, S.S. & Klocko,̌ V.I. 1998. Das Poznańskie. Gräberfeld von Hordeevka. Rahden/Westf.: David, W. 1997. Altbronzezeitliche Verlag Marie Leidorf GmbH. Archäologie Beinobjekte des Karpatenbeckens mit in Eurasien, Band 5. Spiralwirbel- oder Wellenbandornament Berg, I. 1999. The Southern Aegean System. und ihre Parallelen auf der Peloponnes und Journal of World-Systems Research, 5:475–84. in Anatolien in frühmykenischen Zeit. In: Bergerbrant, S. 2007. Bronze Age Identities: P.I. Roman, ed. The Thracian World at the Costume, Conflict and Contact in Northern Crossroads of Civilizations I (Proceedings of Europe 1600–1300 BC. Lindome: the Seventh International Congress of Bricoleur Press. Stockholm Studies in Thracology, Constanţa-Mangalia-Tulcea Archaeology 43. 1996).Bucharest:InstitutulRomânde Bintliff, J.L. 1997. Regional Survey, Tracologie, pp. 247–305. Demography, and the Rise of Complex Dietler, M. 1998. Consumption, Agency, and Societies in the Ancient Aegean: Cultural Entanglement: Theoretical Core-Periphery, Neo-Malthusian, and Implications of a Mediterranean Colonial Other Interpretive Models. Journal of Field Encounter. In: J.G. Cusick, ed. Studies Archaeology, 24:1–38. in Culture Contact: Interaction, Culture

Change and Archaeology. Carbondale: Göttinger Schriften zur Vor- und Southern Illinois University, Center for Frühgeschichte, 27. Archaeological Investigations, Occasional Gimbutas, M. 1965. Bronze Age Cultures in Paper 25, pp. 288–315. Central and Eastern Europe. The Hague: Ehser, A., Borg, G. & Pernicka, E. 2011. Mouton and Co. Provenance of the Gold of the Early Hall, T.D. & Chase-Dunn, C. 1993. The Bronze Age Nebra Sky Disk, Central World-Systems Perspective and Germany: Geochemical Characterization Archaeology: Forward into the Past. Journal of Natural Gold from Cornwall. European of Archaeological Research, 1:121–43. Journal of Mineralogy, 23:895–910. Harding, A. 1984. The Mycenaeans and Evans, J.A., Chenery, C.A. & Fitzpatrick, A. Europe. London: Academic Press. P. 2006. Bronze Age Childhood Harding, A. 2007. Interconnections between Migration of Individuals near Stonehenge, the Aegean and Continental Europe in Revealed by Strontium and Oxygen the Bronze and Early Iron Ages: Moving Isotope Tooth Enamel Analysis. beyond Scepticism. In: I. Galanaki, Archaeometry, 48:309–21. H. Tomas, Y. Galanakis & R. Laffineur, Fischer, V. 2010. Les bronzes en contexte pala- eds. Between the Aegean and Baltic Seas: fittique sur les rives du Lemań et des Prehistory across Borders (Proceedings of the Trois-Lacs (Suisse occidentale). Doctoral International Conference Bronze and Early thesis, Facultédes Sciences, Universitéde Iron Age Interconnections and Contemporary Genève. Geneva: Atelier d’impression Developments between the Aegean and the ReproMail. Regions of the Balkan Peninsula, Central Fischer, V. 2011. The Deposition of Bronzes and Northern Europe, Zagreb April 2005). at Swiss Lakeshore Settlements: New Liège and Austin: University de Liège and Investigations. Antiquity, 85:1298–311. University of Austin at Texas. Aegaeum Fitzpatrick, A.P. 2011. The Amesbury Archer 27, pp. 47–56. and the Boscombe Bowmen - Bell Beaker Haustein, M., Gillis, C. & Pernicka, E. Burials at Boscombe Down, Amesbury, 2010. Tin Isotopy – a New Method for Wiltshire. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Wessex Solving Old Questions. Archaeometry, Archaeology, Report 27. 52:816–32. Flammini, R. 2011. Northeast Africa and the Jockenhövel, A. 1991. Räumliche Mobilität Levant in Connection: a World-Systems von Personen in der mittleren Bronzezeit Perspective on Interregional Relationships des westlichen Mitteleuropa. Germania, in the Early Second Millennium BC. In: 69:49–62. T.C. Wilkinson, S. Sherratt & J. Bennet, Johansen, K.L., Laursen, S.T. & Holst, M.K. eds. Interweaving Worlds: Systemic 2004. Spatial Patterns of Social Interactions in Eurasia, 7th to 1st millennia Organization in the Early Bronze Age BC. Papers from a Conference in Memory of of South Scandinavia. Journal of Professor Andrew Sherratt. Oxford: Oxbow Anthropological Archaeology, 23:33–55. Books, pp. 205–17. Kardulias, P.N. 1999a. Flaked Stone and the Frank, A.G. 1993. Bronze Age World Role of the Palaces in the Mycenaean System Cycles. Current Anthropology, World-System. In: W.A. Parkinson & 34:383–429. M.L. Galaty, eds. Rethinking Mycenaean Frank, A.G. & Gills, B.K. eds. 1993. The Palaces: New Interpretations of an Old Idea. World System: Five Hundred Years or Five Los Angeles: UCLA Institute of Thousand? London: Routledge. Archaeology, pp. 61–71. Friedman, J. & Rowlands, M.J. 1977. Notes Kardulias, P.N. 1999b. Multiple Levels in the towards an Epigenetic Model of the Aegean Bronze Age World-System. In: P. Evolution of ‘Civilization’. In: J. Friedman N. Kardulias, ed. World-Systems Theory in & M.J. Rowlands, eds. The Evolution of Practice. New York and Oxford: Rowman Social Systems. London: Duckworth, pp. & Littlefield, pp. 179–201. 201–78. Kardulias, P.N. ed. 1999c. World-Systems Geschwinde, M. 2000. Die Hügelgräber auf der Theory in Practice. Leadership, Production Grossen Heide bei Ripdorf im Landkreis and Exchange. Lanham/Oxford: Rowman Uelzen. Wachholtz: Neumünster. & Littlefield Publishers.

Kardulias, P.N. 2002. Review of European Kristiansen, K. 1987. Center and Periphery in Societies in the Bronze Age,byAF Bronze Age Scandinavia. In: Harding. American Antiquity, 67:582–83. M. Rowlands, M.T. Larsen & Kardulias, P.N. 2007. Negotiation and K. Kristiansen, eds. Centre and Periphery Incorporation on the Margins of in the Ancient World. Cambridge: World-Systems: Examples from Cyprus Cambridge University Press, pp. 74–85. and North America. Journal of Kristiansen, K. 1994. The Emergence of the World-Systems Research, 13:55–82. European World System in the Bronze Kardulias, P.N. 2009. World-Systems Age: Divergence, Convergence and Social Applications for Understanding the Bronze Evolution during the First and Second Age in the Eastern Mediterranean. In: W. Millennia BC in Europe. In: A. Parkinson & M.L. Galaty, eds. Archaic K. Kristiansen & J. Jensen, eds. Europe in State Interaction. The Eastern Mediterranean the First Millennium B.C. Sheffield: J.R. in the Bronze Age.SantaFe:Schoolfor Collis Publications. Sheffield Advanced Research Press, pp. 53–80. Archaeological Monographs 6, pp. 7–30. Kardulias, P.N. & Hall, T.D. 2008. Kristiansen, K. 1998. Europe before History. Archaeology and World-Systems Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. World Archaeology, 40(4):572–83. Kristiansen, K. 2011. Bridging India and Kimmig, W. 1964. Seevölkerbewegung Scandinavia: Institutional Transmission und Urnenfelderkultur. Ein archäologisch- and Elite Conquest during the Bronze historischer Versuch. In: R.V. Uslar & Age. In: T.C. Wilkinson, S. Sherratt & K.J. Narr eds. Studien aus Alteuropa, J. Bennet, eds. Interweaving Worlds: Teil 1.Köln-Graz: Böhlau Verlag, pp. Systemic interactions in Eurasia, 7th to 1st 220–83. millennia BC. Papers from a Conference in Knape, A. & Nordström, H.-Å. 1994. Der Memory of Professor Andrew Sherratt. Kultgegenstand von Balkåkra. Stockholm: Oxford: Oxbow Books, pp. 243–65. Statens Historiska Museum. Museum of Kristiansen, K. & Larsson, T.B. 2005. The National Antiquities, Stockholm, Rise of Bronze Age Society. Travels, Monographs, 3. Transmissions and Transformations. Knappett, C. 2011. An Archaeology of Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Interaction. Network Perspectives on Kümmel, C. 2001. Frühe Weltsysteme: Zentrum Material Culture and Society. Oxford: und Peripherie-Modelle in der Archäologie. Oxford University Press. Rahden/Westfalen: Marie Leidorf. Knappett, C. ed. 2013. Network Analysis in Tübinger Texte, Materialien zur Ur- und Archaeology. New Approaches to Regional Frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie, Band 4. Interaction. Oxford: Oxford University La Lone, D.E. 1994. An Andean World- Press. System: Production Transformations under Knappett, C., Evans, T. & Rivers, R. 2008. the Inka Empire. In: E.M. Brumfiel, ed. Modelling Maritime Interaction in the The Economic Anthropology of the State. Aegean Bronze Age. Antiquity, 82:1009– Lanham & London: University Press of 24. America. Monographs in Economic Knöpke, S. 2009. Der urnenfelderzeitliche Anthropology 11, pp. 17–41. Männerfriedhof von Neckarsulm. Stuttgart: Latour, B. 2005. Reassembling the Social. An Konrad Theiss. Forschungen und Berichte Introduction to Actor-Network Theory. zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte in Baden- Oxford: Oxford University Press. Württemberg 116. Maran, J. 2011. Lost in Translation: The Kohl, P.L. 1978. The Balance of Trade in Emergence of Mycenaean Culture as a Southwestern Asia in the Mid-Third Phenomenon of Globalization. In: T. Millennium B.C. Current Anthropology, C. Wilkinson, S. Sherratt & J. Bennet, 19:463–92. eds. Interweaving Worlds: Systemic inter- Kohl, P.L. 1987. The Use and Abuse of actions in Eurasia, 7th to 1st millennia BC. World Systems Theory: the Case of the Papers from a Conference in Memory of Pristine West Asian State. Advances in Professor Andrew Sherratt. Oxford: Oxbow Archaeological Method and Theory, 11:1–35. Books, pp. 282–94.

Maran, J. & Stockhammer, P.W. eds. 2012 Frontier Relationships. In: W.W. Savage Materiality and Social Practice: & S.I. Thompson, eds. The Frontier: Transformative Capacities of Intercultural Comparative Studies,vol.2.Norman: Encounters. Oxford: Oxbow. University of Oklahoma Press, pp. 105–21. Matthäus, H. 1977–78. Neues zur Bronzetasse Peregrine, P.N. & Feinman, G.M. eds. 1996. aus Dohnsen, Kreis Celle. Die Kunde,28– Pre-Columbian World Systems. Madison: 29:51–69. Prehistory Press. Meller, H. 2010. Nebra: Vom Logos zum Price, T.D., Knipper, C., Grupe, G. & Mythos - Biographie eines Himmelsbildes. Smrcka, V. 2004. Strontium Isotopes and In: H. Meller & F. Bertemes, eds. Der Prehistoric Human Migration: the Bell Griff nach die Sternen. Wie Europas Eliten Beaker Period in Central Europe. zu Macht und Reichtum kamen. European Journal of Archaeology, 7:9–40. Internationales Symposium in Halle (Saale) Price, T.D. & Wahl, J. forthcoming. Local and 16.-21. Februar 2005. Halle (Saale): Foreign Males in a Late Bronze Age Landesmuseum für Vorgeschichte. Cemetery at Neckarsulm. South-Western Tagungen des Landesmuseums für Germany: Strontium Isotope Investigations. Vorgeschichte Halle (Saale) 5, pp. 23–73. Radina, F. & Recchia, G. eds. 2010. Ambra Mozsolics, A. 1957. Archäologische Beiträge per Agamemnone. Indigeni e Micenei tra zur Geschichte der grossen Wanderung. Adriatico, Ionio ed Egeo. Bari: Mario Adda Acta Archaeologica (Budapest), 8:119–56. Editore. Müller-Karpe, H. 1961. Die Vollgriffschwerter Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum Mainz der Urnenfelderzeit aus Bayern. Munich: 1990. Orientalisch-ägäische Einflüsse in der C.H. Beck. europäischen Bronzezeit. Bonn: Habelt. Needham, S. 2009. Encompassing the Sea: Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum ‘Maritories’ and Bronze Age Maritime Mainz, Forschungsinstitut für Vor- und Interactions. In: P. Clark, ed. Bronze Age Frühgeschichte, Monographien 15. Connections. Cultural Contact in Prehistoric Rowlands, M., Larsen, M.T. & Kristiansen, Europe. Oxford: Oxbow Books, pp. 12–37. K. eds. 1987. Centre and Periphery in the Needham, S., Parfitt, K. & Varndell, G. 2006. Ancient World. Cambridge: Cambridge The Ringlemere Cup. Precious Cups and the University Press. New Directions in Beginning of the Channel Bronze Age. Archaeology. London: British Museum. Scarre, C. & Healy, F. eds. 1993. Trade and Negroni Catacchio, N. 1972. La problematica Exchange in Prehistoric Europe: Proceedings dell’ambra nella protostoria italiana: le of a Conference Held at the University of ambre intagliate de Fratta Polesine e le Bristol, April 1992. Oxford: Oxbow rotte mercantili nell’Alto Adriatico. Books. Oxbow Monograph 33. Padusa, 8:1–18. Schauer, P. 1983. Orient im spätbronze- und Negroni Catacchio, N. 1999. Produzione e früheisenzeitlichen Occident. commercio dei vaghi d’ambra tipo Tirinto Kulturbeziehungen zwischen der e tipo Allumiere alla luce delle recenti sco- Iberischen Halbinsel und dem Vorderen perte. In: O. Paoletti, ed. Protostoria e Orient während des späten 2. und des Storia del ’Venetorum Angulus’. Atti del XX ersten Drittels des 1. Jahrtausends v. Chr. Convegno di studi etruschi ed italici, Jahrbuch des Romisch-Germanischen̈ Portogruaro – Quarto d’Altini – Este – Zentralmuseums Mainz, 30:175–94. Adria, 16–19 ottobre 1996. Pisa, Roma: Schauer, P. 1984. Spuren minoisch- Instituti editoriali e poligrafici internazio- mykenischen und orientalischen Einflusses nali, pp. 241–65. in atlantischen Westeuropa. Jahrbuch des Oelze, V.M., Nehlich, O. & Richards, M.P. Romisch-Germanischen̈ Zentralmuseums 2012. ‘There’s No Place like Home’ No Mainz, 31:137–86. Isotopic Evidence for Mobility at the Schauer, P. 1985. Spuren orientalischen und Early Bronze Age Cemetery of Singen, ägäischen Einflusses im bronzezeitlichen Germany. Archaeometry, 54:752–78. Nordischen Kreis. Jahrbuch des Pailes, R.A. & Whitecotton, J.W. 1979. The Romisch-Germanischen̈ Zentralmuseums Greater Southwest and Mesoamerican Mainz, 32:123–95. ‘World’ System: An Explanatory Model of

Schneider, J. 1977. Was there a Pre-Capitalist the Origins of the European World-Economy World-System? Peasant Studies, 6:20–29. in the Sixteenth Century. New York and Sherratt, A. 1993a. What would a Bronze-Age London: Academic Press. Studies in World System Look Like? Relations Social Discontinuity. between Temperate Europe and the Warburton, D.A. 2011. What might the Mediterranean in Later Prehistory. Journal Bronze Age World-System Look Like? of European Archaeology, 1(2):1–57. In: T.C. Wilkinson, S. Sherratt & Sherratt, A. 1993b. ‘Who are you Calling J. Bennet, eds. Interweaving Worlds: Peripheral?’ Dependence and Independence Systemic Interactions in Eurasia, 7th to 1st in European Prehistory. In: C. Scarre & Millennia BC. Papers from a Conference in F. Healy, eds. Trade and Exchange in Memory of Professor Andrew Sherratt. Prehistoric Europe. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Oxford: Oxbow Books, pp. 120–34. Oxbow Monograph 33, pp. 245–55. Whitehouse, R. & Wilkins, D. 1989. Greeks Sherratt, A. 1994. Core, Periphery and and Natives in South-East Italy: Margin: Perspectives on the Bronze Age. Approaches to the Archaeological In: C. Mathers & S. Stoddart, eds. Evidence. In: T.C. Champion, ed. Centre Development and Decline in the and Periphery: Comparative Studies in Mediterranean Bronze Age. Sheffield: J.R. Archaeology. London: Routledge. One Collis Publications, pp. 335–45. World Archaeology, pp. 102–26. Sørensen, M.L.S. 1997. Reading Dress: the Wilkinson, D. 2004. The Power Construction of Social Categories and Configuration Sequence of the Central Identities in Bronze Age Europe. Journal World System, 1500–700 BC. Journal of of European Archaeology, 5:93–114. World-Systems Research, 10:655–720. Sprockhoff, E. 1961. Eine mykenische Wilkinson, T.C., Sherratt, S. & Bennet, J. Bronzetasse von Dohnsen, Kr. Celle. eds. 2011. Interweaving Worlds: Systemic Germania, 39:11–22. Interactions in Eurasia, 7th to 1st millennia Stein, G. 1999. Rethinking World-Systems: BC. Papers from a Conference in Memory of Diasporas, Colonies and Interaction in Uruk Professor Andrew Sherratt. Oxford: Oxbow Mesopotamia. Tucson: University of Books. Arizona Press. Stein, G. 2002. From Passive Periphery to Active Agents: Emerging Perspectives in the Archaeology of Interregional Interaction. American Anthropologist, BIOGRAPHICAL NOTE 104:903–16. Thrane, H. 1990. The Mycenaean Anthony Harding is Professor of Archae- Fascination: A Northerner’s View. In: ology at the University of Exeter, UK (and P. Schauer, ed. Orientalisch-Ägäische previously at the University of Durham). Einflüsse in der europäischen Bronzezeit. His special field of study is the European Ergebnisse eines Kolloquiums vom 16.-19.10.1985 in Mainz. Bonn: Habelt. Bronze Age; he has worked on intercon- Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum nections between the different parts of the Mainz, Monographien 15, pp. 165–79. Bronze Age world, on settlement studies, Von Uslar, R. 1955. Der Goldbecher von – and on warfare in the Bronze Age. He has Fritzdorf bei Bonn. Germania, 33:319 23. conducted fieldwork in Britain, Poland, Wahl, J. 2009. Die menschliche Skelettreste aus dem urnenfelderzeitlichen the Czech Republic, and Romania. His Männerfriedhof von Neckarsulm current research centres on the exploitation ‘Trendpark Süd’. In: Der urnenfelderzeit- of salt in prehistory. liche Männerfriedhof von Neckarsulm. Stuttgart: Konrad Theiss. Forschungen Address: Department of Archaeology, und Berichte zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte in Baden-Württemberg 116, pp. 339–49. University of Exeter, Laver Building, Wallerstein, I. 1974. The Modern North Park Road, Exeter EX4 4QE, UK. World-system. I, Capitalist Agriculture and [email: [email protected]]

Système-monde, centres et periphé rieś en Europe prehistoriqué

Dans cet article on examine la monteé et l’utilite´ du concept du système-monde en archeólogie, plus particulièrement en ce qui concerne l’Europe et l’Âge du Bronze. Après avoir analyse´ ses origines dans les anneés 1970 et 1980, on e´tudie les principaux aspects de cette theórie et on pre´sente les e´le´ments de preuve de´montrant que l’Âge du Bronze e´tait fortement interrelie´. Enfin sont examineés les implications d’une approche de cette pe´riode qui se base sur le concept du système-monde. Afin d’e´tablir une nouvelle vision de l’Âge du Bronze en Europe, une brève explication de la manière de fonctionnement des re´seaux s’impose, car ces me´thodes proposent une approche alternative ‘ascendante’ de la pe´riode qui semble plus approprieé aux donneés que le concept du système-monde. Translation by Isabelle Gerges.

Mots-cle´s: concept du système-monde, analyse du système-monde, theorié du centre et de la per-́ ipherie,́ Âge du Bronze, Europe, analyse des reseaux́

Weltsysteme, Kernzonen und Peripherien im vorgeschichtlichen Europa

Dieser Beitrag betrachtet die Entwicklung und Anwendung der Weltsystem-Theorie in der Archäologie unter besonderer Berücksichtigung Europas und der Bronzezeit. Nach einer Erorterung̈ ihrer Ursprünge in den 1970er und 1980er Jahren werden die wichtigsten Aspekte dieser Theorie diskutiert. Es werden weiterhin die Indizien, dass die bronzezeitliche Welt intensiv vernetzt war, dargelegt sowie die Aus- wirkungen einer Weltsystem-Sicht der Zeitepoche behandelt. Um der Geschichtsschreibung der europäischen Bronzezeit neue Impulse zu vermitteln, wird eine kurze Diskussion von Netzwerkmetho- den angeschlossen, da diese einen alternativen Bottom-Up-Ansatz zu dieser Periode bieten, der, wie hier ausgeführt wird, den Daten angemessener ist als die Methodik der Weltsystem-Theorie. Trans- lation by Heiner Schwarzberg.

Stichworte: Weltsystem-Theorie, Weltsystem-Analyse, Kern-Peripherie-Theorie, Bronzezeit, Europa, Netzwerkanalyse