Archaeologists infer interaction among past societies through the study of material culture related to such interaction. When we identify material made in a for- eign style, we turn to investigate whether it was made locally and by whom it may have been made. Our conclusions from these inquiries allow us to label the material an ‘import’, an ‘imitation’, or an object made locally but by a foreigner — what might be termed an ‘expression of identity’ (fig. 1). These three cas- es thus correspond to the larger social processes of ‘trade’, ‘diffusion’ and ‘migration’.
Fig. 1. Archaeological interpretations of material culture contact
my argument, I will make three moves. First, I want to address the problem of how archaeologists interpret social interaction in the past through material culture using key concepts such as ‘import’ and ‘imitation’, and I want to suggest how more ‘intangible’ aspects of trade might or might not t into these models. Sec- ond, I will review current data about the Early Bronze
In spite of a great deal of attention to trade stud- ies in the 1960s and 1970s, few models of cultural interaction have developed beyond this. It is true that when Immanuel Wallerstein’s ‘World-Systems’ theo- ry (Wallerstein 1974) was itself imported by archae- ologists in the late 1970s and 1980s, this model not only placed the process into a larger context, but also
Import, Imitation or Communication? 91
allowed us to see the connections between ‘import’ and ‘imitation’ and, in a sense, placed classic diffu- sion into an economic framework. But the problem with even ‘World-Systems’ theory and these kinds of explanations is that they all place the emphasis, or really exclusively regard, the action going one way - from ‘place 1’ to ‘place 2’. What these leave out is the role that the receiving community, ‘place 2’, plays in the interaction.
A few approaches have explored this other di- mension: studies of diasporic communities, or the Sherratts’ study of consumption of luxury goods (Sherratt/Sherratt 1991), which looks at this other side of ‘importation’, The other side of ‘imitation’ is suggested by theories of ‘emulation’, such as Irene Winter’s analysis of Iron Age Hasanlu (Winter 1977), as well as Renfrew and Cherry’s ‘peer-polity inter- action’ model of inter-group competition (Renfrew/ Cherry 1986). These models show that both sides, that of ‘producer’ and ‘consumer’, play a role in the interaction and thus in the development of the mate- rial culture operating within it. Indeed, as some recent studies of the trade in Mycenaean pottery has shown, it is becoming clearer, not surprisingly, that market demand actively shapes the kind of material that is produced in the rst place (Sherratt/Sherratt 2001; Sherratt 1999; Vagnetti 1999). Certainly, the de ned style and sheer quantity of Classical Greek vases in Etruria illustrates this even more plainly.
The one dimension that has not really been explored, however, is in cases like the Bronze Age Black Sea, where locally-made material, similar to material elsewhere, seems to represent a new local tradition. In unidirectional terms, we would usually hypothesize ‘diffusion’ or ‘migration’ in such cases, but these would be incorrect conclusions, I think. But how do we move to consider a bi-directional, or med- itative, model for what might be a ‘cultural expres- sion’ of interaction?
In order to achieve this, it is clear that we must go still further in expanding our understanding of trade to include the social dimensions of interaction and communication - what Renfrew calls “trade be- yond the material” (Renfrew 1993). Current trade models are largely inadequate for investigating inter- community relations other than commodity exchange. Even advocates of ‘core-periphery’ or other modi ed ‘world-system’ models have pointed out the dif cul- ties in applying them to pre-capitalist contexts, in part because of their emphasis on institutionalized trade
networks (Kohl 1989). Informal or freelance trade is more elusive, for which Renfrew’s model of ‘down- the-line’ trade is still largely the operative paradigm (Renfrew 1969; Renfrew 1975) (Janetski 2002; Knapp/Cherry 1994), in spite of his own call to move forward on the topic.
A second reason most trade models are inap- propriate for studying how social relations them- selves may develop into communities is that they assume a priori discrete societies, albeit at different scales, taking part in the system. When related to cul- ture change, interaction is thought to stimulate those individual groups into becoming more complex (as in the case when hierarchies develop because of dif- ferential control over resources or economic advan- tage from trading activities), rather than the network itself developing into a cultural community (Flannery 1968; Kohl 1987; Schortman/Urban 1987). Moreo- ver, current models tend not to provide an adequate means for understanding social relations beyond eco- nomics, and yet social relations, whether provided by language, kinship or communication, are what act to promote and maintain the ties among individuals and groups (Urban 1996). In fact, trade items are not nec- essarily the best indicator of such relations, since, as Urban (1996, 162) points out, trade may only need to happen occasionally in order to maintain the idea that such relations exist. Just think of how much some fu- ture archaeologist would miss if they evaluated what happened at meetings such as this one based only on the papers that were given. Conversely, it is possible to have imported goods appear without the formation of any real social bonds, particularly if that trade is highly regulated by some centralized authority.
In short, most current models understand trade as creating relationships among groups in a system, not as an originator itself of new socio-political forms. It is thought to be a thread that connects communities, and new social developments take place as a result of contact with other groups. What these models fail to appreciate is that interaction itself sometimes engen- ders its own community of those moving among the regions and groups (see Sherratt 1998). Rather than a thread, interaction may be understood as a ‘virtual’ space forming the basis of a new social community that becomes ‘real’ as its participants — the people actually moving and doing the interacting — commu- nicate with each other and develop a shared cultural tradition across the contexts of that interaction.
Alexander A. Bauer
92